Sorry but I can only say you are very bad with your expenditures as most people.

Or how would you explain people that have a single form of income, earning minimum wage and still maintain a household of 5 in the same city of you?

Do you even know that minimum wage in itself is an evil thing that bit the poor more than it helps and that you aren't even suppose to live on minimum wage or close to it for more than a few years when entering a job? And also that there is always the option to be self-employed and that doesn't need millions to start?

Most of times is excuses and entitlement.

In USA alone less than 10% of the job positions are minimum wage, so we can't say that there isn't option for people to grow on their careers.

Who here exactly has stated ludite-ish opinions? Saying that robots and AI will replace human jobs isn't fear, it's fact. That's not robophobia. I embrace robots doing more of the work for us. But the ramifications this has on an economy functioning in the same way as ours does currently would be out of this world. Hence why we need to look at solutions like this, because our current economic system can't handle a 80% unemployment rate.

People that earn billions generally own companies, companies that have employees, employees that have jobs and work for a living. 

It doesn't matter how hard or not a rich person works, expecting them to foot the bill of a crazy leftist socialist nation is fucking stupid, they already pay large amounts in tax, and generally result in the employment of thousands. 

And who designs, manufactures, builds, services and maintains these robots? 

The concept of the Invisible Hand is the principle that people acting for the best of themselves often end up doing more good for society than someone with the goal of improving society. That's the idea anyway. It doesn't require a completely laissez faire market, and it can also count for voting for political actions such as UBI. But honestly, the entire concept of "an invisible hand" flies out the window once you accept that there is no such thing as true altruism anyway.

You are really overestimating the use of human labour in a world where computers are better at literally everything. Why on earth would an entrepreneur need people to do jobs when we are both horribly inefficient and expensive?

All the other times new technology has replaced human jobs, there has always been other tasks humans were still better at. There won't be this time. No point in sticking your head in the sand and pretend like it won't happen. If computers can literally think better than humans, what can a human offer compared to a computer?

Is this guy for real?

Half of working America makes less than $30k/yr. 

Thank you. A lot of false equivalencies and straw men being thrown around in here. I look forward to a world where menial labor disappears but we need to adjust for it one way or another. If the skeptics in this thread are right and the job market will compensate for it on its own, then we have nothing to worry about. However if job creation can't keep pace with the explosion in job elimination on the horizon, economics will need to adapt or we'll be in for a world of hurt. 

The moral thing to do is to support the weakest people in your society. You know, the thing that the super wealthy do not do.

Huh? Multinational corporations and billionaires have so much money because they shuffle around the revenue and thus avoid to pay a lot of taxes in a lot of countries.

Before they shuffled the money, how did they get it in the first place? I'm not talking about Russian oligarchs or Middle East dictators. Bill Gates earnt his wealth by providing a product/service that millions wanted, how do you feel morally about western governments stealing his money given he's now using his wealth to cure disease? Do you think it's acceptable that first worlders stole his wealth to pay for their own healthcare to the detriment of third worlders with malaria?

 Meanwhile, the common man pays his taxes and does his fair share of contributing to the society. The obscenely rich are most definitely exploiting the financial systems everywhere they go. Free trade agreements in and of themselves are commonly set up to be exploits to make the rich richer.

I agree FTAs are usually protectionist in some way. If two people want to trade with each other there's no need for the government to stick it's nose in especially when they're likely to remove most/all of the value in the trade.

It's not like proper taxpaying and an idea like UBI would put rich people on the same level as the people at the bottom. Some people in this thread have the attitude of "I can't be happy if nobody else has to suffer." Something as simplified as UBI might not be the solution, but the distribution of wealth is similar to the distribution of food in this world; there's actually enough for everyone to have something, but the systems in place are so messed up that many people have next to nothing.

Free marketeers tend to have an awful bedside manner but it's because we know trade is the best way to eliminate poverty/advance humanity. I don't know anyone who doesn't want to financially support those who aren't able but that doesn't include lazy fuckers who think we're going to pay for their premium sports subscriptions.

And who designs, manufactures, builds, services and maintains these robots?