YeuEmMaiMai
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2004
- Messages
- 34,179
yes it is as it illustrates the absurdity of the argument of "hey give me more of your money for my lame ass idea"
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Bill Gates: Robots Should Pay Taxes
- Thread starter Megalith
- Start date
dgz
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2010
- Messages
- 5,838
Oh. Sounds about right. Someone on this forum told me the German globalist government is trying to destroy capitalism. How do you reason with such people
All that stuff is getting automated too. The data entry stuff in particular has been undergoing a silent automation revolution in the last few years for any sort of skilled or semi-skilled work.
Its a big part of the reason why lawyers have been getting screwed big time for the last 6yr or so. There used to be a ton of bread n' butter gofer' work that didn't pay a lot but did pay the bills that new lawyers would do while learning the ropes at a new practice or just starting out and its almost all gone now. Tons of lawyers out there now from T2 or T3 schools that used to be OK now stuck with 6 figures worth of debt and can't get a job. T1 grads have a better chance but even they aren't doing good. Only the exceptionals are doing good and there are very few of them so of course their income isn't undergoing the race to the bottom that everyone else's is in that field.
YeuEmMaiMai
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2004
- Messages
- 34,179
Bill Gates article said:
they are both saying people cannot adapt so lets tax the people that can since they are working... (hint only people who are owners aka working at their business or own robotics will pay this BULLSHIT tax that they will pass right along to you the consumer of their goods).
Its not that people can't adapt its that there will nothing to adapt to since the jobs will no longer exist.
And Gates is specifically talking about using the tax money to create other jobs that aren't subject to automation which wouldn't exist without those funds and won't exist without govt. intervention in the quote you copied and pasted.
You're projecting your biases and seeing things that aren't there.
YeuEmMaiMai
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2004
- Messages
- 34,179
^ what part of they can "take their own money and put it where their mouth is" is confusing? I do NOT WANT TO PAY ANY MORE TAXES for stupid things that people dream up like this one....he can use his own money how he sees fit.
That's the problem with people have no trouble spending other people money on their stupid ideas.
That's the problem with people have no trouble spending other people money on their stupid ideas.
Unless you're a robot factory owner, and you probably aren't, you won't pay anything for the sort of tax Gates is proposing.
YeuEmMaiMai
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2004
- Messages
- 34,179
so you think that companies pay taxes eh? Think again... you as the consumer do... want to come up with a better position?
I mean, OK. Let's say that what you say is true (hint: it's not) and we pay for that tax. In the end, it's to create jobs for people who lost their job due to automation. In turn, this will stimulate the economy... Which will stimulate compeition... Which will result in lower prices. Now, let's say that we don't want to pay taxes.
Those people will be left without jobs. The economy will (eventually) sink, and everything will get more expensive.
In my experience, people like YeuEmMaiMai are operating from an entirely different value system, so if what you're saying doesn't adhere to it, it has zero resonation. Most people can look at this situation and realize that if there are more people who need work than there are available jobs, something needs to be done to prevent massive poverty, starvation, economic collapse and upheaval, etc. Maybe this comes in the form of more taxes, maybe this comes from universal income, maybe it comes from something else. The point is, we need to figure out something or else things will get absolutely terrible for huge portions of the populace.
Now move over to YeuEmMaiMai's camp and I believe he's operating from a different perspective (he's free to correct me). In his view, THE MOST IMPORTANT things are property rights and the non-aggression principle. So what's his is his, and what's yours is yours. NOTHING else is as important. Hundreds of millions at the poverty line or starving? Not his problem and not part of the equation. The ONLY thing that matters is property rights. Everything else is either secondary or irrelevant. So if a new small tax saves millions of lives, that's irrelevant, property rights have been violated, therefore it's an abomination.
I think if you look at it from this reasoning perspective, his logic will be more consistent.
That's a tired Keynesian argument. I didn't think there was anyone left who still believed Keynes' theories were right...about anything.
