Give Jobs to Humans or Robots?

a reply to: Aazadan

The easier the job, the sooner it will be automated, that's simply the reality of the world these days. I think it's a poor idea to try and cling to the notion that everyone is going to be required to work 40 hours per week to get by. The sooner we accept that, the sooner we can lower the work week. We may possibly even need an entirely new economic system where a person can afford the basics without work, but working then allows you to purchase much more.

This new economic system is what I want people to see and understand is a necessity. Maybe not in 2016, but we definitely need laws implemented to ease the transition from manual labor to robots.

Taxing automation doesn't seem to me like it will work. The entire point of such a tax would be to make automation more expensive than a person. Even if taxes could raise sufficiently high to do such a thing it artificially caps that persons wage, as they stop being marketable as soon as they cost more than the tax.

[/post]
The point of taxing is not to give incentive to hire humans but to balance GDP.... i know let me explain.

I like to look at it this way: Y=C+I+G+(X-M)

we are "C"
corps are "I"
Gov is "G"

I is balanced by C with wages and jobs and us buying stuff and C has a balance with G with taxes and social programs. Since I doesnt need C to function anymore, because of robots, then C has no way of buying what I supplies and cant pay taxes set by G. So G needs to step in and balance with taxes on I which will provide social programs for C. these social programs will be things that C will demand and things I will supply. This cycle will work because each variable feeds off each other once again and a Supply Demand is balanced again.

"The point of having money is not to make as much as possible, its purpose is to manipulate society to create our idea of utopia."

a reply to: beezzer

imagine robots are plug and play. if an arm broke replace the arm. a leg for a leg and so on.

originally posted by: gosseyn
The question shouldn't even be asked, it's the evolutionary path that humans have taken long ago that is unfolding right before our eyes. Asking the question is proof that the problem is not understood.

ya that was not constructive at all..

maybe give your opinion as to the problem thats not understood.

originally posted by: Sagitaris
The point of taxing is not to give incentive to hire humans but to balance GDP.... i know let me explain.

I like to look at it this way: Y=C+I+G+(X-M)

we are "C"
corps are "I"
Gov is "G"

I is balanced by C with wages and jobs and us buying stuff and C has a balance with G with taxes and social programs. Since I doesnt need C to function anymore, because of robots, then C has no way of buying what I supplies and cant pay taxes set by G. So G needs to step in and balance with taxes on I which will provide social programs for C. these social programs will be things that C will demand and things I will supply. This cycle will work because each variable feeds off each other once again and a Supply Demand is balanced again.

"The point of having money is not to make as much as possible, its purpose is to manipulate society to create our idea of utopia."

My brain has shut down for the night, if I am understanding you correctly the idea is that taxing automation is to provide for the welfare of the person who is no longer employed. This doesn't work because the tax will be less than the wages that person otherwise would have earned. This means the person who lost their job, has gone from a poor financial situation to an even worse one (though they now have more free time). Where do we stop with this? Lets say I build a computer system for McDonalds to replace their cashiers and order takers. Those are minimum wage jobs, now those people are out of the job pool. What if I do something more complex and replace the wait staff at a restaurant? What if I replace the cooks? What if I replace shelf stockers? These positions all have different wages, and they all displace many people. What if I start replacing skilled labor? It's not that hard to scan weather data, feed it to a program, and display a fake person on screen pointing to a weather map as the computer reads back what's going on. Now the weathermen are out of a job. As 3d printing improves, metal shops are going to be out of work too.

We can't rely on a mere automation tax because everyone is having some portion of work done for them through it. The payout would exceed any income from doing so. Furthermore, we can't simply discourage automation because if we do we're going to fall behind other developed nations in having a technologically developed infrastructure.

The solution in my opinion is to create a new marketplace. Create a secondary currency, and distribute it on a per capita basis. Each person gets the same amount and there is X in the pool. When it's used in a transaction it's removed from the pool. Every month we evenly distribute an amount equal to what was spent, back into society. Mandate using this currency mixed with cash for the purchase of all non essential items (toys, cars, luxury items, etc). Then create an exchange where people can swap this currency for dollars in private trades at whatever ratios they wish.

This provides everyone with a basic level of income to meet their needs. Those who have their needs met (likely through employment) can have their wants met as well.

Alternatively, though this idea is less developed... stop rating people by how much they produce, but rather how much they consume, as that's a measurement of how many jobs they create.

originally posted by: Sagitaris
a reply to: beezzer

imagine robots are plug and play. if an arm broke replace the arm. a leg for a leg and so on.

One day in my lifetime I will be playing real live Battletech.

originally posted by: Sagitaris

originally posted by: gosseyn
The question shouldn't even be asked, it's the evolutionary path that humans have taken long ago that is unfolding right before our eyes. Asking the question is proof that the problem is not understood.

ya that was not constructive at all..

maybe give your opinion as to the problem thats not understood.

I said it's the evolutionary path humans have taken the moment they used the first tool, which means that we shouldn't fight this evolution. Humans don't need money, because no one can eat money, but humans need food, and water, and clothes and warmth. If I drop you on the surface of another planet with 5000000000000000 billions, that money will serve as towels and toilet paper and nothing else. We should automate as much as we can and produce an abundance of those necessities of life and make them free for everyone. If we can do it then there's no question if we should do it or not. That's the future, and those who cling to obsolete ideas and systems have become money and merchandise fetishists, they confuse the map with the territory.

Employers turning to automation will continue until the point that there are no consumers left to purchase their goods/services (because, as others have stated, there will be almost no jobs left). When it finally comes to a head, it's going to get ugly for a while.

I'm in the construction industry and it's amazing and terrifying how many tradesmen will be replaced by machines. I was reading about a company that is planning to using a version of a 3D printer to build a house from the ground up (the structure, not the electrical wiring, etc). I've also read about companies that will be using autonomous construction vehicles for large scale excavation/demolition/concrete work. Until recently, I have always naively assumed that jobs like carpenters, masons, etc would be relatively safe from automation. This is not the case.

As for specifically some of the fast food industry turning to automation, I would LOVE it!!! To be blunt, customer service in general has been lacking in this country and only getting worse. Constantly screwing up my orders. The way I see it, if I could walk into a fast food joint, order with a kiosk and have some machinery in the back toss the burger on the bun, I suspect I'd be a more satisfied consumer than I am these days.

a reply to: eluryh22

In the same Industry and never really thought about it. Interesting concept though. Not sure how well a 3D printed house would stand up to the elements , unless it's built in Lego-Land. Most construction has a touch of the arts in it. From the architects thoughts to the interior designers finishing touches using the clients dream, it's imagination that starts the process and compliments the build. Then there is the human dynamics to factor into the equation. I've had clients change their minds on the simplest of details so many times I was ready to short circuit. Like to see how a bot handles Mrs. Jones all wound up cause her ' morning sunrise " feature wall isn't as " cheery " a color as the chip in the box-store looked.