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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
#1 - Lease vs sale will become the model producers ultimately evolve to as we have with large systems and software. Can it be on an hourly basis? Probably not because the added financial management/supervision overhead could be a higher cost than the ROI. Given that however having the systems "report back" on a monthly basis would enable to "bill" for the robotics usage with a monthly minimum plus overages. Keep in mind also that this would restructure the companies financial reporting - no major sales but deposits and long-term returns. It would be an on-going revenue stream for the firms.
ReplyDelete2 - I'm reluctant to consider the concept of the company paying robotic taxes (withholding). Doing this also leads to greater humanization subjects such as sick leave/downtime, equal rights, retirement funds for aging robotics which could become very problematic.
3. Again a "minimum wage" also leads to further humanization (how will the robot feel after she finds out that she is receiving a lower salary than the male robot?) Harassment as to how the support person handled/treated the robot in question? You are taking the robot down a path of humanization that perhaps we can't retreat from.
4. The government intervention leads to political issues that I'm not prepared to think about.
5. The societal issues are going down a different path where we are attempting to humanize AI/robotics rather than focus on humanizing humans. This perhaps (while afield) is an area of greater concern.
You need to find like minded people that can discuss this in a forum format and perhaps take this to another level
ReplyDeleteHave you considered going or joining this one?
https://www.forumforthefuture.org/forum-network
@Gideon I think the situation you're referring to isn't humanizing so much as anthropomorphizing. As machinery acquires ongoing AI upgrades, humanizing will become a natural byproduct. While you're example is valid, gender issues are not going to exist with AI. If you've ever done any kind of VR role play, you eventually discover that people tend to gender shift their avatars. How do you tell if a female really isn't a male? It becomes a matter of personal choice to the AI.
ReplyDelete@Bob What will eventually come to pass is the AI will want it's own paycheck. Then what happens? The business owner winds up with leased hardware, and still having to deal with the complexities of payroll. I think we all agree that taxation on hardware services isn't a viable option. Perhaps a third party leasing/employment program will work, but as it stands now, there are a crap ton of variables that need to be addressed on a first come first served basis.