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.