Build a big, beautiful wall.
Robots are doing that too.
If the Robots Come for Our Jobs, What Should the Government Do?
61–70 of 92 posts
Re: If the Robots Come for Our Jobs, What Should the Government Do?
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this an honest reply? The middle sees no real change in total income, the only the extremes see changes in total income.
My post is describing why minimum income would not result in everyone getting $50,000 a year.
Not that I would advocate for such extreme lack of incentives but US gdp per cap is over 50k. Doesnt this mean that you could in theory give everyone 50k?
Re: If the Robots Come for Our Jobs, What Should the Government Do?
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's exactly the point. Humans rely on jobs, what happens when robots take over?
Why do we assume that robots will replace all existing work, or that the jobs being automated won't be replaced by other forms of work or income that don't rely on jobs that can be automated? I think it's a bit sensationalist to assume that all work everywhere will be automated. Even if we get to the point where that happens, capitalism as we know it would crumble if there is literally only automated jobs and robots…
Well, my reasoning goes like this:
1. Industrial revolution made obsolete physical work. The physical work that is done today (for instance, blue collar workers, waiters) is about mental capacities, not physical.
2. The brain is a physical object that process information (no magic).
3. At some point we will able to create machine that process information better than the human brain, making humans obsoletes.
If we accept that premises, the only question left is "when?".
>>"Even if we get to the point where that happens, capitalism as we know it would crumble if there is literally only automated jobs and robots owners."
I agree with that.
Re: If the Robots Come for Our Jobs, What Should the Government Do?
#64Who owns the robots? http://calroc.blogspot.com/2012/12/blue-collar-coders.html > In your lifetime the current economic paradigm will become as quaint and bizarre as a Renaissance Faire. > The handwriting is on the wall, plain to see for all. With the rapid sweep and accelerating scope of technological development, most people will be left behind. Just sitting there you are becoming relatively more ignorant as a sort…
I like this article a lot except the confusion about unions. Without some kind of organization of workers (you don't have to call it a union) the people with money will own the computers and they will use them to do plans 1-4. A union is a way to harness the political will get the future described in the article.
Re: If the Robots Come for Our Jobs, What Should the Government Do?
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
The job of the state, ultimately, is to preserve itself. In practice, that means upholding a social contract in order to maintain order. If we see a widespread outbreak of technological unemployment then more effort on the part of government is necessary lest public order breaks down. It's that simple. No moral arguments are necessary.
Widespread technological unemployment is definitely a concern, no question there. I'm just not convinced that government is the best tool to try and solve that problem, on both moral and practical grounds. But when I say "government" I really mean "Government as we know it today" - big, corrupt, invasive, inefficient, etc. Possibly a better model could be developed which would be better suited. That, to me, is the ch…
I don't see government corruption as being wholly determined by models. Models are a factor, no doubt, and you can affect the rate at which corruption encroaches by changing the model, but time and complexity are also major factors.
Within a given model, complexity tends to increase with time and thus so does corruption. Perhaps another way to look at it is just to consider corruption as one form of complexity. Eventually complexity increases beyond the point of diminishing returns into negative territory. Then the system collapses. This is the position of Joseph Tainter, one I find particularly compelling.
Re: If the Robots Come for Our Jobs, What Should the Government Do?
#66The government should do precisely NOTHING. The jobs don't belong to workers, so the premise is entirely wrong to begin with.
The government should do precisely NOTHING. Exactly. It is not the job of the State to make sure everybody has a job. Arguably all the State should do is protect property rights, enforce contracts and provide some notion of a "justice system". And really, all three of those things can be debated. The best way to think of it, IMO, is the way Bastiat[1] put it by describing "the law" as "no more than the collective ext…
The problem is that when you have a recently minted, largely unemployed underclass who are not having their basic needs met, you frequently get rebellion. At that point the state's ability to enforce contracts, protect property, and dole out justice becomes severely hampered.
The best way to think of it, IMO, is the way Marx described the State which is a group built to protect the bourgeoisie.
It should (will? could?) eventually reach a point in which the State represents a social contract between all members of a civil society to work in the group's overall best interests.
Re: If the Robots Come for Our Jobs, What Should the Government Do?
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the reality ... it's happening. Industry will always optimize, and as technology marches forward, they will replace human workers with technology when it makes financial sense to do so. The discussion should be, "what do we do when that happens"?
I think countries around the world are starting to realize that globalization while having lifted millions out of uttter poverty has now also turned its power to extract wealth toward those to whom it promised to bring greater opportunity which never came (I’m looking at you, Michael Moore’s castaway workers the industrialized world over; people who can no longer raise a family on a blue collar job because they were…
On a long enough timescale (assuming we don't nuke ourselves, or we choke on smog, first) ... total and all-encompassing globalization is the end-state. At that point, it will be no different than employers in the US moving from one state to another. Of course, that doesn't bode well considering we have problems even just in the US with some states having booming economies, and others having massively lagging economies ... but that's how it's gonna be
Re: If the Robots Come for Our Jobs, What Should the Government Do?
#68The simplest solution is an automation tax which is revenue neutral. Any time automation moves in to an industry, the tax's revenues can be used to help transition those workers into other work, or give them at least an automation relief stipend. If we don't tax automation, what's to stop increasingly cheaper automation from replacing increasingly expensive first world workers? Especially when businesses are expected…
Another solution is to claw back mineral rights by taxing raw materials. You burn the sky, take the water, dig in the ground, that is something the citizens don’t get to use. You owe them. The thing I like about this (its not my model but it’s my favorite) is that it happens at the input side so it codifies the idea of Reduce Reuse Recycle by setting a base cost where it’s cheaper to recycle and purify than it is to…
I like this idea, as long as it extends to all land use. So, people renting from others are actually receiving a dividend from the landlord, for the utility of owning that land.
I've read that land/material-based taxes instead of income-based could raise enough to fund a GBI, and be sort of organized like Alaska's oil fund.
Re: If the Robots Come for Our Jobs, What Should the Government Do?
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
The government should do precisely NOTHING. Exactly. It is not the job of the State to make sure everybody has a job. Arguably all the State should do is protect property rights, enforce contracts and provide some notion of a "justice system". And really, all three of those things can be debated. The best way to think of it, IMO, is the way Bastiat[1] put it by describing "the law" as "no more than the collective ext…
The problem is that when you have a recently minted, largely unemployed underclass who are not having their basic needs met, you frequently get rebellion. At that point the state's ability to enforce contracts, protect property, and dole out justice becomes severely hampered. The best way to think of it, IMO, is the way Marx described the State which is a group built to protect the bourgeoisie. It should (will? could…
The best way to think of it, IMO, is the way Marx described the State which is a group built to protect the bourgeoisie.
It's funny, I've got a whole pile of books by, and on, Marx, piled up waiting to be read (even though I'm a Libertarian in American terms. "know thy enemy" and all that) but finding time to get to that stuff is always the challenge.
I did not realize that Marx described the State as such. That is a somewhat interesting take on things.
Re: If the Robots Come for Our Jobs, What Should the Government Do?
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, yes, it would require significantly increasing tax revenue to pay for it.
To get everyone up to the poverty line and not have to cut government projects, you'd have to triple tax revenue. Since the average tax burden for those making $500k+ is around 30% already, that would effectively mean taxing them at 90%. I don't think it's politically feasible.
What should the tax rate be on a robot?
If the tax rate is too high, then people won't replace jobs with robots. That's a negative feedback on the behavior we're worried about, so that's not a bad thing.