<h2>Fortune Tellers</h2>
If a world-renowned expert makes a prediction about the future, there&#8217;s a good chance that they&#8217;ll be wrong.
Historically, scientific evidence suggests that the people best suited to predict future world events are generalists who dabble in all sorts of fields, according to a fascinating <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/06/how-to-predict-the-future/588040/">new book excerpt</a> in The Atlantic, because they&#8217;re less beholden to their own biases. On the other hand, people who have built up an impressive but narrowly-focused expertise tend to make less-accurate predictions because they tend to be limited by their own worldviews.
<h2>Dabbling</h2>
One might expect that people who have dedicated their lives to one field of study may be able to predict where that field is going. But data suggesting the very opposite began to emerge after a 20-year experiment beginning in 1984. In that experiment, seasoned experts and academics were pitted up against generalists— people who read voraciously and had a variety of interests — in a contest of predicting near and distant financial, political, and other events.
While people tend to <a href="https://futurism.com/ray-kurzweils-most-exciting-predictions-about-the-future-of-humanity">gravitate toward confident experts</a>, the generalists crushed the contest, per The Atlantic. People with strong ideologies one way or another all failed to predict the rapid collapse of the Soviet Union because they interpreted evidence through the lens of their own opinions, for example, while generalists were more likely to see it coming.
<h2>Doubling Down</h2>
The difference, according to the 20-year study, is that people who dabbled in a bunch of different fields learned from their errors. Meanwhile, the more narrowly-focused experts doubled down on their worldviews, often blaming some small unpredictable variable for their inaccuracy and becoming increasingly confident in their beliefs.
As Philip Tetlock, the scientist behind the 20-year study, wrote at the time, &#8220;There is often a curiously inverse relationship between how well forecasters thought they were doing and how well they did.&#8221;
READ MORE: <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/06/how-to-predict-the-future/588040/">The Peculiar Blindness of Experts</a> [The Atlantic]
More on predictions: <a href="https://futurism.com/timeline-elon-musk-predictions">This Site Keeps Track of Elon Musk’s Predictions About The Future</a>

"There is often a curiously inverse relationship between how well forecasters thought they were doing and how well they did."

Specific people are weirdly good at predicting the future

Outlook Hazy

A growing body of evidence suggests that people who dabble in all sorts of fields are better at predicting the future than narrowly-focused experts.

Specific People Are Weirdly Good at Predicting the Future

Peer into the crystal ball.

<h2>New Pilot</h2>
Stockton, California, recently started an <a href="https://futurism.com/next-year-a-californian-city-will-launch-the-first-basic-income-experiment-in-the-u-s">experimental basic income program</a>. The concept is simple: 130 residents will receive monthly payments, no strings attached, over the course of 18 months. The first payment was delivered in February.
When the experiment is complete, <a href="https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-pol-ca-basic-income-stockton-reparations-20190415-story.html">according to The Los Angeles Times</a>, city authorities will pore over how people spent the money and how it changed their lives — resulting in a study that could provide crucial insight into the economics of basic income.
<h2>Basic Income</h2>
Participants aren&#8217;t exactly getting lifted out of poverty — the city is paying each person $500 each month. It&#8217;s not enough to change anyone&#8217;s tax bracket, but Stockton mayor Michael Tubbs argues that it could grant security to people who are struggling to make ends meet or working several jobs.
&#8220;I know what it&#8217;s like to be hungry or to see your mom struggling. Everyone in my neighborhood was always outside playing because their parents were working. And they weren’t at home waiting for the government to save them,&#8221; Tubbs told the LA Times. &#8220;I think I have a special responsibility to elevate policy and solutions that can deal with these issues, but also to change these caricatures we have of people who are no different than anyone else. Who happen to work in jobs that don’t pay well.&#8221;
<h2>Paywalled Study</h2>
The pilot program&#8217;s data won&#8217;t be available for a few years, and the organizers are acting secretive, the LA Times reports.
But in coming months, some participants are expected to share stories about how they&#8217;re using the money and what it&#8217;s meant to them. Actual research into the basic income program will be more data intensive, but these so-called &#8220;Storyteller&#8221; participants can give people an idea of how basic income works in the meantime.
&#8220;We have a real opportunity to rethink how we talk about the safety net, what it means to get by, and we want to take advantage of that,&#8221; University of Pennsylvania-affiliated researcher Amy Castro Baker told the LA Times. &#8220;I would argue that research is always informed by something that you would like to see happen or not happen in the world, and we are owning that.&#8221;
READ MORE: <a href="https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-pol-ca-basic-income-stockton-reparations-20190415-story.html">What would a universal basic income mean for America? Stockton thinks it has the answer</a> [The Los Angeles Times]
More on universal basic income: <a href="https://futurism.com/california-city-test-universal-basic-income">A California City Is Gearing Up To Test Universal Basic Income</a>