If the government TAKES money, that money (some or all) gets LOST to UNPRODUCTIVE uses compared to money which is UNTOUCHED by the government. Government bureaucrats are parasites. Sure, some parasites are useful to the host, but not all are nor in unlimited numbers.
Saying that a tax will improve a situation is blind fantasy and assumes that the government "knows" better what to do with that money than the citizen who would otherwise have it.
Do enhanced production techniques mean fewer laborers in that field? Maybe. Perhaps lower prices would mean an increase demand which would stimulate more production. Gotta build that factory...
Technological advances create workplace displacement...and opportunity. You're forgetting the opportunity part and also forgetting that reduced supply stimulates demand.
Why would a factory use robots instead of people? Because they can reduce the cost to manufacture their widget. If there's competition, then the price paid for the widget would decrease. (Look at how intel is suddenly offering sales and rebates on their cpus now that AMD's Ryzen is about to be released with some pretty enthusiastic rumors about performance: competition is driving down the price.) Sure, widget factory workers would be unemployed, but robot factory workers would be hired to build the new robots.
Unless you think working in a barrel factory is a lifelong job...for anyone ever hired? Or a wagon factory? Or should we still be making rope and chain by hand?
The rhetoric of fear is used to gain power whenever a change comes along. This is just another facet of that same technique.
If the government TAKES money, that money (some or all) gets LOST to UNPRODUCTIVE uses compared to money which is UNTOUCHED by the government. Government bureaucrats are parasites. Sure, some parasites are useful to the host, but not all are nor in unlimited numbers.
Saying that a tax will improve a situation is blind fantasy and assumes that the government "knows" better what to do with that money than the citizen who would otherwise have it.
Do enhanced production techniques mean fewer laborers in that field? Maybe. Perhaps lower prices would mean an increase demand which would stimulate more production. Gotta build that factory...
Technological advances create workplace displacement...and opportunity. You're forgetting the opportunity part and also forgetting that reduced supply stimulates demand.
Why would a factory use robots instead of people? Because they can reduce the cost to manufacture their widget. If there's competition, then the price paid for the widget would decrease. (Look at how intel is suddenly offering sales and rebates on their cpus now that AMD's Ryzen is about to be released with some pretty enthusiastic rumors about performance: competition is driving down the price.) Sure, widget factory workers would be unemployed, but robot factory workers would be hired to build the new robots.
Unless you think working in a barrel factory is a lifelong job...for anyone ever hired? Or a wagon factory? Or should we still be making rope and chain by hand?
The rhetoric of fear is used to gain power whenever a change comes along. This is just another facet of that same technique.
See this is the part I would like to hear more of. The industrial revolution created tons of jobs because it opened all kinds of means of production that weren't possible before, and workers were needed to run and maintain the new industries popping up everywhere. So you may lose your job as a barrel maker, but instead got a job at the gear-making factory. We all know computers and the internet opened up countless opportunities and ways of doing things that weren't there before.
What I don't understand is what job opportunities are opening up from replacing workers in every field we can with robots? Or better, what opportunities are going to be so abundant that they MAKE UP for the amount of jobs being lost by robotics? Sure, programming and maintaining them will be opportunities, but that's going to a sliver of jobs compared to the ones displaced. The whole POINT of using robots is so you don't have to pay workers. Robots serve to ELIMINATE employment, that's their whole job. Unless you can point to opportunities out there to the tune of tens if not hundreds of millions of new openings, I think you're just spouting rhetoric.
That's the level of hubris which is part of the falseness of Keynesianism (or any other directed economy).
Imagine 100+ years ago the disruptive effect on manufacturing caused by the introduction of the new internal combustion engine. "You'll put wagon makers out of business! Farriers will be put out on the street! Saddleries will close!" So, someone says, "Tell me what this will bring and how it will counteract the deleterious effects of its introduction."
Do you really think anyone could imagine the benefit of independent lawn businesses? (Lawns were NOT common back then.) Now, look around at the world and how all the labor performed by IC engines have freed humans to do more OTHER things.
Fearing change, control, taxation, and "list the benefits" is all part of the same failed philosophy.
