
If the Robots Come for Our Jobs, What Should the Government Do? - raleighm
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/12/upshot/if-the-robots-come-for-our-jobs-what-should-the-government-do.html
======
fwn
The article features three views. 1. A paper from the Roosevelt Institute [1]
2. the McKinsey Global Institute and 3. Michael Strain, a scholar at the
conservative American Enterprise Institute.

Summarized ideas introduced in the article:

    
    
        * Allowing for inflation to tackle unemployment (from 1.)
        * Less monopole granting intellectual property laws (from 1.)
        * Work-sharing programs (from 1.)
        * Publicly funded higher education and training (from 1.)
        * Subsidized education and training (from 2.)
        * Making job benefits like health insurance and retirement funds more “portable,” (from 2.)
        * Expanding the earned-income tax credit (from 3.)
    

Interesting pre-assumption from [1] that might be dominant in economics but
maybe not on the internet:

> This set of proposals is based on the idea that the emerging wave of digital
> disruption won’t result in a permanent loss of demand for workers, but
> rather shifts in what types of work the economy needs.

[1] [http://rooseveltinstitute.org/dont-fear-
robots/](http://rooseveltinstitute.org/dont-fear-robots/)

[2] [https://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/overview/2017-in-
review/automat...](https://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/overview/2017-in-
review/automation-and-the-future-of-work/a-future-that-works-automation-
employment-and-productivity)

------
exabrial
The article talks about how globalization caused automation to replace
millions of factory workers. Factory jobs, aren't the greatest, especially
before the 1970s, and in many parts of the world, are still awful. Similarly,
If we could replace every mining job with robots we'd remove a lot of human
abuse in many parts of the world.

~~~
mc32
You’d also remove the way for lots of people to make a living.

The unemployed only know that making a living in a lousy industry is better
than not making any living at all.

~~~
nickthemagicman
That's exactly the point. Humans rely on jobs, what happens when robots take
over?

~~~
chongli
We don't actually rely on jobs, we just force one another to work to satisfy
our principles of fairness. In theory we could agree on a different notion of
fairness that doesn't require everybody to work, we just choose not to.

~~~
fixermark
FWIW, I think you may be under-selling "We just choose not to."

Human principles of fairness are based very heavily on social constructs of
tribe and group survival that predate civilization by 10^5 to 10^7 years.
Human thought is extremely malleable, I think the human psychology jury is
still out on precisely how malleable "fairness" is.

That having been said, it feels like if we could start by ratcheting most
people from a 40-hour week to a 30-hour week without cutting their pay, that'd
square with the gut feeling of fairness. ;)

~~~
abathur
I agree that fairness will pose some short-run concerns. But, consider that it
probably didn't make sense to early hunter-gatherers to work themselves to an
early death in order to accumulate or bequeath hoards of any of the materials
(raw or processed) or tools at their disposal. It seems certain they still had
a sense of fairness, which suggests the triggers of that gut feeling are
themselves quite malleable.

One legacy of agricultural and industrial production has been the devaluing of
just about all "non-productive" activity. A broad re-valuation of what we
spend our time on might be a good place to start re-calibrating our sense of
fairness.

------
AnimalMuppet
Don't think of "employing" people, of making sure people have jobs. Instead,
think of a society "spending" people.

We used to spend most of our people growing food. Then we got tractors and
combines, and we could spend only 2% of our people growing food. We spent the
newly-available people on factories - some to make tractors and combines, but
more to make cars and dishwashers and tons of other things. It was an overall
improvement to society - we could spend our people on more productive uses.

We need to do the same in this situation. We can automate factories. Great! We
don't have to spend as many people making stuff. The trick is to find _better_
things to spend our people on. If we can, those new things, being more useful
to society than factory work, should also pay better than factory work.

But what are those "better" things? Aye, there's the rub...

~~~
dqpb
This is a great way of thinking about the problem. And it's not hard to think
of better jobs for people. There are a lot of unsolved problems in fundamental
research across all fields of science.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
True. But unfortunately, not all people laid off from factories are qualified
to do fundamental research...

------
bbddg
This problem is much deeper than just automation and has been spiraling out of
control since at least the 1970s.
[https://thecurrentmoment.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/product...](https://thecurrentmoment.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/productivity-
and-real-wages.jpg)

Years of tax cuts for corporations and the rich combined with the destruction
of Unions and workers ability to collectively bargain has created this
problem. Start taxing wealth and corporate profits at post-ww2 levels,
increase protections for workers. Encourage co-operatives, profit sharing, and
other forms of worker control and ownership.

~~~
bmarkovic
Except that this problem is strictly american problem that more/less requires
nation-wide therapy from the red scare and acceptance of positive sides of
socialism and how through grass-root pressure, trade unions and political
activism, it actually shaped the western world for the better (an 8-hour
workday was a blasphemy before socialism, as just one blatant example).

Automation OTOH, is a global problem that requires wider-reaching systemic
changes. And while the western world will likely cope by inventing more white-
collar bullshit make-believe jobs, people in developing world will likely be
hit very hard.

------
mathattack
The government’s job should be to keep an eye that gains are shared broadly
enough, and ensure increased productivity doesn’t cause excess environmental
harm. (If the government funds Robotics research, all citizens should share in
the windfall)

~~~
te_chris
Based on your comment I think you'll really enjoy this book - I'm about 75%
through it. [https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/280466/the-value-of-
everythi...](https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/280466/the-value-of-everything/)
The Value of Everything by Mariana Mazzucato. One of the best economics books
I've read in a very long time, well argued and not too heavy in Jargon.