"I think I have a special responsibility to elevate policy and solutions that can deal with these issues, but also to change these caricatures we have of people who are no different than anyone else."

A California city just launched a basic income trial

One For All

Stockton, California, is in the early stages of its experimental trial of a universal basic income trial. A small group of people is getting $500 per month.

A California City Just Launched a Basic Income Trial

Stockton, California will pay 130 residents for 18 months.

<h2>Largest Basic Income</h2>
The small Indian state of Sikkim is about to launch a basic income experiment that will provide cash payments to each of its 610,000 citizens — a pilot that the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/01/17/tiny-indian-state-proposes-worlds-biggest-experiment-with-guaranteed-income/?utm_term=.096bfce405f1">Washington Post says</a> is the largest basic income experiment in history.
&#8220;In developed countries, the main purpose is to restructure or economize the existing welfare schemes, like unemployment benefits,&#8221; University of California at Berkeley economist Pranab Bardhan told the Post of the experiment. &#8220;In low- or mid-income countries, like India, the rationale will be to address the minimum economic insecurity of a larger section of the population, not just the poorest, without touching the existing anti-poverty measures.&#8221;
<h2>Out Front</h2>
Tech luminaries including <a href="https://futurism.com/elon-musk-automation-will-force-governments-to-introduce-universal-basic-income">Elon Musk</a> and <a href="https://futurism.com/mark-zuckerberg-just-voiced-his-support-for-universal-basic-income">Mark Zuckerberg</a> have endorsed the idea of basic income, the Post points out, as an idea to transform the economy as more labor becomes automated.
But actual experiments have been rare and limited in scope — making it ironic that the largest to date is scheduled to kick off in India, a far less affluent country than the United States.
<h2>Progressive History</h2>
It&#8217;s important to note that details about Sikkim&#8217;s upcoming experiment remain hazy. It&#8217;s not clear how much each resident will be paid, and the launch date of 2022 is still years away. But Indian politicians are hopeful.
&#8220;It’s a matter of political will ultimately,&#8221; said P.D. Rai, a Sikkim&#8217;s member of parliament. &#8220;With the rise of global inequality, we want to ensure that we bridge the gap.&#8221;
READ MORE: <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/01/17/tiny-indian-state-proposes-worlds-biggest-experiment-with-guaranteed-income/?utm_term=.096bfce405f1">Tiny Indian state proposes world’s biggest experiment with guaranteed income</a> [The Washington Post] 

More on basic income: <a href="https://futurism.com/basic-income-part-time-work">Study Finds People Given Basic Income Are Likely to Keep Working</a>

An Indian state is launching what some are calling the most ambitious basic income program in history.

India is launching the largest basic income experiment in history

Sci-Fi Visions

India is about to launch a basic income experiment that will provide cash payments to each of its 610,000 citizens — reportedly the largest in history.

India Is Launching the Largest Basic Income Experiment in History

"With the rise of global inequality, we want to ensure that we bridge the gap."

