The Specifics of the Robot Minimum Wage Plan

In case you have not had a chance to see my short scenario describing The Robot Minimum Wage Plan (RMWP) please take a minute to read it to get up to speed on the concepts we are discussing here.

It's been a while since my last post ... sorry about that. No excuse, just life getting in the way sometimes. 

Since the last post, there have been umpteen articles and scenarios in the media about robots taking jobs and government funded guaranteed income for all. Even the big tech gurus are talking about it. So, let's accept that there is a problem, and move on from that and discuss in more detail how my RMWP solution could work.

Firstly, to reiterate, the plan endeavors to tap into capitalism to fund and maintain the minimum wage system ... not government handouts or higher taxes for anybody. This is where the idea differs and why I think it is something that would be supported by the majority of citizens in most countries.

But, I need help to flush out the details and that is why I created this blog. I'm hoping to get feedback and ideas from people who know much more that I do about various aspects of the plan.

Let me break it down here and ask you to give your feedback. Bear in mind that I am an engineer and strive to keep things as simple as possible. That's how we get things built :-)

Part 1 - Convincing Industry to Adopt the Plan

Role 1 - Robot System Manufacturers 

The concept here is that robot manufacturers and system providers (this includes process automation software and systems) would change to a leasing system rather than outright sales and ownership transfer. They would act more like an employment agency in some ways. Their robots or systems would be leased to companies at an hourly rate as though they were employees. 

For this to work it obviously must be just as, or more, profitable to the manufacturing company. My simple brain tells me this would not be difficult and in fact because of the expensive nature of robotic systems, it may be advantageous to offer them as though they were employees. It seems to me that more small companies would be able to afford to implement them without the large capital outlays required today. 

Thoughts on this?

Role 2 - Robot System User Companies

The companies who use the products and services would treat the systems as if they were employees and pay an hourly wage rather than own them outright. The wage would be broke down as follows:

• Part A - Lease fees paid to the system manufacturer above. 
• Part B - Income taxes and payroll taxes paid to the government. Tax rates would be determined based on the hourly wage of the robotic system. Need an economist to simulate the effects of this on the taxation system.
• Part C - Contribution to the RMWP (Robot Minimum Wage Plan). This amount would be determined based on the number of employees replaced by the robotic system.

Of course, the end result here is that the company must make a profit doing whatever it is they do. The decision of whether or not to use robotic systems instead of humans would be made based on the economics of this model. In some cases I expect that humans would remain because the are cheaper or better suited to the job.  

Thoughts on this?

Part 2 - Designing and Operating the Plan

Role 3 -  The RMWP (Robot Minimum Wage Plan) 

There are probably many ways to set this up but I think it would need to be closely tied to the government so it has the power it needs to collect and distribute the funds. Maybe something like the IRS since the roles are somewhat similar.

This institution would be responsible for:

• Determination of contribution and distribution levels based on a system designed to be as simple as possible. That's what this blog is for :-)
• Collection of revenue and distribution of wages to qualified recipients
• Oversight and enforcement of the plan. 

This institution should be designed to operate mostly with AI / Robotic precision as far as collecting and distributing the funds. It could be a model for government to follow in other areas. 

Thoughts on this?

Role 4 - Government

Since new laws would be required to make this work, the role of government would be to make those laws and give the RMWP authority to carry them out. Whatever shape that takes would depend on the type of government in place for each participating country.

That is all the government should be involved in!

Thoughts on this?

Part 3 - Living with the Plan

Role 5 - Society

Now we enter the human equation and we need to be careful not to oversimplify here. In a society that embraces the plan we would expect and encourage evolution from what we have now to what we want to have in the future. Here's how I think we could start to look at the plan in action:

Entrepreneurs & Business Leaders

Existing incentives for success must be maintained although the goalposts may move.

Government Leaders and Politicians

How do we move away from re-election mania to responsible governing again? I can't answer this one but perhaps a society that sets different goals will encourage that.

Professionals and Educators

This group responds well to higher ethical standards and I suspect would see opportunities to use their influence to encourage a more equitable way of life. Again, as long as they can still be motivated with monetary and status rewards. We also need to be aware that some of these professions will be affected by the loss of employment due to automation and AI so the RMWP must take those jobs into account as well.

