Robotics and the Next Big Policy Fight
Here’s What You Need To Know
As more and more jobs have become automated over the past few decades, political rhetoric has had to walk the line of decrying workers being replaced by robots and touting the economic successes brought on by increased efficiency. But, that conflict appears to be coming to a head with the predicted exponential growth of the robotics industry and of greater automation within the workforce.
Whether it is the growing autonomous car industry, further automation of industrial processes, or automation of more white collar jobs, policymakers are going to be forced to answer serious questions about how public policy can address the rise of the robots.
- Tech Leaders Call For A Universal Basic Income: Many leaders in the tech community, most notably Elon Musk, have called for the United States to establish what is called a “Universal Basic Income” (UBI) – which is essentially a social welfare program paying all citizens an untaxed, fixed amount regardless of their employment status. Tech CEO’s are declaring this policy a necessity to respond to impending mass automation. Look for those who may already support UBI to tout these arguments in any and all upcoming fights on the issue as it likely gains prominence on the left.
- If Welfare Is Broken, Fix It: On the other side of the UBI debate, business mogul Mark Cuban described the policy as “the worst possible response” to unemployment brought on by automation. Cuban, and others, have argued creating an entirely new system of welfare through UBI is unnecessarily disruptive, and the smarter move would be to work to fix the current system of social safety nets to improve their efficiency in the face of the threat of automation-related unemployment. Similar to supporters of UBI, watch for welfare reform advocates to embrace this as yet another argument for fundamental reform of these entitlements.
- Time To Tax The Robots?: Another proposed policy response recently offered by Bill Gates is to require robots – or more specifically their owners or manufacturers – to pay the taxes the employee that they’re replacing would have, and then to use this revenue to fund job retraining programs. Gates claims automation will be even more concentrated in the next twenty years than it was in the last. He also suggests that companies seeking to defend their efficient, automated processes should consider that public opposition could kill the future of automation even faster than any tax.
- Look To The Massachusetts Tech Tax: While Gates’ proposal didn’t offer specifics, the concept of a “tech tax” was actually attempted to solve the state of Massachusetts’ revenue problems in 2013. The plan created a 6.25% sales tax on a range of computer and software services, and was quickly repealed after tech firms argued the measure punished the state’s economic engine for its success. The companies argued that the measure stymied innovation by punishing the state’s most successful industry. Similar arguments will undoubtedly be made if serious attempts are made to tax robots, with businesses crying foul at the idea of taxing industries for becoming too efficient.
The UBI and tech tax debates only mark the beginning of the battles that are coming as policymakers begin to search for appropriate solutions to automation’s role in American unemployment, while balancing the need to help workers and to allow businesses to maximize efficiency.
Subscribe to Receive Insights
"*" indicates required fields
News You Can Use
Danielle DiMartino Booth, a former advisor to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, recently previewed her new book which outlines how the Fed transformed from its intended purpose of a lender of last resort to what she argues is now a “destroyer of American wealth.” In 2008, the Fed adopted a zero bound rate for “fed funds,” which made the interest rate at which banks lent money to each other on the overnight market the lowest is had ever been in the nation’s history. Booth contends that in enacting this policy, the members of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) effectively offered banks free money – even actually paying the banks to take the money – without any real analysis of how that new policy would impact the rest of the country. Then, when the Fed started its “quantitative easing” policy to continue buying Treasuries and mortgage-backed securities, its manipulation of the economy had essentially left the overall economy frozen in motion thanks to the unforeseen consequences of consistency low interest rates. Whether it’s major pension funds and public schools suffering from historically low yields on the bonds they once relied on, or baby boomers incapable of retiring because their supposedly safe retirement strategy was counting on better returns on their CD’s, each of these has a ripple effect the FOMC never considered in 2008. As the Fed comes under increased scrutiny by the new Administration and Republicans in Congress, how the U.S. central bank came to this point will be increasingly important if there are any hopes of refocusing it on its original mission of protecting the power of U.S. currency.
TPP TRUDGES ON?
The United States has officially withdrawn from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but that does not mean the agreement will cease to exist. As the other eleven countries in the deal contemplate their next move, Chile has invited each of them to attend a summit next month to discuss the future of trade in the Asia-Pacific region. TPP’s future, or lack thereof, could be decided at this meeting. And, the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand have already publicly declared their intention to push the agreement forward. There also remains an open question as to whether China will show up for this summit, which could further President XI Jinping’s efforts to cement his nation’s regional dominance in the absence of U.S. influence. The White House has also yet to confirm whether the U.S. will send a representative to the Chile summit. However, it’s clear none of the other trading partners are interested in waiting for the U.S. to move forward on their agenda, which could weaken Trump’s position in future bilateral trade negotiations.
WHO NEEDS BANKS?
University of Pennsylvania professor Lisa Servon recently spent time working as a teller at check-cashing stores to study why customers use the service. She discovered that the conventional wisdom suggesting a bank would better serve customers was entirely false. For their customers, check-cashing stores are actually cheaper, more transparent, and provide better service. A check-cashing store has fees, but they are up-front, clearly defined, and pale in comparison the hidden fees and unexpected maintenance costs levied by banks. The simple predictability of these fees is crucial to middle and low income families operating on a budget that cannot afford the surprise of a bank fee. Servon concluded that the economic elite who decry the folly of the “unbanked’ are simply incorrect in their assumptions about the illogical nature of check-cashing stores; these alternative financial services are actually savvy options for customers at specific income levels.
Related Posts:
KANDER COMPLICATES HIS FUTURE
Missouri Democrat Jason Kander came close to defeating Republican incumbent Senator Roy Blunt last election cycle. Between his successful rhetoric and a nationally recognized campaign ad, he came out looking like a fresh leader with a real future in the Democratic Party – until now. After losing his election, he formed his own voting rights group, with board members like Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood, Stephanie Schriock of EMILY’s List, actor Bradley Whitford, and three Obama Administration veterans. He also joined the board of the largest pro-Clinton super PAC, Priorities USA. Yet, these decisions could come back to haunt Kander by eliminating his outsider status and centrist appeal that allowed him to come so close to success in 2016, alienating the moderates who valued his independence in the last election cycle, and potentially damaging his political future in a purple state like Missouri.
TRUMP’S COURT
Most of the focus on President Trump’s ability to shape the judicial branch is currently focused on his nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch. But, the new President is actually positioned to shape the federal court system even more broadly. A recent New York Times analysis highlighted the fact that a stack of vacancies on the federal bench along with the abnormally high number of older judges could position Trump to fill more judicial vacancies than any first-term president in decades. The lower courts Trump could fill are incredibly important with only 15% percent of all cases brought before a federal judge even making it beyond a district court. The process of filling all these judgeships has yet to commence, but these historically quiet nominations could reshape the judicial system for decades to come.