<h2>Ya Basic!</h2>
If you’ve ever talked about <a href="https://futurism.com/the-byte/basic-income-trial-ontario-ends">basic income</a> — that&#8217;s the idea that the government should give everyone a monthly stipend to cover their everyday needs — odds are you’ve run into That Guy. Maybe it was the chap in your undergrad philosophy class who loved Ayn Rand and playing devil’s advocate. Maybe it was a high-profile investor on cable news.
No matter who it was, they share the same argument — if the <a href="https://futurism.com/california-city-test-universal-basic-income">government provides for people</a> by giving out a universal basic income, those people will lose the motivation to work and become totally dependent.
Plot twist: there&#8217;s now compelling evidence showing that in at least one case, basic income didn&#8217;t discourage people from working.
<h2>Everybody Wins</h2>
The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) <a href="https://home.uchicago.edu/~j1s/Jones_Alaska.pdf">published research earlier this year</a> showing that Alaska’s ongoing basic income program — started in 1982 — had no direct impact on full-time employment in the state.
The state has the highest unemployment levels in the country, but that&#8217;s totally unrelated to its basic income program and the payments actually helped boost part-time employment within the state by 17 percent. Take that, Kyle from Philosophy 101!
<h2>Ya Extra!</h2>
Basic income can be a great tool and safety net for those who need it, but some have argued that the government should go even further. Futurist <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/kaifulee/">Kai-Fu Lee</a> argued in his new book &#8220;AI Superpowers: China, Silicon Valley, and the New World Order&#8221; that as more jobs are automated, basic income will only serve as a painkiller.
To truly serve people, the government should kick it up a notch and actively provide careers and salaries for those who serve their community in addition to providing that safety net. And given the NBER’s new findings, he may be on to something.
READ MORE: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/alaska-universal-basic-income-employment-2018-10">Critics of universal basic income argue giving people money for nothing discourages working — but a study of Alaska&#8217;s 36-year-old program suggests that&#8217;s not the case</a> [Business Insider]
More on universal basic income: <a href="https://futurism.com/finland-basic-income-trial">Finland’s Assessment of Basic Income Trial: Not Impressed</a>

A new study shows basic income doesn't deter people from working

SO BASIC

Federal research into universal basic income shows that regular cash payments don't reduce employment at all. In fact, it seems to help.

A New Study Shows Basic Income Doesn't Deter People From Working

We have evidence that UBI truly helps, but it won’t solve our problems.

A New Study Shows Basic Income Doesn’t Deter People From Working

<h2>&#8220;Strong Likelihood&#8221;</h2>
On Wednesday, a retired general predicted that America will wage a war with China in the future.
That&#8217;s according to the Associated Press, which <a href="https://www.apnews.com/fe7595bd59414c6fa27f8b497821f0a5">quoted</a> Lt. General Ben Hodges&#8217; remarks at a Warsaw conference for Central European military leaders.
&#8220;I think in 15 years — it’s not inevitable — but it is a very strong likelihood that we will be at war with China,&#8221; Hodges said.
<h2>Self-Fulfilling Prophecy</h2>
The risk is that this sort of rhetoric could become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
A military leader publicly predicting war with another major world power seems like the sort of move that could make such a war much more likely to happen.
<h2>Town Ain’t big Enough</h2>
Hodges’ comments seem to come from China’s increasing political and economic influence around the world. America will need to reckon with the fact that China is quickly gaining on other world leaders and may soon pass <a href="https://futurism.com/the-byte/ai-research-supergroup-first-chinese-firm">them technologically and economically</a>.
Hopefully, that reckoning comes with a little bit more grace than setting the stage for a future of warfare.
READ MORE: <a href="https://www.apnews.com/fe7595bd59414c6fa27f8b497821f0a5">Retired US general says war with China likely in 15 years</a> [AP]
More on China: <a href="https://futurism.com/the-byte/ai-research-supergroup-first-chinese-firm">An AI Research Supergroup Just Added its First Chinese Firm</a>

Former general: The US will likely fight a war with China

Worst Timeline

Retired Lt. General Ben Hodges predicted that American and China will be at war in 15 years. Odds are his prediction won't help.

Former General: The US Will Likely Fight a War With China

A retired U.S. General is making dangerous predictions.