Ambitious Individuals

Again, we need to encourage and reward ambition just as we do today. Higher education must be rewarded with higher earning power and status. The goal posts will move however. Careers will shift to areas where robots cannot affect status and employment. This should be a good thing for the advancement of the society.

Average Citizens - The Middle Class

These are the folks who will make or break the plan and also the ones who should benefit the most if it is done right. The cheese will move (different jobs) but the RMWP should work to ease the pain and encourage the transition. The amount and disbursement of the minimum wage must be targeted to those who are most affected but the amount should not be enough to deter ambition.  

The Working Poor

Families who are just scraping by are the ones who need the most help because ... they are just scraping by ... and their jobs are the most at risk by automation in general. The RMWP disbursement amount should be designed to lift them out of poverty and give them a chance to improve their standard of living by taking on basic work to add money to the minimum amount they receive. The trick will be to recognize value and monetize basic care-giving work because this may be an area where these folks can best be employed. People helping people. It may even be that many of the jobs available would be shared / part-time positions but if the RMWP can provide enough for basic survival then the additional work need only do light lifting to improve lifestyle.

Disabled, Unable to Work, Unwilling to Work

There will always be unfortunate or unwilling people who cannot or will not fend for themselves. The RMWP should give them a minimum income on which to survive. Other existing or new government support programs would still be needed to cover the multitude of special needs of this sector of society. With the RMWP however, the cost of this support should be reduced.

The Future - Our Children

If the RMWP can raise the average standard of living, the most benefit should go to the children. They would grow up with a different set of values based on different upbringing and career goals. Not having to scrape out a living should improve the attitudes of their parents. The children themselves should see a more open playing field and better access to education and opportunity. 

Thoughts on this?

OK, enough from me. Please send me your thoughts on this plan and if you know others who may be interested please pass it on to them. Especially if you know the likes of Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet or other influential thought provokers out there who see and care about the future of their country, children and society. 

Please take a moment and comment with your impressions (just click on the comment link below). This is meant to be a brainstorming session so your opinions are what will keep it going.

Robotic Process Automation & AI

In case you have not had a chance to see my short scenario describing The Robot Minimum Wage Plan (RMWP) please take a minute to read it to get up to speed on the concepts we are discussing here.

If your only vision of robots taking jobs conjures up a silver humanoid beast working in a factory then we need to look further into our definition of robots and expand it to include artificial intelligence (AI) and a swiftly growing industry called Robotic Process Automation (RPA). If we think of computers as robotic brains then the processes they perform are related to our dilemma. Computers have been replacing humans for years and yet they have enhanced our existence and made many things commonplace that would have otherwise remained impossible. 

Part of the reason that computers have not hurt the job market so far is that we have still needed to feed data into the computers to make them useful to us. Initially punch cards were used to communicate our needs to those transistors ... then keyboards and now more than ever sensors input the data directly. With AI and a bunch of sensors and logic the robot brains can now experience the environment and learn cause and effect from that. Connect all those brains to the cloud (a huge central brain) and the body of experiences grows exponentially. Now add a bunch of very smart programmers whose goal is to teach that huge brain to use its knowledge (data) to think for itself (AI) and find and solve business problems that we did not even know we had. Voila ... RPA!

And guess what one of the main goals of RPA is? Look deeply into our business models and figure out how to improve efficiency and make more money. Why is this industry growing so fast? Because it can save big money without adding expense. A company can make more widgets, sell them at the same price without adding cost = more profit. 

Now guess how RPA improves efficiency ... replace the weakest links, namely those humans that need care and attention and can only work 8 hours a day. The game changer here may be the kind of workers that are displaced by RPA. Not the factory workers we are used to hearing about but how about lawyers, accountants, managers and the like. Business processes can include just about everybody so no one is immune.

Here are a few articles I have recently read about RPA:

Robotic Process Automation (RPA) - The Future of Outsourcing

Key Best Practices for Successful Implementation of Automation

Brave New World of RPA

The good side of RPA is again that it releases humans from repeatative work and enhances the output of businesses that make our lives better in many ways. It will lead to leaner and more productive companies that will in turn build us more products and services at lower cost. RPA and AI will also improve the essential services such as health care and public safety.

