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.