<h2>AUTOMATION STATION</h2>
Experts predict that automation is going to replace <a href="https://futurism.com/mckinsey-finds-automation-eradicate-third-americas-workforce-2030/">hundreds of millions of jobs</a> over the next few decades. One approach to offsetting total social upheaving in the process is &#8220;universal basic income&#8221;: the idea that if there aren&#8217;t enough jobs, the government — or some other entity, like maybe our robotic overlords — will pay everybody <a href="https://futurism.com/images/universal-basic-income-answer-automation/">enough money to live on</a>.
But that solution could make old injustices worse, according to the historian Noah Harari, the author of the bestselling 2011 book &#8220;Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind.&#8221; In a <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/historian-yuval-noah-harari-on-the-robot-revolution-1538057544">new interview</a> with the Wall Street Journal, Harari worries basic income won&#8217;t be universal: that rich countries will be able to afford it, but poor countries won&#8217;t. The result, then, would be an ever-widening gap between the world&#8217;s wealthy and the poor.
<h2>INEQUALITY OF LIFE</h2>
The problem, Harari said, is that the most likely providers of basic income are governments. That&#8217;ll work fine for the United States, which can tax high-revenue companies like Google and Facebook. But those taxes won&#8217;t help support people in less developed countries, like Honduras or Bangladesh, who will also be put out of work by growing automation.
&#8220;The automation revolution is likely to make some areas of the world extremely rich and powerful,&#8221; Harari told the Journal, &#8220;while completely destroying the economy of others.&#8221;
Not all experts are <a href="https://futurism.com/economics-nobel-prize-winners-are-advocating-for-universal-basic-income/">pessimistic about</a> basic income, however. It&#8217;s possible that widespread automation will lead to an era of global plenty — if our robot overlords are willing to share.
READ MORE: <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/historian-yuval-noah-harari-on-the-robot-revolution-1538057544">Historian Yuval Noah Harari on the Robot Revolution </a>[The Wall Street Journal]
More on the SEC investigation: <a href="https://futurism.com/mckinsey-finds-automation-eradicate-third-americas-workforce-2030/">McKinsey Finds Automation Could Eradicate a Third of America’s Workforce by 2030</a>

Automation could destroy poor economies, says historian

Money Makes the World Go Round

What if rich countries can afford to provide universal basic income, but poor countries can't, increasing global inequality?

Automation Could Destroy Poor Economies, Says Historian

How will poor governments afford basic income?

Experts and optimists can&#8217;t help but extoll the positive effects that artificial intelligence (AI) may have on our future. It will revolutionize healthcare! It will make ordering things from Amazon easier than ever! It may even take over the world!
But there will be some casualties along the way. And there&#8217;s one teensy group that will likely suffer: pretty much anyone with a job. Truck drivers, factory workers, and white-collar number crunchers may soon find themselves out of work, or at the very least in a very different line of work.
While this is certainly a bummer, the concrete reality is that artificial intelligence technology could actually boost the global economy. If it&#8217;s allowed to play a major role, AI will make our jobs easier yet more productive, and create vast new wealth.
But that will only happen if global AI-based economies are set up to benefit everyone.
If they&#8217;re not, <a href="https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence-experts-fear/">people will grow resentful</a> and impede further technological development. If automation became the enemy of the people, we would never reap the benefits that widespread, advanced AI could bring, such as improved healthcare or increased wealth.
The latest report from McKinsey &amp; Company, a research and consulting group, hints that this resentment may emerge, which would impede innovation and widespread adoption of the technology. The 64-page <a href="https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Featured%20Insights/Artificial%20Intelligence/Notes%20from%20the%20frontier%20Modeling%20the%20impact%20of%20AI%20on%20the%20world%20economy/MGI-Notes-from-the-frontier-Modeling-the-impact-of-AI-on-the-world-economy.ashx">report published this month</a>, titled “Notes From the Frontier: Modeling the Impact of AI on the World Economy,” describes exactly how the nations that have begun to prepare for and explore AI will reap the benefits of an economic boom. The report also demonstrates how anyone who hasn&#8217;t prepared, especially developing nations, will be left behind.
“There are a lot of discussions, a lot of research and development happening in countries with advanced economies,” <a href="https://www.itu.int/en/fnc/Pages/bios/BERIDZEIrakli.aspx">Irakli Beridze</a>, Head of the Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics at UNICRI, United Nations, told Futurism. “In the developing world, in the developing countries or countries with transition economies, there is much less discussion of AI, both from the benefit or the risk side.”
<q class="pullquote">&#8220;In the developing world, in the developing countries or countries with transition economies, there is much less discussion of AI, both from the benefit or the risk side.”</q>
The growing divide between nations that are prepared for widespread automation and those that aren&#8217;t, between companies that can cut costs by replacing workers and the newly unemployed people themselves, puts us on a collision course for conflict and backlash against further developing and deploying AI technology, according to the new report.
If that happens, then a lot of the big promises that we&#8217;ve AI is supposedly going to deliver — things like <a href="https://futurism.com/teslas-semi-prototype-cross-country/">autonomous vehicles</a> and new medical devices — will never come to be. It also means our economic growth might be stunted.
For instance, the report predicts that AI technology, by automating or helping with our menial, data-driven tasks, could free people up to do more productive work and boost the global GDP by some $9 trillion by the year 2030. That’s an 11 percent boost over how we’re doing on our own today.
But if we want to bring about the prosperity that AI could deliver, we need to think now about how we want our economies to function, because our current systems won&#8217;t cut it. Maybe governments will implement progressive <a href="https://futurism.com/california-city-test-universal-basic-income/">universal basic income</a> systems, or proactively re-train those who are at risk of automation-related layoffs. Perhaps they&#8217;ll set up international accords that heavily feature voices from developing nations. But if this report is to be believed, something needs to be done now to make sure that our future AI-reliant society is one where everyone feels the benefits.
More on developing advanced AI: <a href="https://futurism.com/artificial-general-intelligence-governments-invest/">If We Ever Want Artificial General Intelligence, Governments Need To Invest In It</a>