Imagine a scenario where you walk into a clinic and are recognized by a scanner which alerts your doctor and the big brain that holds all of your information plus everybody else who has ever been served by it. The big brain is in the room with you and your doc. He plugs you into a batch of sensors while you describe your symptoms. Big brain runs your sensor data plus verbal and image info through his AI system which compares you to thousands of other similar cases and comes up with the most probable diagnosis and treatment ... within a few minutes or even seconds. Nice. Oops, what did we need that doc for again?  Hmmmm. Could it be that we find simple human interaction becomes a commodity that we need and will pay for just to be there for us?

So how do we get there and still maintain the dignity and upward evolution of the human beings being served by the robots and robot brains.

Going back to my RMWP scenario, here is how I see it. If we start soon and introduce the concept of paying robots a wage, then we can gradually evolve the system. We would start with robots and jobs that are easily identifiable and work out a program that suits both the workers and the companies. Base the solutions on capitalism so there is a built in motivation on both sides of the coin. 

The company that makes robots generates as much or more revenue by leasing them to the company that uses them. The user company spends less to rent and pay the robots and produces more than it did with humans thus increasing profits. The displaced humans work less time at more satisfying jobs while earning the same overall income supplemented with the RMWP. The government receives the same tax revenue. 

Again, if we start with simple solutions, over time we could develop systems to handle other workers as problems arise. In fact using RPA and AI systems from the start would help do design the best possible solution models.

But, we can't just keep ignoring the problem and hope that it will go away or that retraining will simply solve it. We're not too big to fail but I hope that we are too smart to keep walking  down the road to failure.

The next and most important questions are about the logistics of this concept. How much government action is needed? Who designs the programs? How and where does the first application get tested and evaluated? 

Got ideas ... please send them to me via comments so I can share them and build on them next time.

Please take a moment and comment with your impressions (just click on the comment link below). This is meant to be a brainstorming session so your opinions are what will keep it going.

Who Will Lead the Way in the New Era of Automation

In case you have not had a chance to see my short scenario describing The Robot Minimum Wage Plan (RMWP) please take a minute to read it to get up to speed on the concepts we are discussing here.

Last time we talked about defining the problem and decided that indeed there is one. Since then I have seen several news stories about robots and jobs that seem to agree with that:

Robots could take over 38% of U.S. jobs within about 15 years, report says

U.S. workers face higher risk of being replaced by robots. Here's why

Robots, not immigrants, are taking American jobs

And a few more:

So far we're seeing lots of stories and not many ideas for solutions. Unfortunately the current government does not even see the problem yet:

Mnuchin on robots taking US jobs: 'It's not even on our radar screen ... 50-100 more years' away 

Not a good indication for workers in the US. There is definitely a disconnect.

Here is a relevant comment received last week:

Gideon A. MarkenMarch 22, 2017 at 6:05 PM

Your comments regarding the McDonald's example reminds me two points in today's current environment - President Trump's son can't find people to pick grapes in his winery and is requesting work visas for individuals from Mexico to do the job. Coal miners in Kentucky say they are disappointed that the President hasn't yet taken actions to put them back to work but they are certain he will.

The rust belt and environmentally damaging jobs won't/can't return just as some won't work at McDonald's short-term jobs because they are beneath them.

This isn't a political observation at all but it points to a trend where there will be a growing gap between the haves and the have nots and at some point we have to do more than just encourage people to enrich their education/expertise or they will be left even further behind. There is a tremendous amount of work that has to be done to bring our national infrastructure - transportation, communications, services - globally that has to be done and much of it admittedly will have to be manual labor intensive providing a bridge work/income flow for perhaps the next 10 years. That can/should be enough of a buffer to raise the income and educational levels of segments of society in the short term.

This will give the governmental and educational sectors some time to develop/implement programs to enable people to be equipped to handle system support positions, data management/movement jobs and skills that will be needed tomorrow.

