4 ms·

Why? In the long-term disruptions and changes in jobs are part of the changes in the world. These people are unemployed temporarily and will lose some wages in

Why? In the long-term disruptions and changes in jobs are part of the changes in the world. These people are unemployed temporarily and will lose some wages in the short-term but in the long term they will benefit from technological changes. Taxing innovation is bad. If you want to achieve social welfare goals why not use NIT (negative income tax) or less preferably, UBI (universal basic income)? Why should people using robots pay for it rather than everybody? After all, many people (in the long-term, everybody) indirectly benefit from the usage of robots. It's a net economic win.

coralreef 10y ago
If you want to achieve social welfare goals why not use NIT (negative income tax) or less preferably, UBI (universal basic income)? The money for this would have to come from somewhere. Thus it makes sense to tax the biggest beneficiaries, the capital owners who permanently replaced workers with machines. They're paying because they're gaining the most. The world population is something like ~7.5 billion people. Everyone needs some form of meaningful employment and income.
- witty_username 10y ago
  > The money for this would have to come from somewhere. Thus it makes sense to tax the biggest beneficiaries, the capital owners who permanently replaced workers with machines. They're paying because they're gaining the most. How do you know they're gaining the most? That depends on the relative elasticities. Economics is not zero-sum. Even the unemployed people will gain in the long-term as the gains trickle down and/or they gain from other technological advances. > The world population is something like ~7.5 billion people. Everyone needs some form of meaningful employment and income. See lump of labor fallacy. There are always jobs, but people don't take them because the wages are too low.
  - coralreef 10y ago
    How do you know they're gaining the most? Because profits go up, but wages are stagnant. Corporations are increasingly cutting benefits, pensions, and treating employees as contractors and outsourcing. Millennials today are poorer than their parents were. This is the age we live in, profit maximization over everything else. The rich got richer, but the middle class and poor haven't seen any of these gains. Why should anyone believe that anything would change otherwise? Even the unemployed people will gain in the long-term as the gains trickle down and/or they gain from other technological advances. In the short run, depending on how rapidly automation occurs, this class of people will suffer greatly. They will need to be retrained and educated. It may be worthwhile for the state to invest in its people. There are always jobs, but people don't take them because the wages are too low. If the only jobs available are low paying with terrible conditions, then that's not a society you want to live in. Its convenient to hide behind the economic theories, making sure the graphs line up so we don't see any deadweight losses or inefficiencies. But the practicality of it is always a shade darker. People cheat, monopolies are held. Gains don't always trickle down.
    - gnaritas 10y ago
      > They will need to be retrained and educated. And that's not even always possible. People who are easily replaced by robots aren't going to suddenly start building those robots; it's likely above their intellectual ceiling. As low skilled jobs are replaced by fewer and fewer high skilled jobs, low skilled workers will be left permanently out in the cold. Education can be a solution generationally, but the notion that an older person is going to suddenly go back to school to learn a new trade is simply not how people in general work.
      - witty_username 10y ago
        See lump of labour fallacy. No, they can still build robots inefficiently at low wages. And thanks to the heavy automation their real wage would be decent. > older person is going to suddenly go back to school to learn a new trade is simply not how people in general work. What if they have good incentives to go back to school?
  - gnaritas 10y ago
    People aren't an economic game. Society has a pace at which it can absorb change, and a pace at which change is too fast causing too much harm to too many people. I agree with you that BI or a negative income tax is a good option for distribution, however that money does have to come from somewhere and he's correct, those benefiting the most financially from automation are the ones who are keeping the gains that used to be salaries paid out to employees they no longer have. Is that the best way to find the money, taxing progress? I don't think so either, but it's not at all irrational, though it is a bit indirect. I'd much prefer just taxing wealth directly, not income, wealth. In either case, heavier taxes on the wealthy in whatever means they come is preferable to the degradation of society at large due to mass unemployment which will lead to social unrest and eventually war.
gnaritas 10y ago
> In the long-term disruptions and changes in jobs are part of the changes in the world. By the way, that's a terrible argument. You may as well call it the naturalistic fallacy. That it's a natural consequence of progress does not make it good. You ask why... because it's painful to large parts of society, that's why. > Taxing innovation is bad. So is mass unemployment, in fact it's much worse than taxing innovation.

