A tax on over automized companies?

I have recently seen a thread discussing that government should give money away so that people could survive in this economy. Should Government give away free money?

This idea has been in my head for many years now but never really discussed. Sure there are pros and cons to this idea, but with how our economy is growing, corporations have become so efficient at what they do that finding jobs have become a problem for our society.

Its only logical for companies to build their companies towards becoming fully automized. It reduces costs so that more profit can be made. But we have become to smart and to good at doing this and we are starting to shot ourselves in the foot.

Here is one of many articles on the web that explains this occurrence.
The future of jobs

So here is my solution which I will explain its problems and hopefully with you we can piece together a solution that would fix this economy. In simple taxing Automation!!

When looking at Gross Domestic Product... GDP is
Y = Consumption+Investment+Government spending+ Exports - Imports

Looking at how this tax would affect GDP we can see that Government spending would increase relative to the size of the tax. With government spending increased the Government could implement the social program to "GIVE AWAY FREE MOENY" to legal residents of the US. Now that people have free money they have the freedom to live a happy life however they choose. Consumption would soar!!! society would still be competitive so small businesses that encourage hiring people to avoid this automated tax would increase jobs and increase Investment. With more investment Exports would increase. just from this understanding every aspect of GDP would be increased with this tax.

This all sounds great so far right?!? but this is were i get stumped..... how do you define whats automated and whats not automated in companies.... This has been puzzling me ever since I started pursuing this idea...

One thought is to tax companies relative to the ratio of people and profit this way even automated companies could bypass the tax via becoming a non profit organization which would start giving back to the economy rather than hoard the profits.

Your ideas to help this become reality is needed!!

We need this tax to be perfected and implemented and if this idea goes viral together we can make it happen.

a reply to: Sagitaris

I wonder how many countries are in a position to be able to make the radical changes to their societies that fully automated corporations would necessitate?

The principle you give is a fair one but I wonder how many in control of the automated corporations as they develop ,,will be open to the loss of prestige and wealth once their own jobs are automated? S&F

a reply to: Shiloh7

If some countries are still in the developing stages then they most likely arent dealing with the problem of corporations so automated that they are losing jobs from it. Those countries depend alot on people to encourage the growth of their companies. Whether different countries have corporations within them that are automated enough to support such a welfare program all depends really on how big of a welfare program that country needs to implement.

As for the Welfare program
Maybe Untied States could be 20k a year
and
Brazil something like 5k

It would all be relative to the companies that received that tax within the country and how much government spending increased.

Keep in mind with such a tax and welfare program implemented other social programs would become obsolete which would also increase government spending.

Our government could afford to give it's legal residents a million dollars each and not even miss it. When you think about the fact that there was something like 619 BILL I ON dollars that was lost in programs and nobody seems to know where the hell it went. If they would only tax us on things that really matter then they wouldn't have enough money to loose track of. Or if they would stop sending money to other countries and use it here where it is needed they could cut our taxes but that would be the right thing to do so it's not going to happen.

a reply to: Sagitaris

No matter how automated a company becomes, humans are still required in many capacities - even if that capacity is solely maintaining the machinery.

That doesn't even exclude the fields where mechanization is either impossible or generations away from being possible.

And THAT doesn't address the problem with "free" money. I am not talking about social programs for those who truly need them. In my opinion and experience those programs are a complete joke. I am talking about generating wealth to simply be handed out to everyone on an equal basis. That money would be utterly worthless as it would glut the monitary supply and trigger inflation.

Better social services, an honest Government, and intelligent taxation is all that it would take for any society on Earth to become a comparative paradise to what we currently have.

a reply to: Sagitaris

The problem with using taxes in a punitive fashion is that companies that are being penalized will find away around the penalty.

A flat tax, an even across-the-board tax would actually be fair.

As for the concept of the government giving away "free money"?

Funny thing that.

Before the government can give it away, they first have to take it from someone else.

originally posted by: JHumm
Our government could afford to give it's legal residents a million dollars each and not even miss it. When you think about the fact that there was something like 619 BILL I ON dollars that was lost in programs and nobody seems to know where the hell it went. If they would only tax us on things that really matter then they wouldn't have enough money to loose track of. Or if they would stop sending money to other countries and use it here where it is needed they could cut our taxes but that would be the right thing to do so it's not going to happen.

But wouldn't giving each legal resident a million dollars cost over 300 trillion dollars? Putting us then over 317 trillion in debt?

How could that work?

originally posted by: Hefficide
No matter how automated a company becomes, humans are still required in many capacities - even if that capacity is solely maintaining the machinery.

That doesn't even exclude the fields where mechanization is either impossible or generations away from being possible.

Yeah, I challenge any current tech/machine to prep a site, plaster walls and ceilings, fit coving, build block/brick walls, render them, and clean up quicker and better than I can with my bag of hand tools.
Automation may work in a production factory setting, but until robotics improve substantially, the human body can get into tricky working areas, and assess job specific needs much better than a machine can in my game. I hope that remains the case as I actually enjoy my work...and being superior to machines.

Automation is a red herring. We use computers in work, but somehow we're all still busy! The big car manufactures have robots on the production lines, but now have people maintaining an building the said.

The dream of factories employing no people will never be realised, especially when you can use cheap labour in China!

Regards

I think we should all be concerned for our future. There are things computers cannot yet handle, sure, but it's not because it's not possible. All of our jobs are simply waiting for the automation to catch up. Intelligence isn't really needed in the vast majority of situations... just pattern recognition, and an appropriate feedback mechanism.

