Connect with us

Business

Elon Musk Says Money May Become Irrelevant, Will Jobs Disappear Too? India’s Future Explained

Published

on

Elon Musk Says Money May Become Irrelevant, Will Jobs Disappear Too? India’s Future Explained


Last Updated:

Musk does not suggest that rupees, dollars, or digital payments will disappear. Instead, he means money could lose its important function, such as controlling access to essentials

Elon Musk’s idea is inspiring, but it is not around the corner. AI is progressing rapidly, but economic and cultural change happens much more slowly. Experts say AI will automate tasks, not entire professions. (Getty Images)

Elon Musk’s idea is inspiring, but it is not around the corner. AI is progressing rapidly, but economic and cultural change happens much more slowly. Experts say AI will automate tasks, not entire professions. (Getty Images)

When Elon Musk told Zerodha co-founder Nikhil Kamath in a November 30 podcast that “money will ultimately become irrelevant,” the statement spread rapidly across the Internet. Many assumed he meant that currency would vanish or that jobs would disappear completely. But Musk was describing a deeper transformation that is shaped by artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics, where basic needs could be met without traditional work, and where human effort would no longer be essential for survival.

What does that mean for a country like India, where 90% of the workforce depends on daily wages, formal safety nets are limited, and money is not just an economic tool but a measure of survival?

Let’s understand Musk’s statement, how AI and automation will drive a future without money, and the socio-economic implications, especially for India.

What Exactly Did Musk Say, And Why?

In the conversation, Kamath asked whether AI and robotics would eventually make most jobs obsolete. Musk replied that advanced AI systems, combined with highly capable robots, will eventually be able to produce goods, services, and solutions without requiring human labour. Work, he said, may still exist but largely as a choice rather than a necessity. Humans would work for fulfillment, not for income.

Kamath then asked: “If work is optional, will money also lose its meaning?” Musk answered, “Yes, money will eventually become irrelevant.” It was not a prediction of the end of currency but a vision of a future where survival is not determined by income or employment. His statement reflected the concept of abundance, which means a future where technology creates so much efficiency that basic needs are easily met without financial barriers.

The Idea Of Work Becoming Optional

Musk’s view is rooted in the idea of abundance economics, where technological progress makes resources so plentiful that scarcity — the foundation of traditional economics — begins to fade. Today, the world runs on scarcity. There is limited food, limited housing, limited energy, and limited healthcare, and these hurdles make money essential. Humans work to access what is scarce.

In a world powered by super-efficient AI, autonomous factories, precision agriculture, robot-led construction, and AI-powered medical systems, the cost of producing essentials could drop dramatically. Instead of working eight to ten hours a day to afford rent, food, and transport, people may receive these basic needs automatically, managed by intelligent systems. Work, then, becomes something humans pursue for passion, creativity, innovation, or personal fulfilment, not survival.

What Does ‘Money Becoming Redundant’ Really Mean?

Musk does not suggest that rupees, dollars, or digital payments will disappear. Instead, he means that money could lose its most important function, such as controlling access to essentials. In today’s world, if you cannot afford housing, healthcare, education, food, or transport, you simply don’t get them. In a future with abundant automation, those essentials could be provided as guaranteed rights, not as commodities.

Money would still exist, but its power would fade. It would become a tool for luxury, not survival. People could still spend on travel, art, entertainment, and premium experiences, but shelter, food, healthcare, education, electricity, and internet could become universal and near-free. In such a world, human well-being would no longer depend on income.

“A fully automated society where money loses relevance is still several decades away, if it ever materialises. We are at an early stage globally in advanced automation, and economic systems still have a deep linkage with labour, markets, and capital. The drastic implications of the post-scarcity model demand an unprecedented level of technological maturity, stable government, and social acceptability, even if AI surges,” said Piyush Goel, Founder and CEO of Beyond Key, a software development and IT consulting company whose operations are in the US, Indore, Pune and Hyderabad.