Some jobs and tasks are going to be automated. We need to make sure the people who lose out land on their feet.

If artificial intelligence only benefits a select few, everyone loses

Artificial Intelligence

The way things are today, the AI-based economy of the future will only benefit those who are already doing just fine for themselves.

If Artificial Intelligence Only Benefits a Select Few, Everyone Loses

Workers aren't going to be excited about technology that replaces them, so our economies need to shift.

You couldn&#8217;t get your grubby paws on a first edition Charizard card, never seemed to find the latest action release on the shelf at Blockbuster Video, or found that you couldn&#8217;t quite afford that new Playstation game with your allowance.
The rarer something is, the more it’s worth. We learn this so-called law of supply and demand from an early age, and that largely stays true when we grow up, at least in capitalistic societies around the world.
But in a blog post published last week, <a href="https://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/Capitalism-Without-Capital?WT.mc_id=08_14_2018_10_CapitalismWithoutCapital_BG-TW_&amp;WT.tsrc=BGTW&amp;linkId=55542187">Bill Gates says supply and demand is over.</a>  It&#8217;s grown irrelevant to today’s economy, Gates argues. And he feels that many politicians have failed to take these economic shifts into account as they consider legislation and steer the country into the future.
The reason? The way a lot of the top companies make money is no longer tied to tangible stuff. Sure, some companies like Tesla are still (more or less) subject to the forces of supply and demand as they continue to <a href="https://futurism.com/tesla-model-3-denying-consumer-reports-bad-review/">drive up prices (high demand) and not sell cars (little supply)</a>, but they&#8217;re becoming the exception rather than the norm.
But for companies that deal exclusively in software, traditional notions of supply and demand just aren&#8217;t relevant anymore. To develop new software, Gates points out, all of the cost is upfront. Manufacturers of more traditional goods need to pay for parts and labor for each product they make, but a new computer program like Microsoft Word can be copied, sold, and downloaded indefinitely for the (relatively minimal) the costs of distribution and server space.
In his blog, Gates cites <a href="https://press.princeton.edu/titles/11086.html">Capitalism Without Capital</a>, a book that discusses how the economy is changing as more leading companies operate without tangible products. Its author asserts that digital products, so-called “intangible investment,” carry new risks for businesses and investors that aren’t accounted for in the outdated ways people think about the economy. The book presents the idea that developing software is a sunk cost because developers can’t recoup their losses the way other companies might. If Tesla goes under, for example, the company could soften the blow by selling off parts, equipment, and factories. But a software company lacks the same sort of salvageable stuff. It&#8217;s stuck with a dud software that nobody wants.
This argument doesn&#8217;t fully hold up, though. Software acquisitions happen all the time, like when a large, successful company buys the code from a small, struggling competitor. Facebook has done this so much that some politicians, such as Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), have argued that the social media site has <a href="https://qz.com/1249296/is-facebook-a-monopoly-facebook-ceo-zuckerberg-didnt-have-an-answer-in-congressional/">become a monopoly</a>.
But not all politicians are tech-savvy enough to have an opinion on Facebook&#8217;s operations. Many fundamentally misunderstand how tech companies make money without selling products, yet are still charged with drafting economic policy. Take the hearings back in April in which Mark Zuckerberg had to answer to Congress in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal — the senators and representatives showed that they have little idea about <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/11/17224184/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-congress-senators">how social media companies make money</a>, much less <a href="https://futurism.com/hearings-congress-doesnt-understand-facebook-regulation/">how to regulate them</a>.
So even if each specific example of Gates&#8217; argument doesn&#8217;t hold true, he&#8217;s onto something when he says that our politicians and leaders have failed to adapt to our increasingly digital economy.
As Gates points out, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the sum of all goods and services sold in a country that is often used as a benchmark for an economy&#8217;s well-being, <a href="https://www.economist.com/briefing/2016/04/30/the-trouble-with-gdp">doesn’t take into account</a> any investment in intangible elements needed to make a product marketable, such as research and development or market research. And while that might not have been a huge deal two decades ago, it now matters a whole lot, as tech companies <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/16/15627198/tech-sector-stock-market-record-high">account for a much bigger portion</a> of the U.S. economy. And it shows just how slow the government has been to adapt to the ways that the economy has changed and evolved.
Gates didn&#8217;t make specific recommendations for new economic policy, so it&#8217;s not clear what kind of actions he&#8217;d like to see from the federal government, or how exactly he thinks the country should reshape its economic priorities.
What is clear, however, is that the simplified ways we think about the economy have fallen behind the times. With laws and policies that actually match the way our economy works and the way American companies make money, legislators could craft new tax and patent laws that actually work for everyone. But if our leaders want to help the economy grow, they first need to understand it.
As Gates writes: &#8220;The idea today that anyone would need to be pitched on why software is a legitimate investment seems unimaginable, but a lot has changed since the 1980s. It’s time the way we think about the economy does, too.&#8221;
To read more about the future of the economy, click here: <a href="https://futurism.com/advancements-ai-rewriting-entire-economy/">Advancements in AI Are Rewriting Our Entire Economy</a>.

