> there will be job market and the people will compete in it

maybe there will be. I'm sure there also is a market for Walkman somewhere, its just exceedingly small.

The proclaimed goal is to displace workers on a grand scale. This is basically the vision of any AI company and literally the only way you could even remotely justify their valuations given the heavy losses they incur right now.

> Job market is formed by the presence of needs and the presence of the ability to satisfy them

The needs of a job market are largely shaped by the overall economy. Many industrial nations are largely service based economies with a lot of white collar jobs in particular. These white collar jobs are generally easier to replace with AI than blue collar jobs because you don't have to deal with pesky things like the real, physical world. The problem is: if white collar workers are kicked out of their jobs en masse, it also negatively affects the "value" of the remaining people with employment (exhibit A: tech job marker right now).

> is either the socialists will seize power and ban competition,

I am really having a hard time understanding where this obsession with mythical socialism comes from. The reality we live in is largely capitalistic and a striving towards a monopoly - i.e. a lack of competition - is basically the entire purpose of a corporation, which is only kept in check by government regulations.

>The proclaimed goal is to displace workers on a grand scale.

It doesn't matter. What you need to understand - is that in the source of the job market is needs, ability to meet those needs and ability to exchanges those ability on one another. And nothing of those are hindered by AI.

>Many industrial nations are largely service based economies with a lot of white collar jobs in particular.

Again: in the end of the day it doesn't change anything. In the end of the day you need a cooked dinner, a built house and everything else. So someone must build a house and exchange it for a cooked dinners. That's what happening (white collar workers and international trade balance included) and that's what job market is. AI doesn't changes the nature of those relationship. Maybe it replace white collar workers, maybe even almost all of them - that's only mean that they will go to satisfy another unsatisfied needs of other people in exchange for satisfying their own, job marker won't go anywhere, if anything - amount of satisfied needs will go up, not down.

>if white collar workers are kicked out of their jobs en masse, it also negatively affects the "value" of the remaining people with employment

No, it doesn't. I mean it does if they would be simply kicked out, but that's not the case - they would be replaced by AI. So the society get all the benefits that they were creating plus additional labor force to satisfy earlier unsatisfied needs.

>exhibit A: tech job marker right now

I don't have the stats at hand, but aren't blue collar workers doing better now than ever before?

>I am really having a hard time understanding where this obsession with mythical socialism comes from

From the history of the 20th century? I mean not obsession, but we we are discussing scenarios of the disappearance (or significant decrease) of the job market, and the socialists are the most (if not only) realistic reason for that at the moment.

>The reality we live in is largely capitalistic and a striving towards a monopoly

Yeas, and this monopoly, the monopoly, are called "socialism".

>corporation, which is only kept in check by government regulations.

Generally corporation kept in check by economic freedom of other economic agents, and this government regulations that protects monopolies from free market. I mean why would government regulate in other direction? Small amount of big corporations are way easier for government to control and get personal benefits from them.

> In the end of the day you need a cooked dinner, a built house and everything else. So someone must build a house and exchange it for a cooked dinners.

You should read some history.This veiw is so naive and overconfident.

My views on this issue are shaped by history. Starting with crop production and plowing and ending with book printing, conveyor belts and microelectronics - creating tools that increase productivity has always led to increased availability of goods, and the only reason that has lead to decreased availability - is things that has hindered ability to create and exchange goods.