As you noted our transition from an agrarian society and activities involved in growing/harvesting food shifted people to communities of people who ultimately evolved to data processors/handlers/movers. The key is not whether robots are good/bad for business/society but how do we prepare and move into the next phase of humanity.

Programs will have to begin - coordinated effort of government/business/education - to view what workloads will be best carried out by augmented intelligence and robots and what will the human - reasoning - factor be in this new environment. The challenge is it won't happen by accident and planning for displacement is also not a popular agenda...until it becomes a crisis!

Thanks Gideon, you hit the nail on the head. The RMWP is one idea of a program that could work. There are many other ideas out there to examine. Bottom line though ... we need to pay attention to this issue before it becomes a crisis as Gideon says.

Who Will Lead the Way in the New Era of Automation?

Based on what the current administration in the US saying, let's assume we are out of the running for the time being. Maybe if we are lucky the quote from Winston Churchill will hold true - "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." 

Most likely countries like Finland, Norway, Switzerland and Canada will take the lead and in fact there have already been a few experiments in the direction of Guaranteed Income for ALL. OK, I can hear the screams of socialism from here :-)  Well, lets face the facts. Modern socialist countries are nice places to be humans. Just look at any of the multiple articles about the best places in the world to live and they are always near the top.

But, I don't think the pure socialist solution is a good option either, so, rather than going for a virtual handout paid for by taxes, why not incorporate a capitalist element to help pay for it and spread around the success. In fact the RMWP should enhance the lifestyles of society by encouraging advances in technology and automation. 

China is another country that may advance this idea as their middle class grows and the economy settles into one where competition for jobs becomes more important. It would be fairly simple for China to take over the ownership and production of robot systems and rent them to industry under a RMWP type system as Gene suggested a few posts ago. 

India is big into software and service for business and they export much of that to other countries via call centers etc. Robotic Process Automation (RPA) is the application of technology that allows employees in a company to configure ‘software robots’ to capture and interpret existing applications for processing a transaction, manipulating data, triggering responses and communicating with other digital systems. This may be something that impacts India and forces some changes in this industry. How they handle that is beyond my knowledge of their politics but the question is relevant to the future.

It's a big world out there and I'm sure there are other places that are already talking about these issues as well. As technology advances it's interesting to note that new companies (or countries in this case) will have an advantage over the established ones in that they do not have to tear down existing infrastructure or embedded capital structures in order to implement new strategies and systems. I think it will only take a few successful adventures into the realm of robotic taxation in order to start the ball rolling in other societies. I can hardly wait :-)

Help us out if you have insight on this topic from the point of view of another country or this one (US) by commenting below.

----- 

 Now, here is another comment received last month:

NidsiTales / NidsipoetryMarch 23, 2017 at 12:32 AM

The human vs. machine debate raises head time and again. It is an inclusive discussion and instead of us pondering on the versus aspect, we must look at the complementing aspect. Neither can survive or thrive without the other, so lets stop pitting one against the other.

Moving on to the minimum wage discussion - the premise that organizations may be penalized for improving efficiency and productivity is contrary to the principle of business. The answer lies in upskilling and improving employability of the workforce. Giving them handouts is both insulting and crippling them for future.


If you look at the RMWP scenario you will see that I don't talk about human vs machine at all. In fact I am looking for a system whereby humans can benefit greatly from the work of machines while still advancing technology and human ingenuity. What I do believe though is that we can't just ignore the sector of society that is unwilling or unable to "Upskill". For that reason I propose a minimum wage for all and offer increased living standards for those who seek that via careers in a modern society.

-----

OK, that's it for me today. Thanks for listening and please let me know what you think.

Please take a moment and comment with your impressions (just click on the comment link below). This is meant to be a brainstorming session so your opinions are what will keep it going.

Defining the Problem ... If there is one?

In case you have not had a chance to see my short scenario describing The Robot Minimum Wage Plan (RMWP) please take a minute to read it to get up to speed on the concepts we are discussing here.

A few of the comments that I have received talk about whether or not the advancement of robotics will or will not actually put people out of work. Here for example is an article on the topic:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/digital-transformation-small-medium-enterprise-rick-huijbregts

A few quotes from the article are typical and worth discussing:

Digitization may challenge established processes, jobs, and companies. But for every job that may fall victim of innovation and digitization, new jobs will be created instead. 