Were wagon makers put out of business when the internal combustion engine became widespread? Hell yes. And it was good. I refuse to be "held down" because of the fear that some other person cannot adapt to change.
Imagine 100+ years ago the disruptive effect on manufacturing caused by the introduction of the new internal combustion engine. "You'll put wagon makers out of business! Farriers will be put out on the street! Saddleries will close!" So, someone says, "Tell me what this will bring and how it will counteract the deleterious effects of its introduction."
Do you really think anyone could imagine the benefit of independent lawn businesses? (Lawns were NOT common back then.) Now, look around at the world and how all the labor performed by IC engines have freed humans to do more OTHER things.
Fearing change, control, taxation, and "list the benefits" is all part of the same failed philosophy.
Were wagon makers put out of business when the internal combustion engine became widespread? Hell yes. And it was good. I refuse to be "held down" because of the fear that some other person cannot adapt to change.
Under the tax Gates is proposing they definitely would. That the tax money would be redistributed directly back into the economy as make work jobs is a good thing and would help to keep the economy going.
YeuEmMaiMai
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2004
- Messages
- 34,179
it is true, all operating expenses are passed directly to the people that BUY said products/services offered by said companies.... taxes are a part of operating expenses that are paid for by anyone and everyone that patrons them. Do you deny this fact? This is simple economics 101....
Hahahaha it doesn't get lost it gets spent back into the economy in one way or another. And social safety nets are one of the more productive ways to spend tax money since the poor spend everything they get.
Robot factories are for more productive than ones that primarily use human labor. There was an article about this in the Front Page section of these very forums not too long ago about a Chinese factory that switched to near full automation and saw a 250% increase in productivity. I'm pretty sure you saw it already but here it is again: https://hardforum.com/threads/facto...-with-robots-production-rises-by-250.1924168/
Not the new automation. Its different from old automation methods because it can do far more. The future will not be exactly like the past here dude.
If you have no money then any cost is too much. Robot factory owners won't be able to afford to give their goods away.
Nope. They'll just the robots to build more robots kind've like how you can already do with some of the cheaper 3D printers. They'll even have them maintained, at least in part, by more robots by designing them to be unitized in construction which makes assembly and repair trivial. You'll still have a maintenance team of some sort but it'll be small and probably mobile to service the machines at different locations.
Generally speaking taxes are taken from after operating expenses are deducted and on profits. If a company earns no profits it doesn't get taxed. Also Econ101 is just a introductory course and you need to know a hell of a lot more on this subject before you try commenting on it.
He doesn't strike me as a principled Big L Libertarian in the vein of Block or Hoppe who actually respects the NAP or at least says they do. Just your typical self centered short sighted type that you find everywhere IRL and the internet.
You have a simplistic view, typical of socialist indoctrination.
Government spending can only occur in one of two ways: it TAKES money AWAY from citizens, diverting it from THEIR interests and USING if for GOVERNMENT interests; or, the government CREATES more money (deficit spending) thereby REDUCING the value of EVERYONE ELSE'S money.
Either way, the government "steals" the money from the citizens. Instead of individuals making choices for how to spend the wealth they have labored to gain, the government bureaucrat (oh, so much smarter) uses the citizens' money for "better" purposes.
Using money creates friction. That bureaucrat has to get paid, no? Thereby money is taken OUT of the economy and given to others. If the government takes $100 from me, then gives me $100 a month later, there are two costs: hidden costs of the bureaucracy needed to take, hold, then return the money; and the cost to me of not having that money for that period of time. That "opportunity" cost is typically ignored by Keynesians, yet it makes up a great part of the fallacy of Keynes' theory.
Saying that the government is better at spending money than the poor would be is typical of the condescending attitude of so many "big government" socialists. A social safety net is, by definition, "unproductive".
Government spending can only occur in one of two ways: it TAKES money AWAY from citizens, diverting it from THEIR interests and USING if for GOVERNMENT interests; or, the government CREATES more money (deficit spending) thereby REDUCING the value of EVERYONE ELSE'S money.