The thrust of the argument is that we've misconstrued value and thus don't
properly account for all the activity in the economy, overcounting things
which aren't 'productive' in the historical economic sense (like finance, FB's
ad market), while undercounting other activities, including those of govt -
before everyone jumps on me, both Marx AND Smith agreed that finance didn't
contribute to productivity, merely enabled it.

~~~
mathattack
My understanding of economics is that capital and love are inputs to the
productivity formula, but don’t raise it.

There are lots of externalities (pollution) that are hard to measure.

------
WhompingWindows
The simplest solution is an automation tax which is revenue neutral. Any time
automation moves in to an industry, the tax's revenues can be used to help
transition those workers into other work, or give them at least an automation
relief stipend.

If we don't tax automation, what's to stop increasingly cheaper automation
from replacing increasingly expensive first world workers? Especially when
businesses are expected to increase salaries yearly, provide expensive
benefits like healthcare - businesses would rather pay up-front for
automation.

~~~
hinkley
Another solution is to claw back mineral rights by taxing raw materials. You
burn the sky, take the water, dig in the ground, that is something the
citizens don’t get to use. You owe them.

The thing I like about this (its not my model but it’s my favorite) is that it
happens at the input side so it codifies the idea of Reduce Reuse Recycle by
setting a base cost where it’s cheaper to recycle and purify than it is to use
virgin materials.

~~~
gremlinsinc
I like this idea, as long as it extends to all land use. So, people renting
from others are actually receiving a dividend from the landlord, for the
utility of owning that land.

I've read that land/material-based taxes instead of income-based could raise
enough to fund a GBI, and be sort of organized like Alaska's oil fund.

~~~
hinkley
Property taxes are a thing already. It funds infrastructure which we all need
more when we are employed, but we all need it anyway.

------
pravinva
How are automaton owning plutocrats supposed to get rich if they don't sell
their robot made wares to the plebs? It's silly to think that automation makes
the poor poorer. It makes them richer. Only logical conclusion is that stuff
will be cheap enough that real wages go up even if nominal ones dont.Look at
any rich country, it's got an order of magnitude more automation than any
poorer country and yet it's not the country with less automation that is
better off. Why do barbers in rich countries earn more than those in poorer
countries for essentially the exact skills? Baumol's disease anyone? Luddites
need to think through this harder.

PS: if the evil robot owners produce stuff and keep it for themselves without
selling them, the rest of the world still has needs that are unmet and we end
up in exactly the world we have today

------
nickthemagicman
Humans used to gather resources via hunter gathering, then Agriculture tech
came along and automated that. Humans now gathered resources via farming. Then
industrialization came along and automated Agriculture. Now we gather
resources via 'jobs' instead of hunting gathering or agriculture.

How will humans gather resources after the 'job' method is automated?

Or will we even need to gather resources anymore and will be able to focus on
art and scientific pursuits and advancing the human race?

------
fixermark
I've heard universal basic income may be a viable approach, but I think it's
unclear how it scales up as of yet.

Regardless, I haven't seen better suggestions yet.

~~~
hinkley
What sold me on BI was the concept that every decade the GDP per capita goes
up. But we don’t _need_ that product as much which leads to consumerism. If
one guy can produce all the stuff for five people what’s the point of the
other four working? We could switch to an experience or service based economy,
and/or we could give people a cushion that lets them try out a lot of
different things.

Not everybody knows what they want to do at 9 years old like I did. I watch
friends and family struggle their whole lives with this and recognize that I
was very fortunate.

That said if I had health insurance and programmer culture was a bit different
I would work 30 hours a week, get nearly as much done and have more time for
family and hobbies.

------
nickthemagicman
Imagine how great society would be if humans could just focus on scientific
and artistic endeavors instead of grinding it out for basic survival?

Think of how advanced the human race could get if no one was starving and
people's attention could be focused on science and art and building cool new
technology to better the human race.

One day people will look back at how we live as extremely primitive.

------
carapace
Who owns the robots?

[http://calroc.blogspot.com/2012/12/blue-collar-
coders.html](http://calroc.blogspot.com/2012/12/blue-collar-coders.html)

> In your lifetime the current economic paradigm will become as quaint and
> bizarre as a Renaissance Faire.

> The handwriting is on the wall, plain to see for all. With the rapid sweep
> and accelerating scope of technological development, most people will be
> left behind. Just sitting there you are becoming relatively more ignorant as
> a sort of inflation of the mind occurs all around you. There is no way you
> can keep up with it all, so how is a normal person going to do it?

> These are the options for normal people:
    
    
        1 Exterminate them.
        2 Enslave them.
        3 Pay them to stay home and play video games.
        4 Trick them into make-work and drudgery.
        5 Something else...

