How long before Republicans decide to redistribute wealth?

Traditionally skilled jobs at factories paid very well. But these jobs are disappearing. Partly this is due to outsourcing (or off-shoring, or whatever you want to call setting up factories in other countries), but the bigger part is automation.

The latter rarely makes the news. When, say, Ford announces a new plant in Peoria, they trumpet the fact that it will create X thousand jobs. They don't say with older equipment the factory would need 1.5X thousand workers. Nor do we hear about small layoffs for piecemeal upgrades which happen now and then at older factories. But the loss of factory jobs has been going on since the late 60s, well before free trade deals and other changes allowed for U.S. factories in China or Mexico.

Now a few other well-paying jobs are imperiled. One notable example we're hearing a lot about now is truck drivers. Autonomous vehicles are coming, and trucks are a natural use for them. Potentially, an autonomous truck on a long journey could drive from A to B making stops only to refuel. It would need no stops for meals, sleep, or bathroom breaks. This would take hours of delivery drives, and this means more deliveries per truck per year.

We hear less about jobs that AI systems may make obsolete, like paralegal work in law firms. For that matter, accounting software in use for decades has decreased the need for accountants in many firms.

The free market, laissez-faire view on this problem is that new jobs will be created and people will take these jobs. With the acknowledgment that there may be some dislocation for a while. This has proven to be true at times. But not at all times. For one thing, some of the jobs available don't pay nearly as well, others require investing in re-training.

IN the 90s there was much talk that the US, as well as other developed nations, were transitioning from a manufacturing economy to a service economy. this is not exactly true. Manufacturing output in the US hasn't fallen along with employment. But more people are employed in service jobs. So as far as employment goes, it is true. The thing is service jobs pay much less, largely because they're far easier and thus can count with an abundant supply of potential employees.

A further problem is that many of these service jobs can be automated or eliminated as well. This is nothing new. remember when gas stations always had an attendant to pump the gas and check the tires? These jobs are so easy to do, literally 99% of drivers can do them. And so most gas stations in the US are self-service. speaking of which, Amazon thinks they can do away even for the need of a checkout line at convenience stores. If that works, I see no impediment to scale this up for grocery stores.

When Democrats propose a higher minimum wage, they're told this will lead to lower employment. That's the obvious consequence. After all, big companies can automate some jobs, or do without them (dumping some duties on other employees), and small businesses may not be able to afford the higher wages. Nevertheless some states have raised the minimum wage to $15 an hour, in stages, and we'll see what happens.

But the trend is for fewer jobs with lower pay, regardless of whether or not jobs move across borders. It's easy to underestimate how many jobs can be eliminated, but one need merely look at farming. Look up how many people worked in farms in 1900 and how many in 2000. also look up how much food was produced when.

And what happens then?

For every robot worker, tax the company for 50% of the salary of the workers that the robot replaced.

The company still saves money, and everyone else, including the displaced workers who get jobs elsewhere, will get a tax break, as long as the government doesn't just spend the additional tax revenue.

Eventually, taxes from robot workers could completely fund the government, and might even result in payments to the people.

That way, products are still produced, and people are paid not to work and can still buy the products that are still produced at some "labor" cost.

Think of it as the robots sponsoring the people that they put out of work.

The government might need to unionize the robots to make sure they are taxed a fair wage.

Don't expect campaign promises to ever come to fruition.

Just today the UCalifornia system admitted to outsourcing their IT jobs to India.

Quote: Dalex64

For every robot worker, tax the company for 50% of the salary of the workers that the robot replaced.

The company still saves money, and everyone else, including the displaced workers who get jobs elsewhere, will get a tax break, as long as the government doesn't just spend the additional tax revenue.

Eventually, taxes from robot workers could completely fund the government, and might even result in payments to the people.

That way, products are still produced, and people are paid not to work and can still buy the products that are still produced at some "labor" cost.

Think of it as the robots sponsoring the people that they put out of work.

The government might need to unionize the robots to make sure they are taxed a fair wage.

This will simply convince companies to build overseas
or
get taxed and go out of business because similar production facilities in other countries will produce cheaper products without the artificial tax

Quote: terapined

This will simply convince companies to build overseas
or
get taxed and go out of business because similar production facilities in other countries will produce cheaper products without the artificial tax

Trump already has the answer to that - tax the companies that go overseas, implement trade barriers for companies that are already there.

Quote: Dalex64

Trump already has the answer to that - tax the companies that go overseas, implement trade barriers for companies that are already there.

So you support trade wars instead of free competition
Trade wars means higher prices and lower employment for Americans
China can put Boeing out of business

Quote: terapined

So you support trade wars instead of free competition
Trade wars means higher prices and lower employment for Americans
China can put Boeing out of business

Free trade encourages putting locals out of work now. NAFTA. That great sucking sound. All of that business going to Mexico where labor is cheaper.

Quote: Dalex64

Free trade encourages putting locals out of work now. NAFTA. That great sucking sound. All of that business going to Mexico where labor is cheaper.

Tariffs lead to higher prices all around and also put people out of work.

Look, free trade is a complicated subject, that cannot be reduced to a catch phrase. Think instead as to why there is an article in the Constitution granting Congress sole authority to regulate interstate commerce. Because otherwise you might see states erecting trade barriers to other states. A few years back, Boeing set up an assembly line in North Carolina. This upset a lot of people in Washington state. Now, how about if Washington had slapped a 35% tariff to products from NC?

So, if you have free trade, jobs go to the countries with the lower costs.

If you enact trade tarrifs, you raise prices, put people out of work, and jobs end up in the countries with the lower costs.

If you use automation, you lower costs and put people out of work.

If you don't use automation, you put a lot of people to work in the contries with the lower costs.

Now, let's look at China. they have lower costs. They can send stuff to our country for cheap. they have trade barriers preventing us from doing the same. we don't want to raise trade barriers because that will raise consumer costs. China wins.

1) Businesses typically will look for the lowest possible costs. Now, this is more so regarding big companies, which tend to be more efficient than smaller ones. Also, small business often lack the means to find the lowest costs on their own. That's why so many small businesses are associated through franchise deals with big companies.

2) China is not part of NAFTA and has never been part of it.

It's hard to get business to break it's lowest cost addiction, because mass market consumers tend to want the lowest prices possible. Look at airlines. People bitch about lower standards of service, the lack of complimentary everything, fees, etc. But the ultra low-cost model is thriving, which depends on a low fare and fees for everything but a seat and breathable air. But also because investors demand the highest return for their money. A company that raises wages has to justify doing so, and will likely resort to market conditions to do so. If investors don't like it, they can always divest, in this case by selling off their stock holdings. This drives share prices down and reduces the value of a company.

Big companies are also good at getting around regulations and taxes, or are able to meet them without going broke. So if you mandated a high minimum wage, big companies can cut jobs, reduce expansion plans, or pay the higher wages. Small companies tend to go out of business instead.

Suppose you instead mandated giving each employee a percentage of the company, in the form of shares of stock they couldn't vote, nor sell, and had to return if they left the company. This, too, costs the company money.

The thing is, no matter what you do, there won't be one person responding to your regulations. That is to say business is not a monolithic entity acting in unison. There's be as many responses as there are businesses. And that's whence unintended consequences come from.