Over 150 years ago we had more than 70% of the population work in the agriculture sector. Today, this is 5% or less. And this shift didn't mean that we have everyone else without a job. In turn, consider new employment that come with startups and digital companies such as Uber. 

At RoboticsTomorrow we have published many articles talking about the same issue and there is a valid argument to agree. In fact to a certain extend I do agree. Skilled workers can probably be retrained to fill the new jobs created by new companies and new technologies. 

Is There a Problem?

I'm just very unsure whether unskilled and under educated workers will be able to cope in new and highly technical workplaces. For example, I think many of the agricultural workers mentioned ended up performing unskilled labor in other fields or assembly line work that did not require special skills. Also, the breadth of the future changes is vast and in my opinion will decimate jobs in many industries almost simultaneously (i.e. within a decade or so). 

Nor do I think that the proportion of unskilled labor to skilled labor can evolve at a pace that would compensate for the disruption. Maybe someone reading this can enlighten us on the historical shift in labor skills.

Lets look at MacDonald's for example, and maybe this will help us decide not only if there is a problem but also give us a broader definition of what a robot is in the context of our scenario. Suppose MacDonald's decides to install kiosks where customers can place their orders, as well as automatic burger makers and dispensers. This is not far fetched at all and points to several somewhat scary job facts:

• Is a kiosk a robot?  I would say in our scenario, yes it is. It is an electronic device which replaces a human being, in this case the order taker.
• The automatic burger maker is also a robot and combined with the dispenser probably replaces another human being.
• A normal MacDonald's could probably reduce its staff by at least 2/3rds and maybe more with these technologies. What industries are there that would create the new jobs for these people, given that if MacDonald's can do this so can every other fast food outlet.
• A new fast food outlet starting from scratch would most likely be based on using robots for as many tasks as possible with available technology. It's business model would only include humans where absolutely necessary to manage the robots.

So, for our discussions, lets take the position that yes, there is going to be a problem. Given that, we should take the engineering approach and spend some time defining the problem before we get too far into finding solutions.

Defining the Problem(s)

1. With the advance of digital technology many jobs done by humans, especially unskilled jobs, will disappear and will not be replaced by jobs requiring the same skill and education levels.
2. Without action by society (business and government) there will be widespread unemployment leading to poverty and unrest.
3. Lack of employment will lead to a shrinking marketplace for goods and services and a widening demand for social services and support. 
4. While retraining will provide a partial solution, it may also lead to a widening of the have / have not gap in society.

I welcome other comments that would help us further define this problem. (just click on the comment link below)

Here are some recent comments to discuss:

Gideon A. MarkenMarch 13, 2017 at 5:58 PM

The idea of a minimum wage which goes into a mysterious pool to benefit all is intriguing but not totally practical because the distribution/use is not fully defined. I agree with the concept of a tax as we levy for all equipment, people employed by an organization. Part of the resolution in this area is really a better definition of AI because it is not really artificial intelligence, it is augmented intelligence which means to be completely effective it is a joint learning process where the robot gains from the individual and the individual gains information, insight from the robot enabling him/her to break from ingrained habit and think about processes and activities in a different way. Ultimately - some will say simplistically - it is a symbiotic relationship that helps the individual do more, better, more efficiently, more effectively. Will there be some displacement? Certainly but the tax can then be used to assist the individual in learning, gaining new skills because most people want to learn, experience and grow and yes they want to have a feeling of self worth and value in their lives. For some the augmented intelligence provided by the robot will provide that permitting them to both grow. In other instances, the technology will have passed them by - such as in the mining industry requiring fewer people to do the task - and they can can gain new skills.

Again, while I agree with this in some cases, it is the unskilled and under educated workers that will need some form of financial assistance more than others because I do not feel that retraining will be enough to bring them into a new, more technological workplace. The question then becomes, what kind of jobs will society create for this sector of its population? In the RMWP scenario I describe a situation where working part time in personal care and service jobs could provide a partial solution but for this to occur, values may need to shift away from pure profit motivations. 

