By the same logic the person who was put out of work by a piece of software made by Microsoft should result in the company using the Microsoft product to create value should be taxed as well. Right? So his statement that robot companies should not be concerned is pretty disingenuous if you ask me. Of course they will be concerned along with the companies. We should be coming up with incentives to give people jobs rather than negative reasons to stop them from disappearing. Like would many companies hire more people if the government paid them a subsidy to hire more people? Probably they would. Those same people pay income tax so it middles out or something.. :)
I think Gates meant this more as a thought experiment, since he can't seriously think we can define a "robot." We need to find ways to cope with the speed of automation, by finding more revenue for putting displaced people back to work. How can we get the labor participation rate (62% and dropping) back to the pre-recession levels, as we fight both aging and automation.
> How can we get the labor participation rate (62% and dropping) back to the pre-recession levels, as we fight both aging and automation.
You don't? You use automation to deliver consumer excess so people don't have to work anymore. The problem is not the automation and job loss; its who is capturing the benefits (ie corporations and shareholders).
Slavery is wrong (communism). Not allowing the patenting or copyright of automation or algorithms is just fine (socialism).
Note: In my scenario, I'm not taking your ability to operate you own automation or code away; I'm simply removing artificial government restrictions on its use and distribution. What the patent and copyright office giveth, they taketh away.
Also, creators are going to create even if they're not permitted to reap outsized rewards from their creations.
EDIT: Since HN throttling has kicked in and I can't reply directly:
> Limiting the returns means limiting the risks people are willing to take.
@skookumchuck: If your basic needs are met, what risks are you taking? How is it different than founders who come from rich families so a startup has no risk?
The more people we can meet the basic needs of (again, with automation), the more people who can take "shoot the moon" risks safely.