coralreef 10y ago

If you want to achieve social welfare goals why not use NIT (negative income tax) or less preferably, UBI (universal basic income)? The money for this would have to come from somewhere. Thus it makes sense to tax the biggest beneficiaries, the capital owners who permanently replaced workers with machines. They're paying because they're gaining the most. The world population is something like ~7.5 billion people. Everyone needs some form of meaningful employment and income.

witty_username 10y ago
> The money for this would have to come from somewhere. Thus it makes sense to tax the biggest beneficiaries, the capital owners who permanently replaced workers with machines. They're paying because they're gaining the most. How do you know they're gaining the most? That depends on the relative elasticities. Economics is not zero-sum. Even the unemployed people will gain in the long-term as the gains trickle down and/or they gain from other technological advances. > The world population is something like ~7.5 billion people. Everyone needs some form of meaningful employment and income. See lump of labor fallacy. There are always jobs, but people don't take them because the wages are too low.
- coralreef 10y ago
  How do you know they're gaining the most? Because profits go up, but wages are stagnant. Corporations are increasingly cutting benefits, pensions, and treating employees as contractors and outsourcing. Millennials today are poorer than their parents were. This is the age we live in, profit maximization over everything else. The rich got richer, but the middle class and poor haven't seen any of these gains. Why should anyone believe that anything would change otherwise? Even the unemployed people will gain in the long-term as the gains trickle down and/or they gain from other technological advances. In the short run, depending on how rapidly automation occurs, this class of people will suffer greatly. They will need to be retrained and educated. It may be worthwhile for the state to invest in its people. There are always jobs, but people don't take them because the wages are too low. If the only jobs available are low paying with terrible conditions, then that's not a society you want to live in. Its convenient to hide behind the economic theories, making sure the graphs line up so we don't see any deadweight losses or inefficiencies. But the practicality of it is always a shade darker. People cheat, monopolies are held. Gains don't always trickle down.
  - gnaritas 10y ago
    > They will need to be retrained and educated. And that's not even always possible. People who are easily replaced by robots aren't going to suddenly start building those robots; it's likely above their intellectual ceiling. As low skilled jobs are replaced by fewer and fewer high skilled jobs, low skilled workers will be left permanently out in the cold. Education can be a solution generationally, but the notion that an older person is going to suddenly go back to school to learn a new trade is simply not how people in general work.
    - witty_username 10y ago
      See lump of labour fallacy. No, they can still build robots inefficiently at low wages. And thanks to the heavy automation their real wage would be decent. > older person is going to suddenly go back to school to learn a new trade is simply not how people in general work. What if they have good incentives to go back to school?
- gnaritas 10y ago
  People aren't an economic game. Society has a pace at which it can absorb change, and a pace at which change is too fast causing too much harm to too many people. I agree with you that BI or a negative income tax is a good option for distribution, however that money does have to come from somewhere and he's correct, those benefiting the most financially from automation are the ones who are keeping the gains that used to be salaries paid out to employees they no longer have. Is that the best way to find the money, taxing progress? I don't think so either, but it's not at all irrational, though it is a bit indirect. I'd much prefer just taxing wealth directly, not income, wealth. In either case, heavier taxes on the wealthy in whatever means they come is preferable to the degradation of society at large due to mass unemployment which will lead to social unrest and eventually war.

gnaritas 10y ago

> In the long-term disruptions and changes in jobs are part of the changes in the world. By the way, that's a terrible argument. You may as well call it the naturalistic fallacy. That it's a natural consequence of progress does not make it good. You ask why... because it's painful to large parts of society, that's why. > Taxing innovation is bad. So is mass unemployment, in fact it's much worse than taxing innovation.