For those who can benefit from retraining the future is brighter than today in my opinion. I doubt that many doing tedious repetitive work would resent learning a more interesting job. But could we extend that to reducing work hours for all so that more people could work with less jobs in the marketplace? 

Mark March 15,2017

Personally, basing the payments on whether the person was displaced by a robot or another society challenge is too complicated.

I believe that we should offer a basic living allowance to anyone (including healthcare). If they don’t want to work, they can get enough money to survive. If they want to stay home, watch TV, play video games and smoke pot all day long, that is fine. It keeps them from getting into fights and committing crimes.   One of the few jobs that robots cannot replace is entertainment. (or I don’t think so). 

If they get bored or want to contribute to society, we provide education so that they can get fun, interesting and challenging jobs in society.

I know many young adults that play (or try to play)  video games 24/7. Why don't we have games that actually provide a society advantaged function – helping to calculate solutions to real world issues…

I think it's important to develop a system that supports capitalism and is not overly socialistic. Paying taxes so the unemployed can play video games will not sell in my opinion. I know I would certainly resent it. Having robots pay into the system however seems to me a palatable solution. My thinking in developing the RMWP scenario is that eventually the system would evolve to cover everybody, but it would need to start with a problem that we could identify and solve and gradually change the thinking of our society while observing the outcomes and changes to the way the marketplace responds. 

OK, that's it for me today. Thanks for listening and please let me know what you think.

-----

Please take a moment and comment with your impressions (just click on the comment link below). Could it work? I’d appreciate 2 points of view. Your first impressions and thoughts (positive or negative) followed by the opposite argument. If the first impression is positive (this could work because) then the second should be a rebuttal to the first (this will never work because). 

Getting More Specific - Can we define which robots should be included?

In case you have not had a chance to see my short scenario describing The Robot Minimum Wage Plan (RMWP) please take a minute to read it to get up to speed on the concepts we are discussing here.

Thanks to those who have been participating with their comments, It's interesting that the latest few comments are very specific in that they point out that their particular applications should be exempt from the RMWP.

So, maybe a good way to move further towards this solution would be to start talking about specific applications and the impact the RMWP might have on them. If you have an example that you are familiar with please leave a comment about it and we can have the discussion here.

COLIN KEIZERMarch 9, 2017 at 11:44 AM

Don't forget to carefully consider who owns the robot.

For example, we may very soon all have our own robot gardeners providing food, herbs, flowers, fruits and berries.

https://farmbot.io/

It's a bit expensive for casual purchase, today. But it's also Open Source, so I could build my own.

What other convenient, inexpensive Open Source robots will become available this year or next? I'm not sure I want my home garden and home manufacturing robots to be taxed, and I certainly don't want them to be taxed at the rates of an industrial production robot.

My thoughts are that firstly, yes, if you build it at home it is obviously not taking away a job so the RMWP does not apply. For certain we do not want to discourage Open Source and DIY robotics. In fact they should be encouraged because they may lead to even better solutions in the future. 

However, lets say a commercial vegetable grower replaces a bunch of people to incorporate one of your systems to grow vegetables for the market. Or lets even say he started from scratch and did not need to hire anyone to do the work of planting and harvesting but instead just uses robots to do that. In this case, I think it would be fair to include the robots into the plan and to pay them the wage. If this is an across the board requirement then it should be fair to all those in the business of growing produce.

------

DaveMarch 9, 2017 at 10:53 AM

I work in the robotic surgery training/support field- not in manufacturing. I like the proposal of industrial robots contributing to the tax base, but not the idea for a robotic minimum wage.

IBM used to have a slogan: "Machines should work,people should think." I agree.

Displaced workers should not be relegated to welfare/semi welfare livelihoods. People need purpose in their lives. Monies collected via a robotic equipment tax should be used wisely- to educate the displaced workers, helping them to provide for themselves and their families in new vocations or professions. That way, they win- and society does as well. 

I hate the thought that displaced workers would only be faced with minimum-wage job options- what a waste that would be. I hope the future will be better and smarter than that.

