Should we tax robots?

acbytesla said:
There was also a population of 230 million as opposed to 350 million today. I think there will always be jobs but they are less likely to be essential. You can work, but we don't actually need you so you'll take what we pay you and you'll like it or you can do entirely without
Click to expand...

Which is why I don't agree with the notion that it will lead to more unemployment.
 
acbytesla said:
You mean you don't have values?
Click to expand...

Not every observation is in service of commenting or promoting values. Pointing out "automation will destroy more jobs and opportunities than it creates" may not be true says nothing about the broader point you are making.
 
Distracted1 said:
That is a little misleading. Was there actually such a thing as a "job" 10,000 years ago?
Click to expand...

Yes and no below is the definition. 1 no, 2 yes

Hunter is both not a job and a job.


1
a paid position of regular employment.
"jobs are created in the private sector, not in Washington"
synonyms: occupation, profession, trade, position, career, work, line of work, livelihood, post, situation, appointment, métier, craft; More
2.
a task or piece of work, especially one that is paid.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Yes and no below is the definition. 1 no, 2 yes

Hunter is both not a job and a job.


1
a paid position of regular employment.
"jobs are created in the private sector, not in Washington"
synonyms: occupation, profession, trade, position, career, work, line of work, livelihood, post, situation, appointment, métier, craft; More
2.
a task or piece of work, especially one that is paid.
Click to expand...
Since only 2 was applicable (for the most part) for most of the last 11,000 years, does it not follow that innovation has indeed greatly reduced the "tasks or pieces of work" that are required of a human in order to survive to a very large extent?

More simply. Innovation has been reducing the number of jobs (by the second definition) for as long as humans have innovated.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Not every observation is in service of commenting or promoting values. Pointing out "automation will destroy more jobs and opportunities than it creates" may not be true says nothing about the broader point you are making.
Click to expand...

My question is related to the larger issue of creating a better world for as many people as possible. If most essential jobs are being performed through automation leaving only discretionary employment for the majority. Doesn't that dampen consumption and hamper the best possible outcome?
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
My question is related to the larger issue of creating a better world for as many people as possible. If most essential jobs are being performed through automation leaving only discretionary employment for the majority. Doesn't that dampen consumption and hamper the best possible outcome?
Click to expand...

I have no opinion but would like to see everyone's opinion.
 
Our productivity has already far exceeded our needs: each of us is doing the job that took many people in the past, assisted by machinery and shorter communication lanes.
If salary had any connection to absolute productivity, then most workers today should earn millions.
But it is only relative productivity that matters, so even if in the future, thanks to machines doing almost everything, we do only 1/10 of the absolute work we do today, nothing would change in relative terms.
We might go back to a Downtown Abbey lifestyle, where we only occasionally have to check up on our machines and programs and spend the rest of the time whatever way we please.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I have no opinion but would like to see everyone's opinion.
Click to expand...

I have been thinking about it for years. There are no easy answers. I believe free market principles have served us well over the last two centuries with certain exceptions and caveats.

I don't believe they apply very well to say sports or health care. It's like we need a capitalism 3.0. New ideas that help workers as opposed to employers.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Our productivity has already far exceeded our needs: each of us is doing the job that took many people in the past, assisted by machinery and shorter communication lanes.
If salary had any connection to absolute productivity, then most workers today should earn millions.
But it is only relative productivity that matters, so even if in the future, thanks to machines doing almost everything, we do only 1/10 of the absolute work we do today, nothing would change in relative terms.
We might go back to a Downtown Abbey lifestyle, where we only occasionally have to check up on our machines and programs and spend the rest of the time whatever way we please.
Click to expand...
In this "Downton Abbey" future, I envy anyone who envisages themself as one of the gentry instead of one of the serfs. I am not so optimistic.
 
Do we tax tractors that can dig faster than humans? Most machines replace or assist humans in some way.

Taxing companies for making their companies more efficient - that's a good one.

Will we tax security cameras and alarm systems because they take jobs from security officers? What's a robot?

I've seen the robot tax mentioned before and I say dum de-dum-dum DUMMMM.
 
mgidm86 said:
Do we tax tractors that can dig faster than humans? Most machines replace or assist humans in some way.

Taxing companies for making their companies more efficient - that's a good one.

Will we tax security cameras and alarm systems because they take jobs from security officers? What's a robot?

I've seen the robot tax mentioned before and I say dum de-dum-dum DUMMMM.
Click to expand...

That only addresses half the question.
 
mgidm86 said:
Do we tax tractors that can dig faster than humans? Most machines replace or assist humans in some way.

Taxing companies for making their companies more efficient - that's a good one.

Will we tax security cameras and alarm systems because they take jobs from security officers? What's a robot?

I've seen the robot tax mentioned before and I say dum de-dum-dum DUMMMM.
Click to expand...
I agree that a "robot tax" is unworkable.
The idea behind it is one worthy of consideration, however.
If/when we near a point where everyone's basic needs can be met without much expenditure of human effort, are we willing to allow anyone's basic needs to not be met?
 
Distracted1 said:
In this "Downton Abbey" future, I envy anyone who envisages themself as one of the gentry instead of one of the serfs. I am not so optimistic.
Click to expand...

But would these future serfs be as insecure and miserable as the Victorian servant and underclass?
Or would live in greater comfort than the current upper Middle Class?

The biggest trap we need to overcome is to compare ourselves to the wrong people. we cannot all have our private island, and we shouldn't either.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
But would these future serfs be as insecure and miserable as the Victorian servant and underclass?
Or would live in greater comfort than the current upper Middle Class?

The biggest trap we need to overcome is to compare ourselves to the wrong people. we cannot all have our private island, and we shouldn't either.
Click to expand...

In other words, behind John Rawls' veil of ignorance
 
Robots are (or can be) one of many ways to increase per-capita productivity. Others are e.g. fertilizers, powertools, CAD, higher education, healthy food, oxen, fossil fuels, the conveyor belt, etc.
Good robots add value, create income for those who invested in them.
There is then no call to tax robots specifically; just tax what is being taxed anyway: Added value and income.
Make those taxes "fair", and the "robot-problem" is taken care of.

The question of universal equal base income is only indirectly related to work automation. It's a good idea or a bad idea regardly of whether there are or what you do fiscally with robots.

Imagine for a moment a world where robots and AI have become universal helpers everywhere - supreme diagnostic experts, perfect surgeons, fail-free care providers, unbiased judges, reliable and efficient drivers of all vehicles, executers of sustainable agriculture. Virtually all products and services humans wish for are provided by them, with six-sigma quality at super-low prices. Only a handful of people are required to organize and control this army of robots. This would free all the humans for any tasks and activities our imagination has not yet delegated to robots, because they are fun or because we keep discovering new ideas. In that world, it would be totally necessay to tax the hell out of the makers and keepers of robots. Not the robots themselves. Why would anybody want to make and keep robots then? -> Because they enjoy that work, or perhaps because they cherish the sense of empowerment that managing robots provides.
We'll have to think hard what the rise of robotics means for our political and social systems. Not so much what it means for taxation.
 
Distracted1 said:
I agree that a "robot tax" is unworkable.
The idea behind it is one worthy of consideration, however.
If/when we near a point where everyone's basic needs can be met without much expenditure of human effort, are we willing to allow anyone's basic needs to not be met?
Click to expand...

There are some people who are fine with that.

But it realistically, what are the options? A UBI? A libertarian 'utopia?' A change in expectations of work, for example going away from a 40+ hour work week to a 20 hour week?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom