Slashdot Mirror
Countries that Are Most Highly Invested in Automation (ifr.org)
A report by the International Federation of Robotics looks at the countries that are most highly invested in manufacturing automation. The countries with the ten highest densities of robots are, in order: South Korea (631 per 10,000 workers), Singapore (488), Germany (309), Japan (303), Sweden (223), Denmark (211), United States (189), Italy (185), Belgium (184), and Taiwan (177). Overall, the automation of production is accelerating around the world: 74 robot units per 10,000 employees (up from 66 in 2015) is the new average of global robot density in the manufacturing industries.
We're a nation of specialists: scientists, engineers, programmers, etc. This means our manufacturing is heavily weighted toward bleeding-edge technologies which are very difficult to automate because they have complex construction and assembly, are relatively new, and are quickly replaced by newer versions. Our tool manufacturing is mostly automated already, but things like HPLC machines, DNA sequencers and such are high price low volume devices which have major overhauls in their design on an annual basis.
If one robot is worth 100 workers, then it means automating your entire workforce would increase the standard of living by 100x.
Only if your entire workforce keeps working. Technology increases the output of human labor (the only cost). To increase the output of human labor by 100 times, you create technology whereby the effort of 1 human labor hour produces the same output as previously requiring 100 human labor hours.
If you make a machine which runs itself and keeps running without maintenance or other human input (like fuel), it's incurring no cost. If it runs forever, the output is infinite. On the other hand, if it costs 1,000 human labor hours to make it, it replaces 10 human labor hour per thousand hours of run time, and it runs for one hundred thousand hours, you're breaking even. Think about solar street lights with LED bulbs.
That's such a huge increase that all sorts of welfare and UBI programs which are currently mathematically unsustainable (without amassing debt), becomes roundoff error.
Actually, we can do that today, without raising taxes. Add in healthcare and the blunt plans there are something like a 0.9% tax cut on the rich, and no corporate tax increases; although you need to do a little adjustment there (see further down). The Dividend isn't really a UBI, but something new--related, though.
I shoved the payroll tax for retirement and disability benefits up to the top tax bracket and got 43.7% instead of 39.6%, along with a bit of a mess along the way for effective tax rate in total. The ETR is higher in 2016 at $50,000, in that model; that changes rapidly, moving upwards and narrowing the gap between 2016 tax policy (ignore the TCJA; I'm repealing that) and the model. You can repair it in 2016 by raising the top tax rate in total to 45% and adjusting the income tax brackets to be more progressive--really a crucial step to clean up the mess I've made in all this restructuring.
With OASDI staying on payrolls, two things happen. First, payroll taxes get backshifted into wages, so you don't get the wage boost (or price cut, depending on who you ask and how you look at it long-term) and employment increase (always) of reducing the cost of employing people. Second, you have that 0.9% tax cut on the top income earners, which you can reclaim to help fix the slight increase in ETR. By 2022 (earliest this can actually happen--Trump will veto), you can have that scenario without actually raising anyone's taxes.
So... Dividend alone: no homelessness, no hunger, increases available jobs (probably full employment?), decreases cost of welfare (make people less-poor), trivial to pull off without increasing taxes in 2016. With universal healthcare: A little tougher to do without tax increases in total on someone, although probably can pull it off in 2022. Shunt OASDI payments entirely onto the rich: likely 45% top tax rate instead of 39.6%, higher wages at the low end, and lower unemployment (if we're not hitting permanent full employment already).
This plan practically requires cutting working hours to avoid a labor shortage. I'm looking for a 7-hour work day or a 4-day work week.
Support my political activism on Patreon.