Supply and demand are antiquated ideas if your product is a new computer program.

Bill Gates says we need new economic models that take tech into account

Future Society

Supply and demand don't matter anymore. Bill Gates says that American politicians have failed to adjust to an economy based on software and code.

Bill Gates Says We Need New Economic Models That Take Tech Into Account

Legislators can't help the economy grow if they don't know how tech companies make money.

Real talk: are you really on track to retire by the time you turn 65? Don&#8217;t worry, pretty much no one is.
Well, OK, if you’re the kind of sucker who’s here for a long time instead of a good time, then you may be fine. But many Americans are stuck in an unforgiving job market (we&#8217;re looking at you, <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/culture/jia-tolentino/the-gig-economy-celebrates-working-yourself-to-death">gig economy</a>), unable to <a href="https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/poor-millennials/">afford the most fundamental assets</a> that our parents were, just as safety nets like social security seem to be <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/elizabethharris/2016/10/25/how-millennials-should-think-about-social-security-and-yes-millennials-should-think-about-it/#badb83042ce4">sliding out of reach</a>. And those of us in that latter group, the outlook, especially post age 65, is not great.
But don’t worry! A team of economists <a href="https://www.nber.org/papers/w24226">has come up with a few strategies</a> that will help people be able to afford old age and increase their retirement income.
The secret? Continuing to work past retirement age.
Pretty groundbreaking stuff, no?
Wait, maybe you&#8217;ll see the innovation of this research if you know the specifics. The researchers ran the numbers and gave recommendations on how to balance retirement savings and the age at which gather your last paycheck, at which point you start to collect from Social Security.
Since Social Security payments increase if you start taking them later on in life, you could work for an extra couple of weeks or months past typical retirement age instead of ferreting away an extra chunk of your paycheck for a decade. That&#8217;s pretty promising math! Assuming that you’ve been putting some money away over the course of your career, that is, because for about <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/12/how-many-americans-dont-have-access-to-a-401k.html">35 percent of American workers</a>, no employer is going to do it for them.
So the researchers suggest that you keep working, keep taking in your salary until you hit 70. That&#8217;ll help you unlock the higher payout. But, of course, you would need to be healthy enough to hold down your job, whatever it may be, until then.
But good news to all of you making more than $500,000 per year! The economists behind the study <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/01/business/thinking-about-retirement-consider-working-a-little-longer.html">told The New York Times</a> that people making over that amount would probably do just fine without having to think too hard about their strategy to game-ify Social Security. I&#8217;m not crying, you&#8217;re crying!
While some scientific research suggests that many people <a href="https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/01425451111121768">cannot wait to stop working</a> for good, there might be reason to stick around a bit longer. A <a href="https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/64862/1/726448354.pdf">2012 study</a> found that many people continue to find meaning in their work beyond a typical retirement age, particularly people who have received more education or might have more personally-rewarding and enriching careers. Keeping a job into one&#8217;s old age can provide a sense of purpose and fulfillment and also provide social interactions for those who might get bored at home. It can, for some, literally <a href="https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/for-a-healthy-retirement-keep-working/">keep them alive longer</a>. But that doesn&#8217;t mean they should have to stay in their jobs so they can afford to live.
Perhaps you’re not shocked by the idea that working longer will give you more money to spend at various points in your life. And while many already struggle to make ends meet and <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/18/few-americans-have-enough-savings-to-cover-a-1000-emergency.html">cannot afford to save</a>, the researchers make sure to point out that people ought to put away as much as they can — delaying retirement is meant to be a supplement to one’s retirement plan, not a replacement. Get it together, people.

