I'm not a luddite. I think that automation is good, but I don't think that it makes humans permanently redundant. The human skill set is too diverse. Automation should be encouraged, not taxed, because it makes society wealthier and more productive.
"I think that automation is good, but I don't think that it makes humans permanently redundant."
Technology has already made people permanently redundant in many places and will continue to do so. There is a near zero percent chance that technology will stop advancing to replace people's jobs. As we march forward with new automation, there will be a net loss in jobs. UBI is an attempt to solve that problem.
Examples of permanent redundancy are tricky to see, because even when people don’t really do a job anymore at a large scale, there are still humans involved, just way, way fewer. Examples are:
Computers - not microprocessors but “computers” which were people who did the work of calculating stuff before calculators were invented.
Lumberjacks - we have logging equipment now.
Musicians - we have DJs and radio to provide us music.
Yes those are examples of technology, but there aren't vast swaths of homeless lumberjacks and mathematicians. Humans are remarkably adept at learning new skills when previous tasks have been automated.
Traffic lights eliminated the jobs of police officers standing in the middle of the road with a whistle. That policeman didn't become homeless. He got reassigned to a more productive role or found a new employer.
I actually agree with you on this if taxation is framed as a way to discourage something. But the goal is to encourage automation but ensure it benefits society, not just a wealthy few, so…
> because it makes society wealthier and more productive.
It does not. It makes some people ridiculously wealthy and makes everyone else poorer.
Would you say that the tractor for instance has only made John Deere wealthy, or has it made the world better off?
Has the motor vehicle only improved the life of the Ford family or would I be better off with a horse and carriage?
Have personal computers only made Bill Gates and Michael Dell richer or have they benefited the human race as a whole?
All of these are examples of automating laborious processes. All of them have made inventors wealthy and the world a nicer place to live. The economy isn't zero sum where to make one person richer another must necessarily become poorer.
You are correct that the economy is not zero sum. It is not black and white, but the primary beneficiaries of automation are those who have the investment capital to leverage automation at scale. The rest get a better world sometimes, but our benefits pale in comparison.
