A Robot Tax Is a Bad Idea

This is an automatic summary, original reduced by 81%.

In 1979, 40.5 percent of the working age population in the U.S. held such jobs; that share stayed constant for another decade, but then, by 2014, it dropped to 31.2 percent.

It's mostly people, both men and women, with a high-school education or less who accounted for the decline, Cortes, Jaimovich and Siu point out in a just-published paper; some of them ended up out of work, others took non-routine manual jobs – became waiters and other service workers or, say security guards.

Conventional wisdom says automation caused the less-educated Americans to lose their routine jobs and forced them either into unemployment or into the service sector.

Automation did play a certain role in determining less-educated workers' life choices.

In other words, for workers in routine occupations to keep their jobs, it wouldn't be enough for a government to raise the costs of automation.

Out of the entire available arsenal, he would only be able to pick increased taxes on automation – but that wouldn't reverse the trend away from routine jobs.

Summary Source | FAQ | Theory | Feedback | Top five keywords: work#1 automation#2 jobs#3 income#4 Hamon#5

Post found in /r/Economics, /r/economy, /r/Futurology, /r/Stock_Picks, /r/BasicIncome, /r/RobotNews, /r/technology, /r/totallynotrobots and /r/realtech.

NOTICE: This thread is for discussing the submission topic. Please do not discuss the concept of the autotldr bot here.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: