They're going to tax the productive autonomous systems (whatever you want to call them, robots, AI, etc).
The politicians are not going to have a solution as fast as the job losses mount. They're going to want to force-fit the solution into their existing way of thinking, into existing frameworks, what they've always known politically and that means taxation + redistribution through existing channels.
If you replace a fastfood worker with a robot, as an owner you're going to pay a fee or tax for that. Politicians will justify it by saying it will go to unemployment benefits or similar.
They're also going to pass laws restricting productivity gains by robots and AI. A fastfood worker can't work 24 hours per day but a robot can. Laws will start to be passed in the near future, stipulating that if you want to use autonomous systems to replace human labor, then your autonomous system can only function near the capability of a person in terms of hours worked or total output potential.
It'll be called the Fairness in Autonomous Labor Act (of 2032).
I think you are quite correct, and that you've outlined a much more likely scenario than politicians implementing a workable universal basic income.
Sales of socially harmful goods (such as alcohol, tobacco and petroleum) are already taxed punitively to restrict their use and implement harm reduction. It's easy to imagine politicians implementing similar laws to restrict the sale of robots.
I suspect that such laws would not be very successful at addressing the problem but then I can't easily think of any laws work entirely as intended. If robots are to be taxed, it is their use which should incur the penalty, not their sale.
Jobs have been automated before since the beginnings of humanity, there is nothing really different this time. When the crisis of '30s hit, the U.S. government stepped in and employed the jobless en masse for infrastructure projects on national level. Problems to absorb large amounts of manpower exist, they are only waiting to be subsidized. I'm not saying that something handicapping as penalty for the automation gained efficiency could not occur, it's just unlikely for a rational mind to recourse to that.
Comments
They're going to tax the productive autonomous systems (whatever you want to call them, robots, AI, etc).
The politicians are not going to have a solution as fast as the job losses mount. They're going to want to force-fit the solution into their existing way of thinking, into existing frameworks, what they've always known politically and that means taxation + redistribution through existing channels.
If you replace a fastfood worker with a robot, as an owner you're going to pay a fee or tax for that. Politicians will justify it by saying it will go to unemployment benefits or similar.
They're also going to pass laws restricting productivity gains by robots and AI. A fastfood worker can't work 24 hours per day but a robot can. Laws will start to be passed in the near future, stipulating that if you want to use autonomous systems to replace human labor, then your autonomous system can only function near the capability of a person in terms of hours worked or total output potential.
It'll be called the Fairness in Autonomous Labor Act (of 2032).
I think you are quite correct, and that you've outlined a much more likely scenario than politicians implementing a workable universal basic income.
Sales of socially harmful goods (such as alcohol, tobacco and petroleum) are already taxed punitively to restrict their use and implement harm reduction. It's easy to imagine politicians implementing similar laws to restrict the sale of robots.
I suspect that such laws would not be very successful at addressing the problem but then I can't easily think of any laws work entirely as intended. If robots are to be taxed, it is their use which should incur the penalty, not their sale.
Jobs have been automated before since the beginnings of humanity, there is nothing really different this time. When the crisis of '30s hit, the U.S. government stepped in and employed the jobless en masse for infrastructure projects on national level. Problems to absorb large amounts of manpower exist, they are only waiting to be subsidized. I'm not saying that something handicapping as penalty for the automation gained efficiency could not occur, it's just unlikely for a rational mind to recourse to that.