FINALLY!!!

[peristaltor]

From the NYT, some sanity regarding the completely screwed-up tax laws that are contributing to our growing un- and underemployment problem.

We may not want to tax innovation, but there is no reason to subsidize investments that are designed merely to take away jobs. At the very least, a tax on robots would force businesses to think harder about when and where to deploy them.

This advance of technology into the work-place need not be relegated solely to the robots, as the article notes. Simply define "robot" more generally as a piece of technology that makes a job easier to do and you find that this has been a problem for decades, if not centuries. I may get deep into the weeds of this problem… later.

Comments

[peristaltor]

Drop a modern tractor in front of them, with a couple of handy attachments. Five of them will do the work that took all season in a couple of days. The other 95 will kick back and do nothing. Praise be.

What's different currently about this cycle of innovation that is actually upsetting people? Nothing.

Okay, not "nothing." Some thoughts. "Kick back and do nothing?" Yeah, but idleness is not something that feeds either the mouth or the soul.

Your example is, in fact, exactly what happened when the tractor was introduced to agriculture in the early part of the last century. Sharecroppers who had until then been living on the land (because, of course, someone's commute was a walk), caring for the horses or oxen that pulled the plow, and driving that plow as straight as they could, were suddenly evicted. The Grapes of Wrath and real-life Tom Jodes were born of this upheaval.

I did a bit of research into the invention of the stocking frame, the machine that knitted stockings. The inventor, William Lee, appealed to Queen Elizabeth for a patent. She denied it, on the grounds that it would cause upheaval in the cottage industry that then knitted the stockings by hand in the off-harvest times of the year. He improved the loom, allowing it to make better stockings, and appealed to James IV, Elizabeth's successor: same message. No patent. Too disruptive.

With every piece of tech, there are people who own it, people who use it, and people who are affected by it without either owning or using it. The linked article here is raising questions (not perfectly, I fully admit) about how the current laws favor only those who own the tech, not anyone else.

I think the better solution is more direct.

I fully agree; here, though, is a bit of a rub: ownership of patent and/or machines to do the work increases capital accumulation in exactly the people you wish to Better Solution More Directly, including, yes, those GD banksters.

[garote]

We should call it Better Direct Solution More, so we can refer to is as BDSM. :D

Interesting tale about the stocking frame. Do you think it was the correct decision? I get the impression that the women hanging out at home knitting stockings might have had a different opinion than the royalty -- if they'd been allowed by society at the time to make better use of themselves.

I was being a bit sarcastic about "kick back and do nothing". Back in the days of peasants, if the tractor had suddenly appeared, the lords would most likely kick the suddenly redundant peasants off their land. Roving bands of angry, hungry peasants would become a problem, and there would probably be a confrontation and a slaughter, since the Peasants are Revolting. But I don't think this hypothetical bungled deployment of the tractor is an argument against the tractor. It's an argument against the feudal system.

Also, when you say, "the current laws favor only those who own the tech, not anyone else," I don't think that's truthful. All the usual capitalist effects still apply. The people who use this still largely hypothetical robotic white-collar human replacing tech, even without owning it, still derive benefit from it the usual way: They get work done and don't have to spend money supporting a human for employment purposes. And the people who neither own or use the tech still derive benefit from it in the usual way: If the service is cheaper without a robot performing it, the price goes down.

Unless of course there's a big fat monopolistic electronics company sucking all the money out of the economy by fixing the price and using the difference to buy up any potential competitors.

As an aside, I learned recently that an acquaintance of mine - a software developer turned IT manager at my old stomping grounds inside Apple - recently let herself get poached back over from Google where she'd been for a few years, and now makes a yearly salary of $450,000. That's not including other stock and healthcare benefits, that's just the cash portion of her salary. Among other things I could say about that wage, I think it's proof that too few companies are making too much money, and need some real competition.