4 ms·

Seems like a strange policy from an economic growth standpoint. Otherwise the policy is “Why have a robot do something a human can do?”. Wouldn’t it be better

by Closi 3y ago

Seems like a strange policy from an economic growth standpoint. Otherwise the policy is “Why have a robot do something a human can do?”. Wouldn’t it be better to just put in a workable welfare system and improved wage standards? You could then even do the opposite and incentivise robots (eg through lenient tax rules on automation capital purchases).

ehnto 3y ago
We don't just want economic growth, we want livable communities too. My worry with the above model is it puts a huge economic group at the whim of the welfare system by default, as we are saying that they shouldn't expect to be able to work. That's a huge change, and would rely on a level of fairness from goverment that I have never seen before. I am pro welfare, pro UBI even, but I think it's a dangerous spot to put our communities in as automation is privatised, and we are relying on it to pay the taxes that pay for the public welfare. Ignoring the farce that is current corporate taxation and assuming again, a level of fairness not seen from corporations either.
- KRAKRISMOTT 3y ago
  Most of the reasons for reshoring manufacturing are because of supply chain and strategic concerns. The economic benefits have always been secondary. That's why building manufacturing plants in Mexico is encouraged even when the automation/technology level is very low. The focus on automation has primarily been for the sake of making it cost effective for corporations, supposed benefits to local communities were never a priority. It's been hard enough getting companies to reshore, taxing automation will destroy the past half a decade of progress. Face it, the jobs are not coming back.
- Closi 3y ago
  It just seems silly to me that in a world where we have robots that can screw bolts on a car, and in a world where humans hate screwing bolts onto cars for 40 hours a week, we would want to put a policy that makes the human the more attractive option (notwithstanding that it also raises costs and makes production less efficient). It feels very similar to the 'cutting grass with scissors' concept - why work in a less-productive way (i.e. ban lawnmowers) just to raise total employment, rather than work in the most productive way possible and then find alternative uses for the humans? Also the policy is only really useful if the number of humans outstrip the number of jobs available, but we haven't reached that point yet. You are right that clearly the corporation tax issues will have to be solved, that's a no-brainer.
- dguest 3y ago
  If the only think keeping robots out of the workforce is tax or other government incentives you still have communities depending on the government. I guess the crux of the argument is that dropping public welfare could happen overnight, while dropping the robot tax and refurbishing the factory to replace workers, or just closing down the factory and buying from a supplier that uses fewer workers, would take a bit longer.
jossclimb 3y ago
It makes total sense to me. When we tax someone, are we taxing the human or the work they perform and the value derived from it?
- fuzzfactor 3y ago
  >are we taxing the human or the work they perform and the value derived from it? Yes, all of the above. Looks more like the robots will be taxing us. Enforcing too. Robots are not cheap, somebody is going to be made to pay.
jasonm23 3y ago
> Wouldn’t it be better to just put in a workable welfare system and improved wage standards? Seems like a great idea, and the companies which get record profits thanks to utilizing automation can be taxed to provide the funds for such a welfare system. Unless you have an even better trick.

by Closi 3y ago

ehnto 3y ago

We don't just want economic growth, we want livable communities too. My worry with the above model is it puts a huge economic group at the whim of the welfare system by default, as we are saying that they shouldn't expect to be able to work. That's a huge change, and would rely on a level of fairness from goverment that I have never seen before. I am pro welfare, pro UBI even, but I think it's a dangerous spot to put our communities in as automation is privatised, and we are relying on it to pay the taxes that pay for the public welfare. Ignoring the farce that is current corporate taxation and assuming again, a level of fairness not seen from corporations either.

KRAKRISMOTT 3y ago
Most of the reasons for reshoring manufacturing are because of supply chain and strategic concerns. The economic benefits have always been secondary. That's why building manufacturing plants in Mexico is encouraged even when the automation/technology level is very low. The focus on automation has primarily been for the sake of making it cost effective for corporations, supposed benefits to local communities were never a priority. It's been hard enough getting companies to reshore, taxing automation will destroy the past half a decade of progress. Face it, the jobs are not coming back.
Closi 3y ago
It just seems silly to me that in a world where we have robots that can screw bolts on a car, and in a world where humans hate screwing bolts onto cars for 40 hours a week, we would want to put a policy that makes the human the more attractive option (notwithstanding that it also raises costs and makes production less efficient). It feels very similar to the 'cutting grass with scissors' concept - why work in a less-productive way (i.e. ban lawnmowers) just to raise total employment, rather than work in the most productive way possible and then find alternative uses for the humans? Also the policy is only really useful if the number of humans outstrip the number of jobs available, but we haven't reached that point yet. You are right that clearly the corporation tax issues will have to be solved, that's a no-brainer.
dguest 3y ago
If the only think keeping robots out of the workforce is tax or other government incentives you still have communities depending on the government. I guess the crux of the argument is that dropping public welfare could happen overnight, while dropping the robot tax and refurbishing the factory to replace workers, or just closing down the factory and buying from a supplier that uses fewer workers, would take a bit longer.

jossclimb 3y ago

It makes total sense to me. When we tax someone, are we taxing the human or the work they perform and the value derived from it?

fuzzfactor 3y ago
>are we taxing the human or the work they perform and the value derived from it? Yes, all of the above. Looks more like the robots will be taxing us. Enforcing too. Robots are not cheap, somebody is going to be made to pay.

jasonm23 3y ago

> Wouldn’t it be better to just put in a workable welfare system and improved wage standards? Seems like a great idea, and the companies which get record profits thanks to utilizing automation can be taxed to provide the funds for such a welfare system. Unless you have an even better trick.