“Savings? Where we’re going, we don’t need savings.”
That twist on Doc Brown’s famous line from “Back to the Future” captures Elon Musk’s controversial view that future retirees won’t need nest eggs.
“Don’t worry about squirreling money away for retirement in 10 or 20 years,” the Tesla and SpaceX CEO told the “Moonshots with Peter Diamandis” podcast earlier this month. “It won’t matter.”
The world’s richest man predicted that advances in AI, energy, and robotics will generate such an “abundance” of resources for all that individuals’ retirement savings will be “irrelevant.”
Musk’s blue-sky vision comes at a time when years of stubborn inflation, elevated interest rates, and weak wage growth have created a nationwide affordability crisis. Household debt hit an all-time high of $18.59 trillion in the third quarter of 2025, up more than 50% from the same point in 2015.
Business Insider asked seven personal finance and AI experts for their thoughts on Musk’s comments.
Their reactions all boiled down to one thing: You really should be saving for retirement.
Musk did not respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.
‘Dangerous and misleading’
“Most Americans should absolutely ignore these comments,” said Geoffrey Sanzenbacher, a research fellow at Boston College’s Center for Retirement Research (CRR). “Musk’s speculation sends a dangerous and misleading message.”
Sanzenbacher cast doubt on Musk’s timeframe, and said the tech billionaire’s words were “especially dangerous” as Social Security is likely to be cut in the coming years due to a funding shortfall.
Americans should be “saving more, not less,” given that prospect, he said. He added that even if Musk’s future comes to pass, “people who saved now will hardly be much worse off in this utopian future.”
Alicia Munnell, a senior advisor at CRR and its former director, also dismissed Musk’s recommendation.
“I would pay no attention to anything Elon Musk says out of his core area of expertise,” she said.
“He has no idea how the American lives, how important Social Security and 401(k)s are to maintaining people’s standard of living,” Munnell continued. “He needs to stay out of public policy and concentrate on going to Mars!”
Olivia Mitchell, the director of Wharton’s Boettner Center on Pensions and Retirement Research, said there was “some truth” in Musk’s view that AI could boost productivity and reduce costs over time.
But she warned his advice was “risky” for US households, especially as their retirement security will “still depend heavily on individual saving beyond Social Security.”
“Even in a richer economy, gains are likely to be uneven and uncertain, so people must still save, in case the future does not unfold as predicted,” Mitchell added.
Sharing the wealth will take work
Kristin Pugh, a private wealth manager at Creative Planning, said AI would allow people to afford their basic needs without working, freeing them to spend more time doing other things
But past technological advances have made people more productive without leading them to work less, and created wealth gains that weren’t distributed equally, she said.
“Before we ‘cancel’ the idea of saving for another time in our lives, let’s look at the environment and the logistics that would provide for our basic needs,” Pugh said.
“We need to push leaders like Musk and Altman for the game plan and the logistics of the vision before any decisions are made,” she added, referring to Sam Altman, the CEO of ChatGPT’s maker, OpenAI.
Ekaterina Abramova, a professor at the London Business School specializing in machine learning, said that AI will “undoubtedly reshape” the world over the next 20 years, but this will not automatically negate the need for retirement savings.
“A future of ‘universal high income’ would depend less on AI itself than on governments choosing to redistribute its gains generously and sustainably, across borders and amid inevitable social friction,” she said.
John Nosta, an innovation theorist and the founder of NostaLab, agreed that Musk’s “promise that retirement planning will become obsolete rests on a fragile chain of assumptions.”
It “presumes that political will, fiscal design (and management), social trust, and intergenerational fairness will mature in lockstep with machine capability,” and this “new equilibrium will be durable across decades,” he said.
“That is not a technological problem — it is a coordination problem at the scale of civilization,” Nosta added.
Nosta said it’s critical that people protect themselves against the risks and uncertainties of life through financial planning, “rather than assuming that abundance will simply carry everyone safely downstream to an abstract utopian destination.”
James Ransom, a research fellow at University College London, said that new technologies have a “pretty terrible track record of boosting wealth evenly across society” and he hasn’t seen any evidence that AI will be an exception.
Using a historical analogy, Ransom underlined just how bad humans are at predicting the future.
“Some employees of the RAND Corporation who were researching nuclear war in the 1950s didn’t contribute to their pensions because they didn’t believe they would live long enough,” he said. “This seemed rational to them, at the time. Let’s learn from them, and not swing too far in the other direction.”