What This Future Could Look Like In India

India’s workforce is complex and largely informal. Any change brought by AI and automation would not affect all sectors equally. For gig workers such as delivery agents, taxi drivers, and service providers, automation through drones and self-driving vehicles could reduce demand for manual work. Yet these individuals could transition into supervisory, maintenance, logistics coordination, or customer management roles; that is, jobs would still exist, but their nature would change.

“Elon Musk’s idea of a future where money becomes redundant is fascinating, but its practicality depends heavily on a nation’s social and economic foundations. India is progressing rapidly, with digital inclusion, UPI-driven financial access, and tech-led governance transforming how people work and live. However, a completely money-free society requires very advanced automation, universal social welfare, and highly robust institutions. India’s strengths — a young workforce, fast-growing digital economy, and improving financial inclusion — create room for long-term possibilities, but income disparities, informal employment, and varying access to technology mean such a model is not realistic in the near future,” said Goel.

IT professionals, software developers, and tech engineers may face the biggest disruption. AI tools already generate code, manage cyber security, create digital designs, and even write detailed business plans. However, academic and industry experts suggest that AI will change, not replace, these jobs. Human roles could evolve into AI supervision, ethics management, strategic design, and innovation-driven problem-solving rather than repetitive coding.

Factory and manufacturing workers in sectors such as textiles, automobiles, electronics, and processed food could gradually shift from operational labour to monitoring and managing robotic systems. Robotics-led manufacturing will arrive faster than many expect, especially in industrial zones like Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, and Maharashtra.

Indian agriculture presents both challenges and opportunities. Drone spraying, climate prediction, AI-based irrigation, and robot farming could improve yields and reduce labour needs. Yet, without policy support and digital training, small and marginal farmers, who form the majority, risk being left behind.

The only sector least threatened by AI is one deeply rooted in human emotion, that is, creativity and relationship-based professions. Artists, writers, spiritual guides, mental health professionals, social workers, community leaders, teachers, counsellors, and storytellers may find greater relevance, not less, in a world of abundant automation.

What Will Be The Challenges Amidst Income Inequality, Policy Gaps?

While Musk’s vision seems futuristic, India faces deep structural challenges that must be addressed before a post-money society becomes a reality. Income inequality is still extremely high. Access to digital tools is limited. The majority of workers do not have a pension, insurance, or unemployment support. If robots and AI take away routine jobs, traditional livelihoods could collapse without replacement.

India has no universal unemployment protection or national reskilling safety net. Though it has existing social safety nets, such as the Mahatma Gandhi Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGREGA) and Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC). But basic legal protection for informal workers is minimal. Without a proper framework to manage job transitions, automation could widen the gap between the educated digital elite and the economically vulnerable.

There is also a psychological factor. In India, work is not just an economic act. It is deeply tied to dignity, identity, and social value. Even if technology allows people not to work, the cultural importance of employment may not disappear easily.

According to government data, in the July-September 2025 quarter, around 56.2 crore people aged 15 and above were employed in India. Of which, 39.6 crore are males and 16.6 crore are females.

How Can India Prepare For A Post-Jobs Economy?

Countries such as Finland, Canada, and Spain have experimented with Universal Basic Income, where the government pays every citizen a fixed amount regardless of employment status. These experiments aimed to deal with job loss caused by automation. In India, the feasibility of Universal Basic Income has been debated, but cost and scale remain major hurdles.

Another approach could be Universal Basic Services, where instead of giving people money, the government guarantees access to housing, healthcare, education, the Internet, and food. India already has versions of this through the Public Distribution System, government schools, free vaccinations, PM-Kisan, Ayushman Bharat, and subsidised housing schemes. With stronger digital infrastructure, these could eventually form a foundational welfare system that supports a future with less traditional employment.

“Indiawill have to proactively strengthen social and economic buffers. This is about increasing unemployment benefits and providing retraining grants, incorporating large-scale reskilling programmes into the national framework, particularly the digital and technical skills. Public-private partnership models will enable these kinds of pathways for those who lose their jobs. Encouraging entrepreneurship, pressing companies to adopt suitable automation methods, and bolstering social security for the unorganised sector are all equally important,” explained Goel.

