Pv Bracket,Pv Support Bracket,Pv Panel Mounting Brackets,Solar Pv Mounting Brackets Sowell Electric CO., LTD. , https://www.sowellsolar.com
Should the robot be taxed?
Regardless of how much Microsoft wants to give a computer a hammer, Bill Gates is certainly not the "Ladder" of anti-technology. But in a recent interview with Quartz, Gates expressed doubts about the ability of society today to respond quickly to automation. After thinking about it, he said that in order to prevent social crises, the government should consider taxing robots; if automation slows down, it would be better. Regardless of how much Microsoft wants to give a computer a hammer, Bill Gates is certainly not the "Ladder" of anti-technology. But in a recent interview with Quartz, Gates expressed doubts about the ability of society today to respond quickly to automation. After thinking about it, he said that in order to prevent social crises, the government should consider taxing robots; if automation slows down, it would be better. The taxation of robots is a fresh and unclear idea of ​​whether or not it is feasible. To a large extent, this also reflects the difficult challenges that accompany automation. [Ludule]: During the industrial revolution, the textile workers in England advocated to imitate a man named Ned Ludd who broke the factory equipment to resist the labor-saving technology brought to the factory. The term Ladd molecule comes from Ludd's surname. Today, the term Lund molecules still refers to people who believe that technology has more harm to society than benefits. After a long time, robots with their own consciousness, private money, and even personal accounting may be taxed as aggressively as you and me. But this is not Gates's point. What he advocates is that today's robots should be taxed, either by companies that install robots or by companies that have saved manpower because of robots, and in the end they have to bear the taxes. The taxes collected can be used to retrain workers or to fund medical or educational institutions. This type of organization provides jobs that are difficult to automate. Like a blast furnace or a computer in a steel mill, a robot is a capital investment. Often economists do not support the taxation of such things because these investments can increase economic productivity. Taxing them will hinder investment and make people poorer. However, Gates thinks that investment robots are a bit like investing in coal-fired generators: while boosting economic output, they also stimulate social costs, which are the “negative externalities†of economists. [Negative externality] Also known as external cost or external diseconomy means that a person's behavior or the behavior of a company affects other people or companies and causes them to pay extra costs, but the latter cannot obtain corresponding compensation. . Or the costs incurred by third parties other than the parties to the transaction that are not reflected in the price. Perhaps rapid automation can cause workers to lose their jobs faster than new departments absorb the speed of these workers who lose their jobs. This can lead to costly long-term social unemployment and potentially support destructive government policies. From this point of view, taxation of robots that cut costs may be a worthwhile step. Just as the taxation of blast furnaces with polluting emissions can reduce pollution and make society better, it is a good thing. However, the reality is more complicated. Investing in robots makes labor more productive than being abandoned. Paying taxes to robots can make the situation of the affected employees even worse. Some workers may feel sad because they are replaced by robots, but overall the situation of workers may be better because of falling prices. Reducing the speed at which robots enter the health care field and allowing the human labor force to do such work seems to be an effective way to maintain social stability. However, if it means that the cost of health care is rising rapidly and the workers’ income is swallowed up on a large scale, then victory has become a "victory that is not worth the loss." The most thorny issue that Gates proposed for taxing robots is that automation does not happen too quickly, but is too slow. The replacement of machinery by machinery should be manifested as the growth of productivity and the acceleration of economic growth. However, since the rapid growth of productivity in the early 2000s at the end of the last century, the progress of the U.S. economy in these areas has been disappointing. Gates is very worried about the upcoming automation era, where machines take over driving or warehouse management jobs. However, in an economy that has already been flooded with cheap labor, the company's labor-saving technology investment pressure is too low. When the people who are willing to take the minimum wage are lined up waiting for the employer to give themselves a job, why does the latter have to work hard to upgrade their own warehouses? From this point of view, Gates’ proposal to increase taxation for robots may further delay the already prolonged productivity boom. When robotic intelligence comes fast, robots may not be the right tax target. Automation should be seen as replacing capital with capital. In order to prevent over-poverty, some capital gains in the economic system must be converted to replace labor. Expansion of capital ownership is a strategy; for example, people can use a car to do a taxi, and then calculate the income of the taxi as their own income. Another strategy is to tax the robot and redistribute the income tax. Once machines replace humans in production, they will encounter no more setbacks in income than humans. For decades, the share of wages in overall income—the “workforce shareâ€â€”has been declining. The surplus of labor is partly responsible for the fact that those who have a shortage of production factors—such as Silicon Valley’s land or protected intellectual property—possess bargaining power. The surplus of machines and human labor will be comparable. The factory can produce extremely complex machine equipment quickly and in large quantities; the production cost of a second or 1 millionth piece of software is almost zero. Every truck driver needs to be guided one by one, but the automated driving system can be copied indefinitely. The oversupply of machines means that their share of the gains from economic growth will not be much more than the current surplus labor. In a recent study, Prof. Simcha Barkai of the University of Chicago listed the following conclusions: Although the share of income flowing into the pockets of workers has shrunk in recent decades, the share allocated to investment capital (including robots) has decreased even faster. What really makes money is those that make money by controlling costs. Similarly, a work paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) in January showed that the decline in the labor force share is closely related to the rise of “superstar companiesâ€. More and more markets are making "winners take all" - dominant companies can make the most lucrative profits.