Me too, and this is one of the tough issues we will face no matter what in my opinion. In my scenario I state the following:

My friend and his wife choose to work 5 days a week and live in a nicer house and send their kids to private school. My spouse works at their daycare 3 days per week.

I have other highly successful friends who work in the robot industry … designing, building, installing and operating robots.

Nobody that I know works in a repetitive dirty job … the robots do that work.

My thought is that while we will need to provide basic existence for all, we will also need to encourage those who want more by keeping as much of our capitalist system in place as possible. There should always be opportunity for those who want to go after it, but it will just not be in the realm of menial tasks that robots can do. I think that is inevitable whether or not we address the issue of unemployment due to replacement of jobs. But, lets be honest. There will also be many who are satisfied with the minimum and there will also be those who want to take advantage of the medium route by working part time for some perks. We need to provide for all of those options. How to do that will involve much more detailed study and discussion but it must be a priority to any solution we arrive at in the future.

So, maybe a good way to move further towards this solution would be to start talking about specific applications and the impact the RMWP might have on them. If you have an example that you are familiar with please leave a comment about it and we can have the discussion here.

-----

Please take a moment and comment with your impressions (just click on the comment link below). Could it work? I’d appreciate 2 points of view. Your first impressions and thoughts (positive or negative) followed by the opposite argument. If the first impression is positive (this could work because) then the second should be a rebuttal to the first (this will never work because). 

If you're new please have a look at this Introduction before commenting. 

More Discussions about the Pros and Cons of the Robot Minimum Wage Plan (RMWP)

In case you have not had a chance to see my short scenario describing The Robot Minimum Wage Plan (RMWP) please take a minute to read it to get up to speed on the concepts we are discussing here.

Thanks to all of you who have and are taking the time to comment on this idea. I will probably stick to summarizing and replying to these comments for the time being until a consensus starts to emerge. Here are the latest:

UnknownMarch 1, 2017 at 10:56 AM
I think another important topic that will come up as we move forward is "what is a robot?" How will we define what machine and former operator would be deserving of this wage. I imagine every manufacturer would be looking for loopholes to avoid paying any taxes or wages so this would be difficult to regulate. A robot security guard might be an easy one to define, but what about factory automation where sensors and cameras do the sorting and quality control where humans previously worked?

Good point here and something I have given a bit of thought to. How about this: At the beginning  I think it would be relatively easy. Any layoff would have to be evaluated. The individual would apply for RMWP and the cases would be adjudicated, gradually building a database of yeahs and nays. In fact we could use AI to assist in this adjudication and it should not take long to form some standards. 

As time goes on, the standards could be widened to include a broader definition of the qualifications because each time a robot replaces a human, the pool of cash grows. This is a good thing and should lead to the eventual goal where there is enough money generated by robot wages to provide the RMWP for all.

Bear in mind that this process in itself would create some new jobs which is part of the exercise. If the new jobs are designed to fit into the part-time goal, that would help to change the direction of employment as the future evolves.

I know this is all pretty simplistic, but that is the essence of engineering ... keep it simple stupid :-)

-----

MegalenFebruary 27, 2017 at 11:41 AM
Robots are now expanding worldwide and in great numbers. When is the point at which, they start paying a tax? If this is not addressed soon, businesses will reject the idea that they have to pay a income to a robot when they already own them.

Yes, exactly why this conversation is so important. Almost every day I am reading another article where these concerns are being voiced in both positive and negative points of view. We don't want this to get too far ahead of us. It will not solve itself and like the Great Lakes, once the pollution has gone too far it is a huge and expensive task to clean it up.

-----

UnknownMarch 1, 2017 at 12:14 PM
I'm a robot software guy so I'm pushing for more robots but I do think Gates is partially right. The tax code punishes a company for hiring a worker rather than buying a piece of capital equipment. Make Humans an asset you carry on the books, that way if the human out preforms the robot, at least they won't be at a tax disadvantage. 

Even better use robots and humans together like we do at Jodone (shameless plug)

Collaboration with robots is already happening in a big way and I hope that never stops. In fact I would think that working alongside a robot could be one of the better part-time jobs for humans to have in order to enhance their minimum wage. 

