Musk is wrong about AI and retirement --- You still need to save

That said, there are certain things not even AI can do, and one of them is suspending the basic laws of economics. Elon Musk recently predicted that AI will create such abundance that in a decade or two, people won't need to bother saving for retirement. Feel free to check my answer with your favorite AI, but: Don't count on it.

There are two optimistic and probable scenarios for the future of the AI-powered economy. One is that AI behaves like other innovations — that is, it makes people more productive in the same way as other major innovations of the past, such as railroads, the telegraph or electricity. These innovations powered the economy and transformed work and life, yet they did not result in an abrupt increase in growth, which averaged just under 2% between 1850 and 1929. The effects of these innovations were diffuse, and as they spread through the economy, they made other innovations possible.

Under this scenario, markets will continue to go up — but probably not enough to compensate for Americans' lack of saving. So they will still need to pay for their retirement, especially health and homecare, which will still involve people whose labor will cost money.

The second optimistic and likely scenario is that AI is not like past innovations — that it will transform people's lives like nothing that has come before it. AI could be different because it has the potential to improve the speed of innovation; it can even do the innovation itself. If so, there could be productivity improvements in all sectors of the economy, as machines do tasks that used to be time-consuming and expensive.

Even in this case, however, people still need to save for retirement. Take a best-case scenario: AI finds a cure for cancer. That means people will live longer — and will need money for more years in retirement. Perhaps they will employ robots to care for them, but growing old with robot companions sounds pretty grim. Socialization is critical to living well and maintaining cognitive abilities. I for one am skeptical that even the best AI-powered robot nurse will overcome the need for human connection. In this AI-is-exceptional scenario, the wages of people who can do non-AI tasks, such as caretakers, will probably increase.

The good news is that, in this scenario as in the previous one, the market would also perform well. That's why this scenario also offers the government the best chance for paying off its debt without cutting entitlements: As the economy grows faster, so do tax revenues.

There are less optimistic scenarios, too. It's possible that AI will not change the economy that much — that it will be a useful tool, but (like the internet) will not improve productivity very much right away. In this case, all the data centers don't pay off, growth expectations are not realized, and the market falls and doesn't recover for years. The government will collect less tax revenue and have to reckon with its debt and entitlement obligations. Under this scenario, the need for saving is obvious.

There are far less likely, far more apocalyptic scenarios. What if AI kills us all? In that case Musk would be right: no need to save for retirement. But I don't think this is what he had in mind. And it's certainly not a possibility that should dictate anyone's retirement strategy.

As an optimist, I am expecting something between the first and second scenarios. AI may well cause financial bubbles and disruptions, but it will leave humanity and the economy better off. No one knows for sure, of course, not even Elon Musk, and that's exactly the point: The purpose of saving and investing is to hedge against an uncertain future. And even if the best possible future materializes, people still need to save for retirement.

(COMMENT, BELOW)

Allison Schrager, a Bloomberg columnist, is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal.

Previously:
• Go ahead and resent boomers but for the right reasons
• Raiding your 401(k) to buy a house should be an option
• Americans are living in the worst of all tax worlds
• Think of college like you would a junk bond
• The economy needs a little bit of unfairness
• The pension revolution is better for savers
• Affordability isn't a hoax. It's not a crisis for most, either
• America gets retirement wrong. Can Vanguard fix that?
• The American middle class is shrinking, and that's OK
• Want to buy a home? It's OK to wait till you're 40
• Mamdani is benefiting from New York City's changing workforce
• How can an economy this good feel this bad?
• Why boomers have more money than everyone else
• Democratize private investment?
• Lab-grown diamonds are testing the power of markets
• Inflation ate your free lunch, but you're still better off
• Good debt? Bad debt? There's no such thing
• Megabills didn't break the economy before and won't now
• America's broken politics is breaking economics, too
• A college degree is no longer a risk-free investment
• Break up Columbia? Maybe, and the rest of the Ivy League, too
• Even Dems might like MAGA accounts
• Reality Check about possibile volatility in trade war
• Is this really how American exceptionalism ends?
• The free-market conservative is a vanishing breed
• Shareholder capitalism is back
• Europe's risk aversion comes with consequences
• The Oxford curriculum that American universities need
• Private equity won't diversify your portfolio
• The era of declining interest rates may have come to an end, and many investors don't seem to realize it
• This one weird trick could save the U.S. economy
• The Fed's damage to the housing market may last years
• The future of unions looks very different
• To bring back the office, bring back lunch
• Does it really matter who gets into Harvard?
• Our pensions shouldn't be used to juice the economy
• A soft landing won't mean the economy is safe
• The 30-year mortgage is saving the U.S. economy … or is it?
• The one true secret to successful investing
• Less work, more burn-out
• When did risk become a bad word in the U.S.?
• AI-proofing your career starts in college
• Biden has to learn the same lesson as SVB
• Say it with Rubio: Changing clocks is stupid
• Sure, we'll return to the office in 2023 but not to stores
• How to manage the biggest risk of all: Uncertainty
• If you think U.S. pensions are safe, just wait
• Harry and Meghan and the perils of superstar culture
• Norman Rockwell's economy is never coming back
• Burned by crypto? Don't learn the wrong lesson
• Quiet Quitters are looking in the wrong place for meaningful work
• America's MBAs are the latest skeptics of capitalism
• Generation Z is getting a harsh lesson in stock risk
• The biggest threat to the U.S. economy is policymakers
• Buck up, boomers. You're still better off than your parents
• How to manage the biggest risk of all: uncertainty
• Startup boom is the kind of risk-taking Americans need
• Gen Z is too compliant to achieve greatness
• A bigger child tax credit isn't the poverty solution we need
• Finding your power in a higher-priced world
• The Biden administration's plans to double the tax rate on capital gains will prove costly to all Americans, not just the wealthy
• WARNING: Feel Good Now --- Pay Later: Stimulus is crammed with goodies but makes no economic sense
• The 'Stakeholder' Fallacy: Joe Biden's vision of capitalism is a recipe for failure