So what's the job solution to automation?

[Horatio Parker]

I know I'm like a broken record, but the solution is a job guarantee.

If 1% of the population is required for food production, and 10% or less for manufacturing, the rest is service oriented and discretionary. More effort towards education, infrastructure, social services.

 

[barbos]

Redistribution of wealth from the top down has a number of possible mechanisms.

One way or another, it's inevitable.

I see no reason to expect that the USA would change from its current mechanism - the military.

Poor kids get paid by the taxpayers to do meaningless tasks, and senators campaign to have them concentrated in their home states, because they know that this redistribution is essential to their economies.

Maybe once the machines are doing all the productive work, the humans will all have to join the army so they can eat.

Senators are paid to do meaningless job too.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Tax the robots.

aa

 

[DrZoidberg]

Tax the robots.

aa

Another word for that is to tax capital. We do that, but the inevitable result is that liquid capital is moved to tax havens. This will be hard to fix without a world government.

 

[barbos]

Tax the robots.

aa

Once again, No taxation without representation!

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I think a negative income tax would be a good way to provide for people's needs and incentive people to work if they can.

Yes absolutely. I think it is only a matter of time before we do this.

 

[DBT]

Where do the suppliers of robotics and the businesses that use their systems get the money the government wants to tax them if their customers don't have jobs to pay for the goods and services these businesses are trying to sell in the hope of making money?

 

[LordKiran]

Tax the robots.

aa

Another word for that is to tax capital. We do that, but the inevitable result is that liquid capital is moved to tax havens. This will be hard to fix without a world government.

The funny thing about this solution is that you'd need to tax them enough to give the people they're replacing a decent living, thus (At least partially) removing the incentive to move to them as a cost saver. The only robots that would be wanted at that point are ones that ALSO improve productivity enough to offset the taxation.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Another word for that is to tax capital. We do that, but the inevitable result is that liquid capital is moved to tax havens. This will be hard to fix without a world government.

The funny thing about this solution is that you'd need to tax them enough to give the people they're replacing a decent living, thus (At least partially) removing the incentive to move to them as a cost saver. The only robots that would be wanted at that point are ones that ALSO improve productivity enough to offset the taxation.

Which is why I think the robot revolution will push us into a completely new economic paradigm. I think economic liberalism and capitalism as they are now will be unworkable. Let's just hope we don't also lose democracy in the process

 

[barbos]

The funny thing about this solution is that you'd need to tax them enough to give the people they're replacing a decent living, thus (At least partially) removing the incentive to move to them as a cost saver. The only robots that would be wanted at that point are ones that ALSO improve productivity enough to offset the taxation.

Which is why I think the robot revolution will push us into a completely new economic paradigm. I think economic liberalism and capitalism as they are now will be unworkable. Let's just hope we don't also lose democracy in the process

I agree, as I said before I don't see how capitalism can survive this time.

 

[DBT]

I suppose that whether capitalism survives or not depends on how capitalism is defined.....it may take other forms, yet we still have our 'capital' in the form of resources, means of production within a market system where monetary value is added. Unless money is no longer to be used.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I suppose that whether capitalism survives or not depends on how capitalism is defined.....it may take other forms, yet we still have our 'capital' in the form of resources, means of production within a market system where monetary value is added. Unless money is no longer to be used.

Capitalism is extremely specific. If we redefine it, will it still be capitalism?

Capitalism needed an educated workforce. They needed more people to break free from their traditional jobs and venture into the cities. That led to a push for increased liberties. It brought us modern liberal democracy. Understanding the causal chain is super important. Education didn't come first. Nor the push toward freedom. Freedom was a side effect.

That makes it scary to think about what will happen when capitalism doesn't need any workforce.

 

[DBT]

I suppose that whether capitalism survives or not depends on how capitalism is defined.....it may take other forms, yet we still have our 'capital' in the form of resources, means of production within a market system where monetary value is added. Unless money is no longer to be used.

Capitalism is extremely specific. If we redefine it, will it still be capitalism?

That's the big question. Some of the classical economists did predict an end to economic growth yet not the end of capitalism, just a shift to a new model.

That makes it scary to think about what will happen when capitalism doesn't need any workforce.