Either way, the government "steals" the money from the citizens. Instead of individuals making choices for how to spend the wealth they have labored to gain, the government bureaucrat (oh, so much smarter) uses the citizens' money for "better" purposes.
Using money creates friction. That bureaucrat has to get paid, no? Thereby money is taken OUT of the economy and given to others. If the government takes $100 from me, then gives me $100 a month later, there are two costs: hidden costs of the bureaucracy needed to take, hold, then return the money; and the cost to me of not having that money for that period of time. That "opportunity" cost is typically ignored by Keynesians, yet it makes up a great part of the fallacy of Keynes' theory.
Saying that the government is better at spending money than the poor would be is typical of the condescending attitude of so many "big government" socialists. A social safety net is, by definition, "unproductive".
Taxes are, indeed, passed on to the consumer. Do you REALLY think that any business does not account for the impact of taxes on their balance sheet? Business don't pay taxes, customers do. (Yes, the business passes that tax on to the government collector, but the business collects the funds from their customers in the form of higher prices. C'mon. If you're really this much of an ideologue that you ignore and twist basic economic facts, I'm done here.)
Name a non-social, low skill level, and repetitive task that a only a human can do that a robot can't that is also capable of employing millions of people.
If your answer is, "I don't know and somehow one will pop up because it always did in the past." then I'd say that is magical thinking.
Bear in mind that many white collar and mid level paper pushing desk jobs are also at high risk of automation too thanks to PI's. Sifting and collating data as well as data entry are going to be greatly impacted too.
Ideally the govt. works for the people's interests and if they want robot use taxed and that tax money spent to create make work jobs then their interests and needs are being met.
So long as wages go up in line with inflation then that is perfectly fine to an extent. There is such a thing as too much inflation but small consistent amounts of it over time are perfectly fine.
Many govt. ran organizations, such as Social Security or the USPS, cost less to run than private industry. Given the overhead in redistributive taxation is virtually nil (they're just moving money around electronically or they'd be mailing out checks which isn't expensive at all) and bureaucrats don't really make much money from the govt. directly I don't think you know what you're talking about.
The banks would disagree with you.
Okay, so you're coming at me with insults and can't answer the question huh? You're literally making the same argument I already addressed, like you didn't even read what I said. Again, I gave you an example of how it worked in the industrial revolution. You might lose your job as a barrel maker, but then get a new job making gears. Or lose your job as a seamstress, but then get a new job in a textile factory. With computers, the foresight was easy. The benefits of having databases in a world of filing, bureaucracy, and accounting were more than obvious, even at the time. You could get more work done and do more business. As the internet emerged, the ability to be able to coordinate work with people halfway across the planet was also obvious. As was being able to sell your product to a wider audience than the local shop. Of course we didn't envision everything, but there was plenty we DID envision right away, while the industry was shifting, so much it was obvious that there were many benefits as well. So again, what are all these opportunities you're talking about? You haven't named one. Surely, you can do that? Again, the whole POINT of robots is to REPLACE WORKERS. They don't even need to be more efficient, they just need to be cheaper.
If you think I'm small-minded, put your money where your mouth is and illuminate me. I'm honestly having difficulty imagining any area where the new opportunities that emerge from robots don't result in far fewer jobs to go around. Not just in one industry, but across the board. The ONLY areas I see growth are programming, design of robots, and maintainence. But simple math will tell you that those numbers have to be far smaller than the jobs being replaced, otherwise it wouldn't be cost effective. So help somebody like me understand where this is coming from. If you can't even IMAGINE any, then you're just spewing rhetoric and are making faith-based arguments. In which case, I guess you win, I can't argue with religion.
EDIT:
Also forget 100 years, anything could happen. I'm talking closer to 10-30.
Last edited:
LOL taxes are taken after profits dude. If they try to crank up prices to adjust for taxes and improve profits they just pay more taxes. Then they go out of business, even if they're a monopoly, since no one can afford to buy their stuff anymore.
If they're not a monopoly then the competition just underprices them and they fail anyways.