~~~
sp332
I like this article a lot except the confusion about unions. Without some kind
of organization of workers (you don't have to call it a union) the people with
money will own the computers and they will use them to do plans 1-4. A union
is a way to harness the political will get the future described in the
article.

------
swayvil
Do guaranteed minimum income. Give everybody a computer and lots of free time.
If 0.001% of those people become hobbyist software developers it will pay for
the program in a year. And we will probably get AI in two.

~~~
trendia
The total US tax revenue in 2017 was $3.422 trillion.

If you split that evenly among 300 million people, each would get $11,000,
which is half of the poverty line of $22,000.

Even if you thought that little money was acceptable, to afford it you'd have
to cut:

1\. all military programs

2\. all existing social security programs

3\. all government infrastructure projects

4\. all education programs

5\. ...

~~~
petermcneeley
Is this an honest reply? The middle sees no real change in total income, the
only the extremes see changes in total income.

~~~
trendia
My post is describing why minimum income would not result in everyone getting
$50,000 a year.

~~~
petermcneeley
Not that I would advocate for such extreme lack of incentives but US gdp per
cap is over 50k. Doesnt this mean that you could in theory give everyone 50k?

------
mtgx
Invest heavily in retraining programs, tax concentrated wealth (of individuals
and companies) more deeply, and prevent mergers of already huge companies -
especially mergers from the same industry.

------
pravinva
Start from first principles, jobs are costs. We wanna reduce costs. Also,
exports are costs, imports are the benefits. It is counterintuitive to most
people, however

------
trhway
Robots don't come for government jobs?

~~~
sp332
Solution: the government should hire everybody. They've already got a good
start with about 2% of all workers directly employed and another 2% working
for contractors. Add state and local government with another 8% of the working
population and we're well on our way to full employment. I'm kind of joking
but it's interesting to think of job creation projects like WPA taken to a
further extreme.

------
creaghpatr
And despite all of these concerns, the NYT frequently and consistently
advocates for increases in low-skill immigrants, the very people who will the
government will need to support when the 'robots come for [their] jobs'. The
question is which of those 2 arguments are disingenuous?

~~~
meritt
That's not the case at all. It's very cost-ineffective to automate low-skill
jobs because the human capital has historically been extremely cheap. There's
a reason we don't broadly have robots cleaning our houses, landscaping our
yards, providing in-home care, picking fresh produce, or providing general
construction labor.

It's the precisely the lack of these low-skill workers that will drive the
necessity of automation, because the cost of hiring people will become too
expensive.

Quartz published a well-research article last year on the same topic: "Low-
skill workers aren’t actually the ones most threatened by robots"
[https://qz.com/1010831/the-middle-skill-job-is-
disappearing-...](https://qz.com/1010831/the-middle-skill-job-is-disappearing-
in-rich-countries/)

------
bobzibub
Make robots pay the equivalent income tax as the people they displaced.

------
paul_milovanov
Build a big, beautiful wall.

~~~
hinkley
Robots are doing that too.

------
mozumder
Raise everyone up a level to make sure they can perform jobs that robots can't
do, like get an advanced degree or incorporate a business. Make it a
requirement for citizenship.

~~~
sp332
You run into diminishing returns pretty quickly that way. Having an advanced
degree doesn't prevent a robot from taking your job. Maybe we should let the
robots do the work and find something cool to do with our time instead.

------
Proven
The government should do precisely NOTHING.

The jobs don't belong to workers, so the premise is entirely wrong to begin
with.

~~~
exabrial
This is correct. It's not the government's job to provide you a job, it's a
personal responsibility to find one, if you want one. If you seek one, the
government might provide some minor worker abuse and discrimination
protections, but this in no way implies you have entitlement to a job or even
income.

~~~
ModernMech
So you're saying that even though the government promised us that exalted "job
creators" deserved tax cut to create jobs and increase wages; and even though
those same corporations took those tax cuts and paid themselves and bought
robots with it instead of meaningfully boosting wages (where is my $4k every
worker was promised?); and even though most of that money stayed at the top;
and even though we'll be paying off that money far into the future; and even
though the government continues to erode worker's rights; and even though this
system has created people who have more money than they could possibly spend
in 10 million lifetimes while others are starving and homeless; you're telling
me that despite all that, it's our own damn responsibility to find a job, and
the government plays no role here in a future where the game was rigged the
entire time so that capital owners could control everything?

------
baybal2
>If the Robots Come for Our Jobs, What Should the Government Do?

Nothing

~~~
burkaman
Would you answer this question differently: If the Robots Come for Our Jobs,
What Should Society Do?