This is going to be a real problem if our current economic systems continue to constrain our ideas about earning your keep. No matter who you are, or what you do, someone out there is working on a way to replace you with a machine that can do it faster, cheaper, and more consistently than you can ever learn to. That includes servicing the machines. So learning to fix them is not the solution. Learning to live with obsolescence may be the solution. What do we do when we don't have to do anything? How can we say we've earned our keep when everything we can accomplish is inferior?

Self-fulfillment as currency? In a world of abundance, can you help others accomplish their own goals? (At least until a machine takes over there too...)
a reply to: grainofsand

a reply to: CrikeyMagnet
Interesting thoughts, and I cannot say I particularly disagee with any of it.
In an AI future I couldn't compete with the consistency of work by a robot...but I'll continue to compete as a human, and I don't think I'll be working by the time robotic tech advances enough to turn up at someones house and beat me negotiating in a quote for work.
I imagine that day will come in the future though

a reply to: CrikeyMagnet

Now you have tabled the technological singularity - an event which is impossible to see beyond.

Some of the brightest minds tend to believe that we are on the verge of evolving and that life and technology will by synonymous and symbiotic.

Then again, the Terminator scenario could play out as well.

The only reasonable prediction that one can make about this event is that it will profoundly change what it means to be human - for better or for worse.

originally posted by: paraphi

The dream of factories employing no people will never be realised, especially when you can use cheap labour in China!

Regards

Depends on the business. Even today, we could replace Congress with about 500 ATMs. Lobbyists could just deposit their bribes directly. You would just need to arrange for them to go out of order long enough to match Congressional vacations.

So, why didn't they put a punitive tax on car companies for not building machines that used horses the same way that buggies and carts did? After all, think of all the buggy and cart horses that were aimply put out of work by the widespread over-automation of transportation, not to mention all the people who were put out of work when the horses were put out to paster - farriers, harness makers, buggy and cart makers, the people who swept horse apples off the streets, whip makers, etc.

Why didn't we do it then if this is such a good idea?

a reply to: ketsuko, Hefficide , CrickeyMagnet

I would argue that it wasnt a problem for multiple companies as it is today.

Society today is affected by automation in nearly every business and with how things are being perfected, more and more will become automated to a point that its not logical for people to be able to provide to society what machines are already doing at a more efficient rate.

There is a point that we become so efficient that we can take care of multiple people with the work of a very few.

when it comes to that point what do you do?

Hefficide I really think this is the solution. inflation can be battled with interest rates and taxes. this social program to give "free money" is the bare minimum for people to live. whether they choose to make more for their lives is up to them.

This idea prevents the hording of money and provides fuel for the economy rather than displacing large amounts of money from the economy.

SO lets assume CRICKEYMAGNET is right and we do become so efficient that we become self sustained. how do we care for the people when our businesses deprive them the option of work?

HEFFICIDE you said inflation would be a problem. what if it wasnt free money but free housing or free healthcare? then cash wouldnt be implemented. the social programs would maintain society while corporations produced the majority of wealth like they are doing now.

ATS you didnt critique the idea of taxing the ratio of people working to profit in a company. This focuses on the point of how well a company efficiently automates its business. It would encourage companies to hire people rather than go automated which would provide jobs and prevent the problem of over automated companies depriving citizens of work.

originally posted by: CrikeyMagnet
No matter who you are, or what you do, someone out there is working on a way to replace you with a machine that can do it faster, cheaper, and more consistently than you can ever learn to.

That's what they said.

Yet, you have millions and millions of cheap and expendable hands in China ready and willing to assemble your latest iPhone cheaper than any expensive proprietary automation machine can.

a reply to: igor_ats

Even china is starting to feel the sting from competition doing better with more automated companies.

As Labor costs rise, china turns to more robotic workers

theres a nice graph that shows how much each country has adopted automation within their factories.

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: CrikeyMagnet

Now you have tabled the technological singularity - an event which is impossible to see beyond.

Some of the brightest minds tend to believe that we are on the verge of evolving and that life and technology will by synonymous and symbiotic.

Then again, the Terminator scenario could play out as well.

The only reasonable prediction that one can make about this event is that it will profoundly change what it means to be human - for better or for worse.

Technology is cause and effect. People wanting to use the tech for a better way of life will be trumped by the Terminator machines from those that don't want to give up power.

Lose lose.

originally posted by: igor_ats

originally posted by: CrikeyMagnet
No matter who you are, or what you do, someone out there is working on a way to replace you with a machine that can do it faster, cheaper, and more consistently than you can ever learn to.

That's what they said.

Yet, you have millions and millions of cheap and expendable hands in China ready and willing to assemble your latest iPhone cheaper than any expensive proprietary automation machine can.

Except that is not really true. About four months ago I watched a report on one the financial channels that was touting the return of businesses to America and heralding it as a reversal in the trend of outsourcing and they focused on one company that had recently returned. But, as they went through the segment and showed what the company had done it turned out the only reason they returned was because the cost of cheap Chinese labor had begun to exceed the cost of fully automating their entire process. The company originally employed around five hundred US workers, moved to China where they could employee a thousand Chinese workers for far less and when they finally came back their entire operation now consisted of forty people Forty people who could work in shifts and maintain the machines running twenty four seven. Machines that could do the work of a thousand Chinese laborers.

Automation will replace not only the American workers but will eventually replace the cheap foreign labor as well. Now many people can argue you will still need people and true you will, but far less then you did before. Like that company in that report form five hundred, to a thousand, to forty all thanks to automation. If your lucky to be one of the forty then great, to bad if you are one of the 1,460 former employees.

a reply to: prisoneronashipoffools

do you think tax on companies will be the ticket to encourage government spending so government can implement social programs to sustain citizens?