|
Those who do work will get paid of course, in addition to the basic maintenance cash every one gets.
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: I can envision a future where robots do almost all the manual work, and crucially, they are payed a wage and taxed at 100% on it. ie, the company employing them pays, at a reduced rate, the commensurate wage a person would have received, direct to the government as tax.
Then you will be paying tax every time you use a computer to do any manual work - like accounting.
You will be paying chauffeur fees for self-driving cars.
You will not receive any reduction in price for efficiencies derived from automation (cheaper food, cheaper production of vehicles, etc).
In effect, you will have to get a job, because we all know the government won't pass that tax back to you - unless you plan on living on welfare.
|
|
|
|
|
Pualee wrote: Then you will be paying tax every time you use a computer to do any manual work - like accounting.
Is a computer a robot?
Pualee wrote: You will be paying chauffeur fees for self-driving cars.
Probably. Today you pay a driver, and he pays tax.
|
|
|
|
|
Explain to me how come MicroSoft isn't already required to do this for every license of Word which put thousands of secretaries out of work?
All a robot does is enhance productivity. Do we tax everything that enhances productivity?
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended.
I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended.
Freedom doesn't mean the absence of things you don't like.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
We havent got to that future yet.
|
|
|
|
|
Only humans would think robots are a great idea in regards to helping us and furthering our species.
IMHO, we deserve every single bad thing that will come of this, a thousand times over. I also believe, that very few good things will ever come of this.
|
|
|
|
|
A robot is just a machine. It might look clever, but underneath it is just a machine, and it is the engineers who built it that are the geniuses, just ad Babbage was, and the inventor of the spinning jenny.
So, since mechanisation has helped us immensely, giving us an incredible lifestyle today, why not continue the trend?
And, what ill has befallen us because of past mechanisation that makes you think future mechanisation will?
|
|
|
|
|
Many, many uneducated and/or less skilled people are losing and will continue to lose their jobs to robots and automated mechanization - that is a fact. This will put more of a strain on the welfare system in my country, and perhaps, the world's welfare system (if they have one).
Now you introduce AI, and that adds an infinite set of variables to the mix. As AI become more powerful, then what would happen if AI went awry? Speculation on my part, yes, but still a valid scenario outcome.
There are and will continue to be benefits to this robot stuff, but I think the negative will outweigh the good. My opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
One interesting effect will be the re-onshoring of labour in the developed first world countries, ie those who are going to robotise first.
Anyway, yes, AI and all that, the robots attack, terminator, I Robot and so on. Lots of sci-fi there, not sure if there is much basis in reality for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
"We're going to automate everything and make the robots pay for it"?
|
|
|
|
|
You got it. 
|
|
|
|
|
For a start you seem to assume a robot is sentient, good luck with that one, if it is not sentient then it has no rights and no requirement for wages/recompense.
Compensating someone (Govt) for using a robot to do the work is not going to happen, it isn't today, why would you think it will in the future. A completely different economic model is going to have to be invented to achieve your vision.
And if you think the corporates are going to abdicate the money management to a govt your nuts. A production tax may be one way to go!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes wrote: you seem to assume a robot is sentient, good luck with that one
You seem to much, I dont.
Mycroft Holmes wrote: it has no rights and no requirement for wages
Of course not, but it has to be treated as if it does in order to generate revenue the govt will need to pay the ex-manual labourers unemployment money, at a decent rate.
Mycroft Holmes wrote: why would you think it will in the future
Legislation.
And why not? Is this not a better world? No more manual, dull labour. Those people get to sit around, play golf, spend the day in the pub. Let the robots do their work.
Those who enjoy their work, the artists, the professionals, will quite happily continue working.
And we will all live like plantation owners of the past, in luxury, because at the bottom of society will be an army of metal slaves, working for us.
|
|
|
|
|
I see "money and goods" being shuffled around; I didn't see anyone "buying" anything.
The take is that "robots" can produce goods out of nothing; and produce revenue from goods that nobody buys; and said revenue is then distributed to the masses; to buy the goods produced from nothing.
