\n<\/p>\n
A version of this<\/span> story original appeared in TechCrunch\u2019s weekly robotics newsletter, Actuator. Subscribe here<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n A big and often unremarked upon aspect of being a reporter is knowing your audience. It\u2019s not always as straightforward as it sounds \u2014 particularly when writing about tech. You\u2019re always walking that tightrope between over- and under-explaining. Assuming too much knowledge makes text impenetrable for the non-expert, but getting caught up the finer details is recipe for condescension.<\/p>\n On Friday, I asked LinkedIn to air their annoyances about mainstream robotics coverage (i.e., big publications that don\u2019t specialize in the topic or even technology more broadly). For me, the headline \u201cThe Robots Are Coming\u201d has been a minor source of annoyance that seems to crop up at least once a week.<\/p>\n Other people\u2019s responses are more or less what I was anticipating: robopocalypse\/killer robots, a lack of historical context, too much focus on gimmicks and flashy form factors like humanoid robots. That\u2019s all fair and certainly feedback I will apply to my own work going forward. \u201cRobopocalypse\u201d is a term I dropped from my vocab a while back, aside from references to the internet\u2019s knee-jerk reaction to any new robot.<\/p>\n Another thing that cropped up in people\u2019s complaints is the job conversation. As with robopocalypse headlines, I absolutely agree that things trend toward the sensationalistic. The \u201cRobots Are Coming\u201d is often amended to include \u201cFor Your Job.\u201d It runs parallel to the \u201cAI is taking your job\u201d talking point. As a general rule, the AI conversation focuses on white-collar jobs and the robots on blue. It\u2019s not one to one, but that\u2019s largely how these things go: a robot in the factory, an AI in the office.<\/p>\n Sensationalism isn\u2019t just a robotics thing. It\u2019s an online journalism thing. My industry has been dying for longer than I\u2019ve been a part of it (which is, itself, quite a long time). There are days when it feels like we\u2019re all fighting for the same scraps of attention, hoping people can look up from TikTok long enough to skim a news article. When you\u2019re vying for ever-shortening attention spans along with every other piece of instantly accessible information, you think a lot about framing.<\/p>\n Such blunt force not only does a disservice to the robotics industry, but it also drains all subtlety from what needs to be a truly nuanced conversation. I\u2019m sure there are those who would rather skip the jobs conversation altogether, but I firmly believe that approach is equally problematic.<\/p>\n So let\u2019s start from a point I think we can all agree on: Robots have and will continue to impact jobs. The presence of robots in the workforce is growing at a rapid rate. The more prevalent and sophisticated automation becomes, the greater impact it will have on the way we work.<\/p>\n I very intentionally chose \u201cimpact\u201d as a neutral term. From a purely semantic standpoint, it\u2019s neither inherently negative nor positive. The workforce of the future will be different, and robotics will almost certainly be a primary driver of that change.<\/p>\n I\u2019ve attempted to take a nuanced approach to the jobs question in the pages of TechCrunch. Ultimately, it\u2019s up to you to figure out whether I\u2019ve succeeded on that front. A vast majority of people I speak to believe the impact will be positive \u2014 that the robots will either replace bad jobs or at the very least make them better. There\u2019s plenty of truth in these statements, but I try to remain conscious of the fact that most of the people I speak to about robots are either roboticists or investors \u2014 roles that require a general sense of bullishness.<\/p>\n I don\u2019t believe my role is devil\u2019s advocate, but I do feel a sense of responsibility to remind readers that jobs aren\u2019t just numbers. There\u2019s a human behind each of them. In a position that requires me to frequently write stories about layoffs in the tens of thousands, it\u2019s very easy to lose sight of that fact. I\u2019ve certainly been guilty of leaning into the abstraction. This is why, for example, I frequently post job listings in\u00a0Actuator<\/span>. For a vast majority of us, our survival hinges on our ability to work. That\u2019s just how the world operates.<\/p>\n It\u2019s important to have conversations about automation\u2019s long-term impact. It\u2019s debate that will continue to rage on into the foreseeable future, and I\u2019m glad any time people are discussing it with all of the context and nuance required. I do, however, believe that we often discuss it at the expense of short-term impact \u2014 that is, those jobs that are immediately affected. This is where the controversial and less controversial topics of safety nets and upskilling come in. Those are topics we\u2019ll have to dive into some other day.