India may also explore technology dividend models, where organisations using AI and automation contribute to a pool that supports reskilling, digital access, and social security.

When Could This Actually Happen?

Musk’s idea is inspiring, but it is not around the corner. Artificial intelligence is progressing rapidly, but economic and cultural change happens much more slowly. Experts agree that AI will automate tasks, not entire professions. Doctors, teachers, designers, lawyers, and engineers will increasingly work alongside AI, not be replaced by it completely. Jobs will evolve rather than disappear overnight.

In India, automation may affect some sectors faster than others, but a complete shift to a post-work society is still decades away. Technology will transform work, but will not eliminate it. The next 10 to 15 years will likely see a coexistence model, where AI enhances efficiency while humans focus on creative, relational, strategic, and leadership roles.

What To Conclude?

Musk’s statement does not signal the end of money or jobs, but the beginning of a new way of thinking about them. In India, where money is linked to identity, survival, and opportunity, any movement towards abundance will require infrastructure, policy innovation, inclusion, and cultural acceptance. AI may change how human beings earn, but it will also change how they live, learn, create, and connect.

The future is not one without money. It is one where money stops being the only way to live.

About the Author

Shilpy Bisht

Shilpy Bisht

Shilpy Bisht is a News Editor at News18, where she leads the English App operations. She writes on world affairs, health, AI, career, business, and issues affecting women and children. A former print …Read More

Click here to add News18 as your preferred news source on Google.
Follow News18 on Google. Join the fun, play QIK games on News18. Stay updated with all the latest business news, including market trendsstock updatestax, IPO, banking finance, real estate, savings and investments. To Get in-depth analysis, expert opinions, and real-time updates. Also Download the News18 App to stay updated.
News business Elon Musk Says Money May Become Irrelevant, Will Jobs Disappear Too? India’s Future Explained
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users’ views, not News18’s. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
img

Stay Ahead, Read Faster

Scan the QR code to download the News18 app and enjoy a seamless news experience anytime, anywhere.

QR Code



Source link

Business

OBR head’s resignation leaves potential landmines for Reeves

Published

on

OBR head’s resignation leaves potential landmines for Reeves


The shock resignation came for a very specific reason, but the OBR saga will continue with a series of decisions the chancellor will have to make over Richard Hughes’ replacement.

Firstly the Chancellor will have to find a respected and credible economist to run the OBR.

There are several candidates, who might fit the mould of fiercely independent bean counters.

The list will be carefully watched by the markets for any departure from the normal model. The problem is that there is some political pressure to do just that.

One of the points of tension was the refusal of Richard Hughes to give credit to the Government for “pro growth” policies.

Mr Hughes had said he would not score any policy unless it was material in its impact on the economy. In the event, none reached the 0.1% of national income threshold.

It is a careful balancing act, however.

Any perceived interference with the OBRs independence could impact market credibility too, and, for example raise UK government borrowing costs.

When I saw the now-departing chairman on the evening of the Budget last week, he was clearly mortified by the responsibility of his organisation for the early release of Budget information.

While it is no surprise to me that Mr Hughes took the honourable decision to resign for an error identified as the fault of a junior member of staff, it was not the only issue vexing him.

He was a fierce defender of the independence of his organisation from political and ministerial pressure – from right and left. That was seen during the Liz Truss mini budget episode, and in recent weeks too.

There had been a drumbeat of noise from the right, and the left and now from the centre too about the restrictions the OBR system placed on the freedoms of elected Governments.

The OBR was in some corners seen as an arm of a “woke deep state”, and by others as an “agent of austerity”.

There had, however, been tension over the Budget.

Changes had already been planned. The Chancellor had also announced that it would only respond to the OBR’s forecasts once a year.

Mr Hughes told me: “We’ll still be producing two full economic and fiscal forecasts looking five years out, twice a year, now and in the spring.

“But with this change of legislation, the government doesn’t feel obliged to respond to those forecasts with policy in the spring. It’ll be more like a health check on the economy and the public finances.

“There’ll be no loss of transparency from the forecast documentation that we’ll produce.”

