This is a platform for User Generated Content. G/O Media assumes no liability for content posted by Kinja users to this platform.

Yes, Jobs Are Being Automated -- But A Robot Tax Won't Help

In an op-ed in Wired last week, he outlined his plan to cope with

increasing levels of automation:

— First, a new federal agency to oversee automation and safeguard jobs and communities.

Advertisement

— Second, not allowing corporations to deduct investments in

job-destroying automation from their taxes.

— And third, a “robot tax” on large companies that eliminate jobs through increased automation.

Advertisement

Having spent the past five

years helping companies and organizations come to grips with the nature of exponentially accelerating technologies, I can tell you that de Blasio is not wrong to be concerned about technological

Advertisement

unemployment.

Last week, IBM released the results of its latest survey, suggesting that 120 million people globally will need to be retrained due to machines and artificial

Advertisement

intelligence within the next three years.

But de Blasio also falls victim to one of the most common mistakes people make when they think about the future: He imagines that it will

Advertisement

look exactly like the present, only automated.

We’ll still have the same big companies, he envisions. Except they will have fired all the people and bought a whole heap of robots.

Advertisement

Except it doesn’t happen that way.

Sears didn’t disrupt its own supply chain, catapulting itself into the future at the expense of its employees. Amazon disrupted Sears

Advertisement

— and the rest of retail.

How does a robot tax help hotel employees displaced by Airbnb?

As Azeem Azhar, who writes the excellent Exponential View, points out, “to focus only on those workers who lose their jobs through automation is too narrow… Job losses in the

Advertisement

retail sector, for example, are not coming as a direct result of automation by retailers… This shift is more than automation. Fundamentally, the economy is changing.”

Back in

2016, David Wong wrote an article examining some of the reasons for Trump’s rise. Instead of a red state

Advertisement

versus blue state election, Wong argued, it was an urban versus rural election. We might have bounced back from the GFC at a national level, but all of the recovery went to the cities — leaving rural

America disconnected and disaffected.

“See,” says Wong, “rural jobs used to be based around one big local business — a factory, a coal mine, etc. When it dies, the town

Advertisement

dies. Where I grew up, it was an oil refinery closing that did us in. I was raised in the hollowed-out shell of what the town had once been… If you don’t live in one of these small towns, you

can’t understand the hopelessness. The vast majority of possible careers involve moving to the city, and around every city is now a hundred-foot wall called ‘Cost of Living.’”

Advertisement

The oil refinery didn’t replace the jobs with robots. Maybe if they had they could have stayed open. And this is another thing de Blasio gets wrong: by focusing only on forcing companies that

currently employ lots of people, he makes it more expensive for them to automate, making it more likely, not less, that they will be put out of business by an automation-first

Advertisement

startup.

Forget about the robot tax. Close tax loopholes on corporations generally. Make it easier for gig economy workers to get employee protections (California has just done this

Advertisement

with a law forcing Uber and Lyft to treat drivers as employees). Institute a minimum basic income or at least a guaranteed minimum income (a reverse tax if your income drops below a certain

amount).

The robots are coming for our jobs. Let’s make sure our defense is a good one.

Share This Story

Get our newsletter