Don't forget, in my original scenario, the company does not own the robots but instead they are hired from a robot manufacturing company so in fact both the robots and the humans are employees and could be treated equally as far as the taxman is concerned.   

-----

AnonymousMarch 1, 2017 at 2:59 PM
As an older established person I am very much concerned about the number of people, especially younger ones, being laid off from their employment to be replaced by robots. 

It is not just the loss of wages/excess time off for those laid off, but for those being served by/ or working with robots, it is the loss of human contact and relationships that get forged in a working environment that I feel is also a detriment to the human being.

As the saying goes “A person needs a reason to get up in the morning”. This is especially true the younger you are. Whether right or wrong it is so very easy to fall into a lethargic routine. If you are at or near retirement age this is not such a big deal as after working for so many years, usually the person has some activities they are looking forward to doing, and the dollars saved to do them.

But, as we cannot change the advancement of technology, the concept of a Company owner having to pay the robot the same wage as would have to be paid to a human is a good one. However, not every Company also offers benefits such as a pension income or medical/dental coverage along with a wage.
So how do you make it mandatory that a Company owner pays a robot a wage and benefit package equal to a human and that a certain portion specifically gets put into a RMWP (Robot Minimum Wage Plan) to distribute to the displaced workers?

I believe that this could only be achieved if it was an Administrative order by the Government and would have to be a law and regulated in order to make companies adhere to the rules. ….. and with the current Administration’s policy for deregulation, I do not feel confident that this would ever happen and displaced workers protected.

Yes, I agree that this idea would need to be regulated by the state in some form, at least as far as the administration of the plan and perhaps the enforcement of the standards and requirements. That being the case we can think of it like social security or state pension plans. The amount paid into the RMWP would include for some benefits just as any employment agreement although it may be beneficial to the success of the idea if the humans needed to work at their part time jobs to improve the benefits they can achieve. 

My worry on this topic is the perception that this plan only works if under a total government controlled system. Without some capitalist / competitive opportunities built in I fear the system would result in a pampered and underachieving society.

-----

Gene March 3, 2017
Would this idea work if all of the robots were owned by the government and companies had to hire them as needed?

Hmm, this is a possibility. My main reservation is again the lack of a capitalist / competitive atmosphere. I fear that innovation in the design of the robots would fall by the wayside and we would be left with an inefficient system that would not serve us well in the end. I suppose there are ways around this and perhaps more discussion is required here.

---

John BillingsFebruary 26, 2017 at 3:10 PM Robots & Slavery. Looking at this from a historical perspective, this may well be where common law can be excavated (pun intended) to understand the impact of sophisticated machine intelligence. Roman Law and that republic had a difficult time with first an abundance of slaves, then a lack of them. Robot intelligence will invariably be modeled on our own brains, an architecture pretty well understood and well modeled by current and future machines. As Bob points out, there will be a shift in what is available in manufacturing and highly trained technical fields (Doctors, Lawyers...many well be out of a job). IBM Blue is targeted at medical issues and is very successful. Human nature/history is bound to repeat itself in the treatment of robots. i.e. slaves. Slave driven economies could flood those countries with more 'even handed' policies with less expensive products. It will be a challenge to keep a lid on it, but I doubt that that will be successful. I contend that humanity will need more complex challenges which will drive - force .. innovation and ingenuity.

We looked at this a bit in the last post and it is an important issue. When I think about it though, is it really any better or worse than what we are facing with virtual human slavery in some countries right now. We would still need trade agreements between countries and regions that work for both sides. We have not been great at that in the past but the situation is improving in many ways and hopefully with robots and AI we can develop better methods of balance. 

I am intrigued by this statement though "I contend that humanity will need more complex challenges which will drive - force .. innovation and ingenuity."  We need to talk more about what this comment means and how it relates to our scenario.

To be continued...  

-----

Please take a moment and comment with your impressions. Could it work? I’d appreciate 2 points of view. Your first impressions and thoughts (positive or negative) followed by the opposite argument. If the first impression is positive (this could work because) then the second should be a rebuttal to the first (this will never work because). 

If you're new please have a look at this Introduction before commenting.