The precise design of the new approach to the OBR’s forecast will matter. If there is a marked improvement in the public finances in spring, will the chancellor really avoid spending any “surplus” ahead of crucial local elections?

The OBR did around the Budget score an improvement to the UK economy as a deployment of AI by the end of the decade. The OBR also used new powers to initiate a tricky costing for the ballooning cost of special educational needs in England, inviting a backlash from some Cabinet ministers.

For some this underscores its ability like no campaign or Cabinet minister initiative, to focus Government priorities. Hughes denied the 35-member forecasting group was too powerful.

“The powers given to us are those given to us by Parliament in an Act of Parliament, and that’s to produce a forecast. Chancellors set their own targets. They set their own policies. Chancellors are in charge of £1.5 trillion worth of revenue and £1.5 trillion worth of spending.

“If they don’t want to meet their targets, they can change them, which we’ve seen chancellors do in the past as well. All we do is produce a baseline forecast, cost government policies when they give them to us, and we give them an assessment about whether we’re up there, in line and on track to meet those targets,” he told me.

In terms of the Government’s difficulties over the run up to this Budget, Mr Hughes may also take some important details of the timing of various claims around the state of the public finances to his gardening leave.

He had been due to address the Treasury Select Committee this morning, that has now been cancelled. He recognised the publication of his clarification table on Friday of the evolution of the forecasts was unusual.

Over five years at the OBR Richard Hughes faced five chancellors, and his relationship with all of them was designed to help promote UK economic stability.

The new relationship with a different OBR is an opportunity for the Government, but a big risk too.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Eli Lilly cuts cash prices of Zepbound weight loss drug vials on direct-to-consumer site

Published

on

Eli Lilly cuts cash prices of Zepbound weight loss drug vials on direct-to-consumer site


The Eli Lilly logo appears on the company’s office in San Diego, California, U.S., Nov. 21, 2025.

Mike Blake | Reuters

Eli Lilly on Monday said it is lowering the cash prices of single-dose vials of its blockbuster weight loss drug Zepbound on its direct-to-consumer platform, LillyDirect, building on efforts by the company and the Trump administration to make the medicine more accessible.

The announcement also comes weeks after chief rival Novo Nordisk unveiled additional discounts on the cash prices of its obesity and diabetes drugs. 

Starting Monday, cash-paying patients with a valid prescription can get the starting dose of Zepbound vials for as low as $299 per month on LillyDirect, down from a previous price of $349 per month. They can also access the next dose, 5 milligrams, for $399 per month and all other doses for $449 per month, down from $499 per month across those sizes. 

Zepbound carries a list price of roughly $1,086 per month. That price point, and spotty insurance coverage for weight loss drugs in the U.S., have been significant barriers to access for some patients. 

Eli Lilly’s announcement comes just weeks after President Donald Trump inked deals with Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk to make their GLP-1 drugs easier for Americans to get and afford. The agreements will cut the prices the government pays for the drugs, introduce Medicare coverage of obesity drugs for the first time for certain patients and offer discounted medicines on the government’s new direct-to-consumer website launching in January, TrumpRx. 

But Eli Lilly’s deal with Trump centers around lowering the prices of a different form of Zepbound – a multi-dose pen – after it wins Food and Drug Administration approval. 

That means Eli Lilly’s Monday announcement around cutting prices on the existing single-dose vials could allow more patients to get discounted treatments more quickly. 

“We will keep working to provide more options — expanding choices for delivery devices and creating new pathways for access — so more people can get the medicines they need,” said Ilya Yuffa, president of Lilly USA and global customer capabilities, in a statement. 

Eli Lilly’s stock, which has climbed more than 36% this year, fell nearly 2% on Monday. Its meteoric rise due to the success of Zepbound and its diabetes injection Mounjaro vaulted it to becoming the first health-care company to hit a $1 trillion market value last month. Though cutting prices means lower revenue per medication sold, Eli Lilly’s sales — and shares — have continued to soar through past pricing announcements as demand balloons.

