With the holidays approaching at lightning speed, my family and I, like many others, found ourselves in a flurry of end-of-year shopping, trying to find the right, thoughtful, and useful gifts for family and friends. Unlike some of my friends, I enjoy this activity because it gives me the chance to think about the recipient and what would truly make them happy.
While we were browsing various shopping outlets, I couldn’t resist snapping a few funny pictures. Well, “funny” might be subjective, so you may not see the humor that made me smile. Let me share them with you. Oregon is known for its rain, isn’t it? Is it similar to Brittany in France, where the tale of continuous rain keeps tourists away? So when I saw this generator powering a food cart, I wondered if it was IP66 or IP67 rated. One might argue it barely qualifies as IP00! 😉
If you are unfamiliar with IP rating, you can check it out here.
The second set of amusing pictures features a cleaning robot in a mall. The poor thing was beeping desperately, calling for human assistance. It turned out it had a battery issue, which is a common problem with modern mobile devices.
Now, onto a more serious point. A few years ago, a brigade of janitors cleaned the building. It’s likely that many of them lost their jobs to such devices (you can still see the empty seating areas today). Some may view this as progress, while others see it as a relentless pursuit of productivity and mindless advancement.
I see this as an opportunity to share my perspective on these significant societal changes that will only accelerate with the broader adoption of AI. Progress is essential, but as a society, I believe we need to handle it responsibly. First, just like any work done by humans, the work done by robots and algorithms should be taxed—period. Second, and this might raise some eyebrows, I support the idea of universal basic income for individuals. The first point is a way for society to finance this initiative. I started by sharing some funny pictures and ended up expressing a profound conviction of mine. I’m curious to know your thoughts on this!
I do like both ideas (and I agree with that).
That said, how to tax the work done by robots and algorithms? I mean, companies producing those technologies are already taxed (or are supposed to be taxed…), based on profits generated by those technologies. Could they be taxed twice ?
How to evaluate the amount to tax ? How to seize the added-value and/or the production done by those technologies ? Plus, I don’t really like the idea a government will manage those taxes. Their imagination is limitless when they have to tax something. Where will be the limit ??
About universal basic income, I already thought about it and was wondering how it could impact inflation and so, could be counterproductive ? Indeed, if everyone can purchase a minimum, demand for some goods (even basic one) will mechanically increase (demand vs. offering), so OK, everyone will have basic income but could it be enough to purchase the minimum, since the price will increase ?
(Free) food for thoughts 🙂
Thank you, Steph, for sharing your thoughts on these interesting propositions.
You raised an excellent question about taxing robots and algorithms. The concept is quite straightforward because we already tax human labor. To clarify, I am referring to the work performed, not the objects or software themselves. Companies would pay labor taxes to governments just as they do today. In the US, this is done through the FICA tax, which funds Social Security and Medicare. In other countries, like France, it is a percentage of gross salary. This means there are existing mechanisms and solutions for implementation.
As an employer, you would only pay once for the work done. However, I believe the current metrics and methods are sub-optimal, and there should be consideration for indexing these taxes based on productivity generated by these systems. Additionally, we need to better understand what constitutes work done by software. The simplest measurable metric could be the number of operations performed by the code. A more nuanced approach would require software developers to define these metrics and disclose them. Alternatively, we could consider taxing a portion of the revenue generated by the software. I trust elite bureaucrats and experts can collaborate with legislators and industries to establish a solution that works for everyone.
I understand you prefer not to have these matters managed by the government. However, in general, the producer cannot also be the controller – that’s part of what leads to our current challenges. I am open to exploring any other forms of control or enforcement mechanisms that we can develop as a society.
Regarding universal basic income, the focus should be on ensuring it is basic. If someone wants to earn more – and I would argue that they deserve that – they should be able to pursue it. It’s their life. However, it is estimated that about 20% of people globally are engaged in their jobs and feel passionate about them, according to the Gallup State of the Global Workplace Report for 2024. I believe the remaining 80% could find something that suits them and potentially benefits society. And no, I know you didn’t bring it up, but we are not inherently lazy.
I think that such an initiative if implemented, would bring profound changes to human societies. Your questions are significant in the context of today’s largely unregulated – or insufficiently regulated for the public good – capitalist systems, where we witness institutional corruption and power struggles. The healthcare cost issue in the US is one clear example (and there are others globally). A shift in societal values, which such an initiative would encourage, would likely lead to changes in the frameworks that define value, evolving the concepts of demand and supply to something more meaningful. We would still need to agree on a definition of usefulness.
Lastly, I must do further research on the following idea, as it may explain why it is so hard for some of us—not you—to even consider it. You may have heard statements like “Humanity is addicted to sugar.” My hypothesis is that the most addictive drug for Humanity is money, and I wonder if any scientific studies have been conducted on this.
Regardless, thank you very much for sharing your ideas and questions with us. I hope others will follow your lead.