<\/p>\n We are not, however, avoiding controversy outright this week. In fact, in some circles the topic du jour is even more radioactive than either of the above \u2014 the robot tax. It\u2019s also something we\u2019ve not discussed much in\u00a0Actuator<\/span>, so it felt like time. Given the nature of this newsletter, what follows is going to be far from the be-all and end-all on the subject, but it\u2019s a good opportunity to address something that has been in the ether for a long time.<\/p>\n Brookings\u00a0described the concept<\/a>\u00a0thusly:<\/p>\n The basic idea behind a robot tax is that firms pay a tax when they replace a human worker with a robot. Such a tax would in theory have two main purposes. First, it would disincentivize firms from replacing workers with robots, thereby maintaining human employment. Second, if the replacement were made anyway, a robot tax would generate revenues for the government that would cover the loss of revenue from payroll taxes.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The Institute\u2019s views on the topic notwithstanding, I think that largely covers the idea in broad strokes, though I would add to it. When I consider the concept, the \u201closs of revenue from payroll taxes\u201d is secondary to the more pressing issue of the potential human toll.<\/p>\n Way back in 2017, we\u00a0ran a column<\/a>\u00a0by Steve Cousins that concluded with:<\/p>\n Getting companies to pay their fair share of taxes won\u2019t solve the larger societal challenge that automation will eventually displace low-skilled workers, nor would a robot tax. Instead, governments should focus on using corporate tax revenues to create free or low-cost education programs to prepare people to work alongside automation.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n For those unable to find work in tomorrow\u2019s tech-driven society, governments could provide universal basic income or other safety nets for the least-advantaged.<\/p>\n To which I say, these concepts are far from mutually exclusive. In fact, from where I sit, funding a social safety net is perhaps the strongest argument\u00a0in favor<\/em>\u00a0of a robot tax. The following statement is the most political I\u2019m going to get in today\u2019s newsletter. Ready? Okay. I believe that feeding and housing those without means should be regarded as an essential function of government. So pairing these two concepts seems logical.<\/p>\n That said, I am neither advocating for or against a robot tax. Honestly, I\u2019m currently riding the fence on the subject. There are valid points on either side. Having discussed some of the pros above, I would say the primary argument against is concern over stifling innovation. At its heart, it\u2019s the same basic argument against any manner of business tax, though with the robot tax, I would suggest that slowing innovation is kind of, sort of the point.<\/p>\n The question ultimately, I think, comes down to what\u2019s more important \u2014 maintaining workplace status quo in an effort to keep more people employed or maintaining U.S. competitiveness? Again, I\u2019m not operating under any illusion that you\u2019re going to find the answers in this week\u2019s robot newsletter. If I get more people thinking about the topic, however, I\u2019ll consider it a job well done.<\/p>\n Hopefully at some point in the near future, I\u2019ll have the time and bandwidth to do a deeper dive on the topic. For this week, however, I\u2019m leaning heavily on a study out of MIT published late last year.<\/p>\n Published in the Review of Economic Studies,\u00a0\u201cRobots, Trade, and Luddism: A Sufficient Statistic Approach to Optimal Technology Regulation\u201d<\/a>\u00a0seeks to a provide \u201cgeneral theory of optimal technology regulation.\u201d The MIT economists behind the study \u2014 Arnaud Costinot and Iv\u00e1n Werning \u2014 ultimately settle on a sweet spot that includes modest taxation.<\/p>\n \u201cOur finding suggests that taxes on either robots or imported goods should be pretty small,\u201d Costinot\u00a0told MIT<\/a>\u00a0at the time. \u201cAlthough robots have an effect on income inequality\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0they still lead to optimal taxes that are modest.\u201d<\/p>\n Prominent figures, including Bill Gates and Bernie Sanders, have called for some form of taxation over the years. In 2017, Gates\u00a0told Quartz<\/a>, \u201cYou ought to be willing to raise the tax level and even slow down the speed.\u201d He cited, among other things, a broad, simultaneous displacement of jobs across a spectrum of industries.<\/p>\n\n
\n