With single-dose vials, patients need to use a syringe and needle to draw up the medicine and inject it into themselves. Eli Lilly first introduced that form of Zepbound in August 2024. 

It’s unclear how many patients are currently using single-dose vials of Zepbound. But Eli Lilly previously said that direct-to-consumer sales now account for more than a third of new prescriptions of Zepbound. 

Novo Nordisk earlier this month lowered the price of its obesity drug Wegovy and diabetes treatment Ozempic for existing cash-paying patients to $349 per month from $499 per month. That excludes the highest dose of Ozempic. 

The company also launched a temporary introductory offer, which will allow new cash-paying patients to access the two lowest doses of Wegovy and Ozempic for $199 per month for the first two months of treatment. 



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

OBR chairman resigns over Budget leak

Published

on

OBR chairman resigns over Budget leak



The chairman of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has resigned over the early publication of the watchdog’s forecasts.

Richard Hughes said he was resigning to allow the OBR to “quickly move on from this regrettable incident”.

His resignation follows publication of a report that described the leak as “the worst failure in the 15-year history of the OBR” and strongly criticised the watchdog’s processes for protecting sensitive information.

In a letter to the Chancellor and the chairwoman of the Commons Treasury Committee, Mr Hughes said he took “full responsibility” for “the shortcomings identified in the report”.

He said: “By implementing the recommendations in this report, I am certain the OBR can quickly regain and restore the confidence and esteem that it has earned through 15 years of rigorous, independent economic analysis.”

Mr Hughes has served as chairman of the OBR since 2020 and was reappointed to the job for a second five-year term in July this year.

Speaking in the Commons as the news of the resignation broke, Chief Secretary to the Treasury James Murray offered the Government’s thanks to Mr Hughes “for his dedication to public service”.

Later, the Chancellor herself offered her thanks for Mr Hughes’ “many years of public service”, adding: “This Government is committed to protecting the independence of the OBR and the integrity of our fiscal framework and institutions.”

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch accused the Chancellor of using Mr Hughes as a “human shield” and called on Rachel Reeves to resign.

Liberal Democrat Treasury spokeswoman Daisy Cooper said Mr Hughes was “a dedicated public servant” who had “rightly taken responsibility for a failure on his watch”, adding the OBR needed to learn from its “catastrophic error”.

Treasury Committee chairwoman Dame Meg Hillier also thanked Mr Hughes, saying: “I commend his decision to take full responsibility for the incident and I wish him well for the future.”

The Treasury said it would begin the process of finding a replacement for Mr Hughes “in the coming weeks”.

The OBR launched an investigation after official forecasts were uploaded to the watchdog’s website, releasing details of the Budget almost an hour early.

In a report published on Monday, the OBR said the leak had been “seriously disruptive to the Chancellor, who had every right to expect that the (forecasts) would not be publicly available until she sat down at the end of her Budget speech”.

Noting Mr Hughes had already “rightly” apologised for the leak, the report said it was “not a case of intentional leakage” or a matter of pressing publish too early.

The OBR said it was caused by two errors linked to the WordPress publishing site it used.

The report into the incident said that, while it knew web addresses for its files follow a pattern, it assumed “the protections provided” by WordPress “would ensure it could not be accessed”.

But two configuration errors were the technical causes of the premature access.

The forecast for the last spring statement in March was also “accessed prematurely” on one occasion, the report noted, but concluded that no activity appeared to have been taken as a result and the most likely explanation is “benign”.

The report recommended a review of the watchdog’s processes for publishing such documents.

“To rebuild trust, the leadership of the OBR must take immediate steps to change completely the publication arrangements for the two important and time-sensitive documents containing the results of its biannual forecasts that it publishes in a normal year, and review arrangements for all other publications,” the report said.

One option would be for the watchdog to use the Government’s digital architecture but publish when it wants.

Another would be to have the Treasury publish the forecasts for the Budget and spring statement, but this would only work if safeguards for “real and perceived independence” could be put in place.

There may need to be an interim solution, the report noted, but said new arrangements must be in place in time for the next statement in spring 2026.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending