3 ms·

Perhaps you can grow economy by doing more automation. Naïve example is the lawn in front of my Danish apartment being taken care of by a robot. There’re countl

by f6v 5y ago

Perhaps you can grow economy by doing more automation. Naïve example is the lawn in front of my Danish apartment being taken care of by a robot. There’re countless other possibilities.

santiagobasulto 5y ago
But those robots won't pay taxes to support the elderly :) It's a tough topic for sure. I've heard that German people are a lot better with immigrants and racism is very low. The wikipedia article is interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Germany
- jcynix 5y ago
  > But those robots won't pay taxes to support the elderly :) That's a problem which could be resolved: companies do replace people by robots to reduce labor costs. But companies (owners, shareholders, etc) still want to profit from all kinds of common infrastructure. So force them (with law and regulations) to continue to share a part of the saved expenses, e.g. by continuing to pay social expenses for their robots. That way they'd still save money by automation, but would do this in some socially responsible ways.
  - robots_arise 5y ago
    Your suggestion is counterproductive. Companies that are forced to pay a robot tax are uncompetitive and will be forced out of the market. End result: no tax revenue. Companies that operate in an industry that can be or is likely to be automated will hire less or no people so as to not be liable for the robot tax should they at a later date start automating. End result: less employment, less tax revenue and stunted growth. A robot tax will result in more bullshit jobs. Jobs that can be done by automation should be done by machines. Human labor should be reserved for jobs that cannot be automated. Your suggestion is akin to a populist policy that treats symptoms rather than root causes, trading good optics and a short term gain for unintended consequences and long term pain.
oytis 5y ago
Robotic lawnmower definitely produces economic value for its manufacturer (probably in China) and designer (might be in China as well actually), but its effect on Danish economy is not that simple. It might actually harm it by taking a job from a person who did it before resulting in less taxes being paid.
- imtringued 5y ago
  That's only a problem when savings exceed investment. In that case interest rates must simply drop until savings and investment are in balance again. Why? Because the person who bought the lawn mower started saving the money he would usually spend on a gardener. It simply means saving is too profitable.
  - realityking 5y ago
    My grasp on economics is thin but I believe this is not true. Let's assume mowing the lawn by a a service cost $200 in capital investment over 10 years and 200$/year in labor while the robot cost $1000 capital investment also over 10 years. Then you increased the amount of capital going likely abroad by 800$ and freed up 2000$ of labor cost. That means you have 1200$ freed up in investments but lost $2000 in local economic activity. In short, the capital requirements generally go up with automation in the economic benefit is more often abroad (whether that's Germany or China) This completely ignores many migrant workers sending money home.
est31 5y ago
Is it growth though if the robot takes away a human's job?
- robots_arise 5y ago
  Yes. A human can do a job a robot is incapable of doing.

by f6v 5y ago

Perhaps you can grow economy by doing more automation. Naïve example is the lawn in front of my Danish apartment being taken care of by a robot. There’re countless other possibilities.

santiagobasulto 5y ago

But those robots won't pay taxes to support the elderly :) It's a tough topic for sure. I've heard that German people are a lot better with immigrants and racism is very low. The wikipedia article is interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Germany

jcynix 5y ago
> But those robots won't pay taxes to support the elderly :) That's a problem which could be resolved: companies do replace people by robots to reduce labor costs. But companies (owners, shareholders, etc) still want to profit from all kinds of common infrastructure. So force them (with law and regulations) to continue to share a part of the saved expenses, e.g. by continuing to pay social expenses for their robots. That way they'd still save money by automation, but would do this in some socially responsible ways.
- robots_arise 5y ago
  Your suggestion is counterproductive. Companies that are forced to pay a robot tax are uncompetitive and will be forced out of the market. End result: no tax revenue. Companies that operate in an industry that can be or is likely to be automated will hire less or no people so as to not be liable for the robot tax should they at a later date start automating. End result: less employment, less tax revenue and stunted growth. A robot tax will result in more bullshit jobs. Jobs that can be done by automation should be done by machines. Human labor should be reserved for jobs that cannot be automated. Your suggestion is akin to a populist policy that treats symptoms rather than root causes, trading good optics and a short term gain for unintended consequences and long term pain.

oytis 5y ago

Robotic lawnmower definitely produces economic value for its manufacturer (probably in China) and designer (might be in China as well actually), but its effect on Danish economy is not that simple. It might actually harm it by taking a job from a person who did it before resulting in less taxes being paid.

imtringued 5y ago
That's only a problem when savings exceed investment. In that case interest rates must simply drop until savings and investment are in balance again. Why? Because the person who bought the lawn mower started saving the money he would usually spend on a gardener. It simply means saving is too profitable.
- realityking 5y ago
  My grasp on economics is thin but I believe this is not true. Let's assume mowing the lawn by a a service cost $200 in capital investment over 10 years and 200$/year in labor while the robot cost $1000 capital investment also over 10 years. Then you increased the amount of capital going likely abroad by 800$ and freed up 2000$ of labor cost. That means you have 1200$ freed up in investments but lost $2000 in local economic activity. In short, the capital requirements generally go up with automation in the economic benefit is more often abroad (whether that's Germany or China) This completely ignores many migrant workers sending money home.

est31 5y ago

Is it growth though if the robot takes away a human's job?

robots_arise 5y ago
Yes. A human can do a job a robot is incapable of doing.