Well to be devil's advocate, I don't think he's saying that the jobs you're talking about won't disappear, they will. He's saying people will have to adapt and get different jobs. I understand that logic, what I don't understand is where the hell are all these different jobs? If they're not here yet, at least what's on the horizon? What will at least some of them look like? All I'm seeing is less jobs overall.
WorldExclusive
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 11,548
The funny thing is you think overpriced humans aren't living in overpriced neighborhoods, shopping at overpriced grocery stores, driving over priced cars and buying overpriced clothing.
Until the cost of living comes down (which it won't) humans need the wages that will give them a chance to survive in their surrounding environment. Ain't nothing cheap in America.
Exactly. There will be nothing to adapt to since robots will be able to fill all those niches and not everyone can go get a STEM degree or STEM job. Even now they can't!
Personally I'm hoping the new milder housing bubble that has been going on for the last few years pops. Seems to be slowing down already but I've been wrong on timing these things before.
WorldExclusive
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 11,548
I want to buy a house but I've been waiting to see if the prices will come down as well. There's a few pre-cons around me but they're starting at $350,000 (Miami).
Pretty high price given that the equity will be pretty low when complete. I rather wait until I see things in line with $200-250K for a pre-con and then worth $300K+ when complete.
I don't wish for people to lose equity but prices are gradually inching up to pre-2008 levels.
And with Dodd-Frank possible going away, oh boy....
YeuEmMaiMai
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2004
- Messages
- 34,179
oh if you say so....
If it starts this year you'll see a about a year long plateuing of prices before they really start to fall. Housing bubbles always play out real slow.
Yeah don't ever buy a pre-con. Those are always a rip off at your expense. Best bet if you can't wait for a bust is look for fixer uppers and vigorously low ball em'. Preferably bank owned fixer uppers. FSBO fixer uppers turn into a emotional shit show when you low ball them. Banks don't care so much since for them its all just business and they don't make money by holding properties for long.
Eh I don't wish financial ruin on most anyone either but people hoping that their home will somehow pave their way to riches or at least a OK retirement were all just betting on the bubble. That just isn't reasonable.
And yes those banks will have a field day depending on how exactly they gut Dodd-Frank. It wasn't all that good of a bill anyways but at least it did something.
If you had a source that said otherwise you would've posted it already so whatever man.
WorldExclusive
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 11,548
I'll look into rehab loans then. There are more than a few homes that needs work down here, but some are on amazing parcels of land.
Rehab loans are a good idea as are foreclosure auctions. Up front financials can be tough for most people to deal with at foreclosure auctions so talk with a realtor who knows about them and read up a whole bunch if you want to try that route.
I don't know a thing about the Miami area but have you tried looking at stuff ~10 miles outside where you want to be? Difference can be huge in price...drive may suck horribly for all I know though.
I don't know a thing about the Miami area but have you tried looking at stuff ~10 miles outside where you want to be? Difference can be huge in price...drive may suck horribly for all I know though.
Inflation is only fine for the central bank in a fiat money system. Inflation, by definition, robs my saved money of value. It forces a "tax" on me if I don't spend my money on products.
Social Security is running a HUGE ("yuge"
) deficit. It is currently $13.4 TRILLION in the hole. The US government spends about $4 Trillion a year, and takes in something around $3 Trillion. Give or take a few hundred billion. Using Social Security as an example of responsible government spending is ludicrous.Similarly, the USPS has $68 BILLION in liabilities against ~$23 BILLION in assets. In that same year, they had an operating DEFICIT of $5 BILLION.
That debt must be paid by SOMEONE. Probably my children and their children. They are going to be forced to labor, and have their wealth taken, for something for which they did not benefit. (That being the SS and Post TODAY, as opposed to the same service TOMORROW, when they can use it.)
Your examples are as flawed as your arguments. I suggest, seriously, that you start researching these matters.
Every example of housing that you've giving are replete with government intervention, meaning, the government is going to give you money taken from someone else. How's that feel?