Sounds like this is where Bitcoin comes in: fake money for fake goods.
Moore's law (because it is starting to fail) predicts a depression / recession: what to do with all the "labor" when the next "IPhone" isn't "better" than the previous and no one wants to upgrade.
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
Gerry Schmitz wrote: The take is that "robots" can produce goods out of nothing; and produce revenue from goods that nobody buys;
No, they would be goods produced today, that people buy. Just produced by robots.
|
|
|
|
|
So, your robots will be giving "credit" to people who don't work? So they can buy goods with money they don't have? Because the won't get their "distribution" until the goods are sold?
Or are you planning on running a deficit? How does "that" get paid off?
You first need expropriate all the world's resources; using robots...
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, the robots will generate tax revenue which will be paid as unemployment benefit to those whose jobs have been replaced by the robots.
If 8 hours of human labour is worth 100 $ to a firm, a robot can make 300 $ a day, so if the govt takes 100 $ off the firm, it still makes 200$ worth off its back ( a robot works 24 hours a day).
The govt gives this money to the worker.
He is happy, the firm makes more money, and goods are cheaper.
Exports increase, labour onshores, because robots are cheaper than say Vietnamese, the trade deficit shrinks, so does govt debt.
And all dull, manual work is done by machines.
|
|
|
|
|
You're still handing out "free" money because you haven't sold the goods to earn the "revenue" you're giving to the "humans".
Marx, Mao, perpetual motion machines...
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
Gerry Schmitz wrote: because you haven't sold the goods to earn the "revenue"
One assumes of course that there is no labour, human or machine, involved, today, in producing goods that cant be sold.
|
|
|
|
|
Gerry Schmitz wrote: Marx, Mao, perpetual motion machines...
Not sure what you mean.
Modern world economies are based on perceived value anyways. A dollar or a euro has no value if people do not perceive that it has value.
So in the modern company, an employee (human) produces value for the company and is paid, as the human perceives it, value for that work. Then that human spends the money that they made on something they want. And often that value has nothing to do with a real product being sold at that point. When the receptionist asks someone to wait in the waiting area until their appointment there are no goods being sold nor, for that transaction, will there ever be.
On this fantastical scheme here, which does in fact have many problems, the human employee in the above is still paid but that money goes into a pool which is distributed to all people in the country. If the company does not use the robot there is no 'pay' and it doesn't go into the pool.
|
|
|
|
|
The premise is that all the wealth ($) generated by robots will be distributed to humans.
Where do the raw resources come from? How are they paid for?
You can't sell what you haven't produced. If you haven't "sold" anything, there is no "revenue" to distribute or buy resources.
You're now left with expropriating all the world's resources. And since this is now a "equal distribution society", you will need to "share" your resources (i.e. no private property).
Marx, Mao ... all "grand experiments". With less than "100% efficiency", millions starved to death.
The "projects" one undertakes is what gives life meaning ...
With robot "project managers", we'll insure your efforts are not wasted (in terms of its "benefit" to "society").
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
Gerry Schmitz wrote: The premise is that all the wealth ($) generated by robots will be distributed to humans.
Where do the raw resources come from? How are they paid for?
First as I noted the scheme here has many problems and is nonsensical. So pointless to investigate each bad assumption.
However the original stipulation was not that all workers would disappear nor would all wealth (assets) disappear.
Just that some workers would be replaced.
So if a car company replaces workers with robots those workers would pay the stipend to the pool.
However the purchase of steel by that company would still require buying the steel. The steel company would still receive money and they in turn might have robots (replacement humans) and would pay to the pool as well. This continues throughout all supply chains.
|
|
|
|
|
Will we have "minimum wage" robots?
Do all robots, regardless of task, get paid the same wage?
Will there be robot unions?
I suspect there will be activities for a given robot (on duty) that are "too hazardess" (e.g. EMPs), and we will need to send in humans.
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
Gerry Schmitz wrote: Will we have "minimum wage" robots?
Like I said there are many problems with the original supposition and no way to defend them. It wasn't my suggestion and I am not going to attempt to defend what I consider utter fantasy in many different ways in the first place.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
