Slavery for us, power for them. That’s it. We get nothing, they get everything.

Implying their train of thought can go beyond "MOAR MONEH"

Also, they'd love to be slave owners, but since slavery was banned in most of the world, they have to skirt around with silly laws and whatnot, so wage-slavery works. Hell, it might even work better than actual slavery, since you can own all the stuff the wage-slave can buy and pay for!

There isn't an endgame.

They will start a clone economy on different planets. Remember when we were cloning shit in the 90s? That. If people won't make enough babies to continue to grow the population then they will take over.

maybe something akin to hungergames to keep masses under control

For a while it will be that they only have almost all of the money; a small portion will have to go to the workers so that someone exists to run things like power plants and farms and mcdonalds and shit. But eventually robots will replace all that, or slavery

This is a good, nutshell explanation of late-stage capitalism.

As far as the answer to "what's the endgame", I do not know. I suspect that many or most of these rich folks are so moneyblind that they don't know either. Or, they simply don't believe that their collective actions will eventually cause the system to fail.

But most likely, I think, is that they believe someone else will bear the majority of any negative impact. Of course this makes less sense in the face of a systematic collapse, but again: it's probably very difficult to see when you have dollar signs in your eyes.

Hasn’t that endgame been pretty much reached?

guillotines

"Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27ll_own_nothing_and_be_happy

Everyone here has written echoes of the same viewpoint: the wealthy got too greedy and so now the whole world will die as they stand and watch.

While I understand the allure of such narratives that paint a world falling into pieces at the hands of the ultra-wealthy, I think it's worth exploring an alternate vision of late-stage capitalism. One where despite being grim, we avoid descending into a completely unrecognizable dystopia.

In this scenario, nearly the entire workforce is displaced by robotic and AI-driven automation, leading to a massive societal shift. With most traditional jobs gone, the public faces mass unemployment and widespread poverty. Outcry erupts as the majority falls below the poverty line. With nearly all jobs displaced, for most people only two options remain: attempt entrepreneurship or face unemployment.

Confronted with growing public unrest, governments reluctantly implement basic welfare measures such as small universal basic income or food stamps, providing just enough for people to get by. Meanwhile, the majority of global funding is redirected toward research and development, primarily powered by these new forms of automation. This fuels breakthroughs in production and technology, eventually driving down the cost of quality goods. Over time, even those relying on minimal welfare begin to see modest improvements in their quality of life.

Meanwhile, the wealth gap grows wider than ever. Billionaires, enriched by the automation economy, turn their attention to ambitious but arbitrary ventures like constructing moon bases, developing underwater cities, or investing in life-extension technologies. Occasionally, these projects destabilize society—whether through anti-competitive practices or efforts to sidestep government oversight—but as long as governments hold their ground (a non-trivial task), their effects on the majority remain limited.

What results is a fragile balance: a world with basic welfare programs supplying the masses, incremental technological progress, and a stark divide between the majority and the ultra-wealthy. It’s far from utopian, but it avoids outright collapse. As innovation continues, life gradually improves for everyone—even though the wealthiest always dictate the terms and reap the greatest rewards.

Eventually they'll amass so much of the wealth that most of the lower class won't be able to purchase anything other than essentials like food.

What's the logic here? Someone else having a high net worth, means that you have less money?

They never will. But they’ll likely always have most of it. The government will print money just enough to keep inflation low-ish but allow people to feel comfortable enough to spend it. Big corps will eventually accumulate them and hoard it.

It's probably something like the story within the story For the Benefit of Mankind by Liu Cixin.

Check out Timeless with JT

If all the billionaires in the world instantaneously ceased to exist, and all their money were evenly distributed to everyone on earth, you would get a one time payment of about $1,769. Then what?

The world is not a zero sum game. that alone defeats your premis-

With AI and automation, I think the 1% will want less people (bugs) around them in a not so distant future. We might have they answer to this question soon enough. Spoilers : we lose.