If your wages go up in line with inflation you're not being "taxed". If your wages aren't going up with inflation that is a problem with your employer giving you a cut each year. Unless you're talking about min. wage then you can blame Congress if they don't increase it each year or don't just decide to index it permanently against inflation which is what they should've done decades ago.
Which isn't due to mismanagement though. That is partially due to taxation issues (rich aren't being taxed enough) and crap economy for the past decade or so. If tax receipts are reduced so is the SS Fund income. If you compare SS to any annuity its easy to see that SS wins out big time in terms of safety and money returned. Which is how you're supposed to judge a retirement fund source BTW.Social Security is running a HUGE ("yuge"
That is because Congress forced them to front load their retirement debt on purpose to make them look bad. There was a big push from FedEx and UPS to try and privatize the USPS and it has largely failed because the USPS made some financial changes to help fund itself and because its also seen as a solid institution by the public so they've dropped it for now.
I read up plenty on these issues. I think you should do more reading outside of Fox, Breitbart, or Infowars and actually apply a little critical thinking while you're at it too.
Foreclosure auctions and low balling bank owned repair job homes has nothing to do with the govt. The only "govt. intervention" that was mentioned was a refub loan (203K FHA).
If its done properly I have no issue with the govt. giving me money taken from someone else. They have litterally done it all my life in one form or another and we would not have the society or industry we have today without govt. intervention and subsidies all paid for via taxation.
TwistedAegis
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2009
- Messages
- 8,958
I agree there is likely opportunity in automation, globalisation, etc. But is it enough opportunity for all?
Look at Maslow's Hierachy of Needs. As we're able to automate all the jobs higher and higher up the pyramid, what is the real need for jobs at a certain point? If a robots can produce a foundation to provide enough food, water, warmth, clothing, shelter, etc, to distribute to everyone at a minimum level.
Also in regards to inflation and deflation - money isn't wealth, money is claims on wealth. If I have 100 bushels of grain and 100 dollars, then the central bank creates 100 more dollars, the amount of wealth is the same. A steady, expected level of inflation encourages the exchange of money (claims on wealth), whereas a fixed currency is de facto deflationary in a growing population, which does not encourage people to exchange currency with one another, as the claims on wealth will increase in value of real wealth over time, instead of claiming it today.
Look at Maslow's Hierachy of Needs. As we're able to automate all the jobs higher and higher up the pyramid, what is the real need for jobs at a certain point? If a robots can produce a foundation to provide enough food, water, warmth, clothing, shelter, etc, to distribute to everyone at a minimum level.
Also in regards to inflation and deflation - money isn't wealth, money is claims on wealth. If I have 100 bushels of grain and 100 dollars, then the central bank creates 100 more dollars, the amount of wealth is the same. A steady, expected level of inflation encourages the exchange of money (claims on wealth), whereas a fixed currency is de facto deflationary in a growing population, which does not encourage people to exchange currency with one another, as the claims on wealth will increase in value of real wealth over time, instead of claiming it today.
TBH I think that it's only a matter of time before we move to a UBI (universal basic income.) I don't believe that this automation trend will slow down even if we did tax them.
Honestly a poor replacement in automation is 10:1 for jobs and I have seen 100:1 in places I have been at. If companies are replacing ~1k workers at a time with 10-20 robotic machines being maintained by 2-3 or so technicians and ran by say 5 people (just for redundancy around the clock...) you are going to face an unemployment lag that will never catch up. I think that is what is happening right now tbh.
Honestly a poor replacement in automation is 10:1 for jobs and I have seen 100:1 in places I have been at. If companies are replacing ~1k workers at a time with 10-20 robotic machines being maintained by 2-3 or so technicians and ran by say 5 people (just for redundancy around the clock...) you are going to face an unemployment lag that will never catch up. I think that is what is happening right now tbh.
TwistedAegis
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2009
- Messages
- 8,958
The value of goods manufactured in the US continues to grow YoY and is the biggest sector of the American economy - it isn't that we don't manufacture, it's that we do it with very few people. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us...utput-has-doubled-in-three-decades-2016-03-28