It's scary. But from the point of view of producers, where does the profit come from when all the workers who were once working and getting a wage and spending their money on their products, no longer have jobs or incomes and no money to spend?

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's scary. But from the point of view of producers, where does the profit come from when all the workers who were once working and getting a wage and spending
their money on their products, no longer have jobs or incomes and no money to spend?

That's backward economic theory. Growth doesn't come from consumption, and neither does profit. I'm sure that 1% can happily buy and sell things to one another, and completely exclude everybody else and make greater profits than ever before.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Clearly you guys haven't a clue about what to do. Neither do I.

So, may I suggest one possible scenario? Ask some super smart ass AI to tell us how to go about it. They're real smart! Ask them!

In practice, government could deliver licenses to produce using robots on the condition that the licensees set up and contribute to a super AI advisory body charged with analysing the situation in real time and to tell the government what to do and when.

You might just have a good surprise. You only need to ask.


Don't act surprised when the AI takes over though.
EB

 

[LordKiran]

It's scary. But from the point of view of producers, where does the profit come from when all the workers who were once working and getting a wage and spending
their money on their products, no longer have jobs or incomes and no money to spend?

That's backward economic theory. Growth doesn't come from consumption, and neither does profit. I'm sure that 1% can happily buy and sell things to one another, and completely exclude everybody else and make greater profits than ever before.

That's the thing. When you have possession to the entire chain of production, do you even need money at that point?

 

[DrZoidberg]

That's backward economic theory. Growth doesn't come from consumption, and neither does profit. I'm sure that 1% can happily buy and sell things to one another, and completely exclude everybody else and make greater profits than ever before.

That's the thing. When you have possession to the entire chain of production, do you even need money at that point?

Fuck money. If you stare at the money you will misunderstand economic theory. It's never been about the money. Economic growth and profit is about how well you satisfy basic human needs. That's hard to measure. Which is why we like to measure money. But it's still just a proxy.

Money is the lube in the machine. Without it the machine wouldn't work as well. But it's still the machine that is important. Not the lube. It's like sex. The lube helps make it more pleasurable. But just the lube by itself isn't going to make anybody happy.

Edit: Value is transferred when somebody can satisfy a human need. If a person is best at satisfying their own needs, by lets lets say owning a bunch of robots that do it, then money will not be transferred down the value chain. They'll stay among the rich elite and only grow.

3d-printing is another one like this. Just imagine what will happen with international trade where there's zero incentive to have stuff made in third world countries. All they have to offer is cheaper labour. If you don't need the labour no price will be cheap enough. IKEA today makes all their furniture in fully automated robotic factories. Their only staff is engineers to fix the robots. That's already a reality and has been for thirty years now.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Tax the robots.

aa

Another word for that is to tax capital. We do that, but the inevitable result is that liquid capital is moved to tax havens. This will be hard to fix without a world government.

We do not tax capital in the US. We tax profits and capital gains YOY. There is a 'retained earnings tax' that I'm pretty sure no one has paid in the history of ever. Yes, when profits are moved overseas they can be held there until repatriated, but it is not a capital tax.

aa

- - - Updated - - -

Tax the robots.

aa

Once again, No taxation without representation!

Corporations in the US have almost full citizenship and all constitutional protections. I'm pretty sure corporate interests are represented better than any individual in the union.

aa

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Another word for that is to tax capital. We do that, but the inevitable result is that liquid capital is moved to tax havens. This will be hard to fix without a world government.

The funny thing about this solution is that you'd need to tax them enough to give the people they're replacing a decent living, thus (At least partially) removing the incentive to move to them as a cost saver. The only robots that would be wanted at that point are ones that ALSO improve productivity enough to offset the taxation.

No, it doesn't have to be a perfect offset. Just enough of an offset to replace income lost due to starting over in another trade. It's the entire point, otherwise there is no way to get 'cost savings' of automation into the economy. Prices have never gone down due to automation. Expense reductions are typically just paid to the owners for being clever enough to replace their labor force. And automation - once cheap enough - will be inevitable anyway. I don't see any other solution that dis-incentivizes automation while simultaneously taking care of the 98%.

aa

 

[DBT]

I don't think it will be easy to shift into another trade. Probably a lost cause considering that the number of vacancies is likely to amount to a small percentage of people seeking these positions.