It seems we're actually here for a long time, not a good time.

Ready to work until you die? Economists recommend delaying retirement to afford old age

New economic research works to find the balance between saving for old age and continuing to work past retirement age.

Ready To Work Until You Die? Economists Recommend Delaying Retirement To Afford Old Age

The future of retirement is just more work. 

A list of relatively-irrefutable facts:
<ul>
<li>Twitter occasionally sucks.</li>
<li>Twitter occasionally sucks because Twitter&#8217;s an echo chamber.</li>
<li>Twitter occasionally sucks because Twitter&#8217;s an echo chamber where some people are louder than others.</li>
<li>Twitter occasionally sucks because Twitter&#8217;s an echo chamber where some people are louder than others, and the people with the loudest voices are somehow now dictating economic global policy over the same medium on which a recipe for guacamole with peas once resulted in a geopolitical cultural skirmish that lasted a week.</li>
</ul>
Which, yes, by the way: Donald Trump is using Twitter to take cues on global economic policy from Elon Musk. Who once resigned from the President&#8217;s economic council because Musk is a smart guy, and Trump is the President.
Let&#8217;s begin the record of the relationship between Trump and Musk in December 2016, when Trump was still a president-elect. Musk agreed to join <a href="https://futurism.com/elon-musk-and-uber-ceo-join-trumps-economic-advisory-committee/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">his Economic Advisory Council</a>. Six months later, Trump withdrew the United States out of the Paris Climate Agreement, which didn&#8217;t sit well with Musk:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500">
Am departing presidential councils. Climate change is real. Leaving Paris is not good for America or the world.
&mdash; Elon Musk (@elonmusk) <a href="https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/870369915894546432?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 1, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Eight months later, Trump didn&#8217;t seem to be holding a grudge. In February, shortly after Musk&#8217;s SpaceX <a href="https://futurism.com/falcon-heavy-launched-next-stop-mars/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">successfully launched the Falcon Heavy</a>, Trump praised the company and its CEO on Twitter:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500">
Congratulations <a href="https://twitter.com/elonmusk?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ElonMusk</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/SpaceX?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SpaceX</a> on the successful <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/FalconHeavy?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#FalconHeavy</a> launch. This achievement, along with <a href="https://twitter.com/NASA?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@NASA</a>’s commercial and international partners, continues to show American ingenuity at its best! <a href="https://t.co/eZfLSpyJPK">pic.twitter.com/eZfLSpyJPK</a>
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/961073467784421382?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 7, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Musk graciously thanked Trump for his support (and, contrary to what you might have read, <a href="https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/elon-musk-donald-trump-dumbass/">did not call the president a &#8220;dumbass&#8221;</a> for not knowing that Musk is from South Africa):
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500">
Thank you on behalf of SpaceX. An exciting future lies ahead!
&mdash; Elon Musk (@elonmusk) <a href="https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/961079361234497537?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 7, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Trump continued to be publicly effusive about the Falcon Heavy — more than a month later, CNBC posted a video in which the president praised Musk again for the Falcon Heavy launch, emphasizing that he was particularly impressed that the rocket&#8217;s boosters were returned.
<iframe width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/dU3ynMBJLgM?start=56&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
And if more Tweets from this time are any indication, Trump isn&#8217;t just impressed with Musk — he takes his opinion seriously on more things than how to launch a rocket. 
On March 8, Trump <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/08/us/politics/trump-tariff-announcement.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">imposed new tariffs</a> on imported steel and aluminum.
Musk weighed in via Twitter, asking questions about the importing and exporting of vehicles between the U.S. and China:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500">
For example, an American car going to China pays 25% import duty, but a Chinese car coming to the US only pays 2.5%, a tenfold difference
&mdash; Elon Musk (@elonmusk) <a href="https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/971811614411276288?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 8, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Musk was probably frustrated because it was already difficult to open a Tesla factor in China before the new tariffs, as <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/teslas-elon-musk-tells-trump-china-trade-rules-make-things-very-difficult-1520548598" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Wall Street Journal</a> pointed out. That might have been particularly concerning to Musk since Tesla has been <a href="https://futurism.com/three-problems-tesla-company-future/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">operating at a loss</a> for a while.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500">
We raised this with the prior administration and nothing happened. Just want a fair outcome, ideally where tariffs/rules are equally moderate. Nothing more. Hope this does not seem unreasonable.
&mdash; Elon Musk (@elonmusk) <a href="https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/971815058475921408?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 8, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Trump took notice — he referenced Musk&#8217;s tweets during a press conference just before he authorized the new tariffs. &#8220;We send our car over there, pay 25 percent. They send their car over here, 2.5 percent. That&#8217;s from Elon, but everybody knows it,&#8221; said Trump.
In a room full of government so-and-sos, Trump didn&#8217;t even have to use Elon&#8217;s last name. Too cute.
Trump then went on to say that the U.S. would be &#8220;doing a reciprocal tax program at some point,&#8221; in which the goal would be to match import and export duties — just as Musk suggested.
<iframe width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UuRpTXBU7S8?start=796&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
That&#8217;s a lot of power for a single private citizen to appear to alter the economic policy of one of the most powerful nations on Earth, you may observe. Indeed, these days, it may feel like a lot of power is concentrated in very few hands (and at least one person who doesn&#8217;t mind using those hands to raise the threat of nuclear war via Twitter).
But instead, you could argue, you should be relieved. Musk might have all the trappings of an madman-supervillain, but he&#8217;s largely used his very loud voice to make the world nothing if not more oriented around intelligent decisions. Not a high bar, but still, a substantial one. And as for Trump, well, some people (<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-lack-of-discipline-leaves-new-chief-of-staff-frustrated-and-dismayed/2017/08/16/9aec8e16-82b8-11e7-82a4-920da1aeb507_story.html">including his staffers</a>) might be relieved that he&#8217;s listening to anyone else at all.

A tweet from Tesla's CEO could shape the future of trade.

Trump ❤️s Musk, might let his tweets dictate economic policy

During a press conference, President Trump read tweets from Elon Musk and shared plans to implement policies that would address Musk's tweeted tax concerns.

/Economics

Outlook Hazy

Specific People Are Weirdly Good at Predicting the Future

One For All

A California City Just Launched a Basic Income Trial

Sci-Fi Visions

India Is Launching the Largest Basic Income Experiment in History

SO BASIC

A New Study Shows Basic Income Doesn’t Deter People From Working

Worst Timeline

Former General: The US Will Likely Fight a War With China

Money Makes the World Go Round

Automation Could Destroy Poor Economies, Says Historian

Artificial Intelligence

If Artificial Intelligence Only Benefits a Select Few, Everyone Loses

Future Society

Bill Gates Says We Need New Economic Models That Take Tech Into Account

Future Society

Ready To Work Until You Die? Economists Recommend Delaying Retirement To Afford Old Age

Future Society

Trump <3s Musk, Might Let His Tweets Dictate Economic Policy

Load More