As was discussed in my previous post, in coming years, automation will slowly begin to encroach on service sector jobs; as the utility of robots increases to include jobs once performed solely by humans, many will find themselves bereft of employment. The issue then becomes how, if at all, do we, as a society, accommodate these technological advances.
To me, it seems there are three stances one can take on this matter; the first is a Luddite, anti-technology approach where the use of robots in the service industry is prohibited entirely by the government. Under the same clause the FCC and the FDA use to regulate and deny licensure to certain medical or communications instruments that might pose a risk to society, the federal government could easily establish a regulatory body that prohibits the sale and use of robots as replacement for human labor.
Now, while this might successfully solve the problem of humans slipping into obsolescence and loosing their jobs, it does have serious drawbacks. Since robots do not require health insurance, food, living accommodations, or compensation for loss of limb or life, their potential, in terms of economic output and GDP is incredible. Imagine a tireless work force, that can work at any hour and under circumstances where humans would never risk their own lives. So, those countries who are more apt to embrace technological developments in artificial intelligence will have a clear economic advantage. Should the U.S. adopt a Luddite-type policy, it would slowly see itself sink behind as the world pushes forward economically speaking.
The second approach to this issue is a gradualist accommodation of automated service-sector production by creation of initial restrictions which can be slowly lifted as the government scrambles to re-educate large portions of its working populous to do other occupations which are less vulnerable to obsolescence. This approach, however, also has its drawbacks; a gradualist approach necessitates huge administrative effort, not only in the areas of enforcement and regulation (as is the case with the Luddite approach), but additionally it requires large scale education reform particularly in adult vocational schools to accommodate a massive number of people. So this method, although it allows us to enjoy the benefits of technology without causing severe economic harm to ourselves, requires the most resources of the 3 approaches.
The third method, which I will term “my solution”, involves a slightly different take on the issue. Instead of focusing recourses on government intervention, we could allow the employers to work with their employees in such a way that both parties profit from their position. That is to say, a law could be passed that makes it illegal to buy robots without specific licensure in the same way that only certain companies are qualified to buy stock directly from companies. When one buys a share of stock, there is a broker that acts as a middleman. In the same way that it is illegal to buy stock directly from a company, it should be illegal for companies to buy robots directly from resellers or manufacturers. Instead, to finance and purchase a robot, companies who wish to utilize robots for service sector work would need to distribute stock to do so. The stock represents part ownership of the lifetime labor of the robot and can only be offered to individuals who are licensed for that particular occupation i.e. company employees. So, as an example, let us say that a trucking company wishes to “hire” an automated, self-driving truck. To do that, the trucking company would need to sell stock to the drivers within the company at market value to finance the purchase. That way, the labor generated by the robots creates a secondary income, in the form of dividend payments, for the truckers. So, as the companies continually adopt a greater and greater number of robot workers, this type of financing would allow the workers of the company to effectively retain (or perhaps even increase) their income without actually working. Instead of working, they own “labor shares” which have dividends which they can subsist on.
I like your idea from the standpoint of the semi-near future where middle-income jobs are decreasing and people need to find alternate ways of making money while in a machine age. My only issue with it is the possibility of corruption in the more distant future. Essentially, what’s to stop companies from faking having employees buy these stocks. This could happen in two ways. A company can literally fabricate employees that are buying this stock, and then just hide the excess money through whatever methods exist at the time. Alternately, a small group of already successful business owners could make a company where they are the only employees, allowing themselves in effect to be buying their own robots, or, at the least, saving more money by having to sell stock to fewer people. I don’t really see this as a problem anywhere in the near future. Instead I see it more as a potential risk that might occur if there comes a time when actual jobs really are scarce and buying stocks to purchase robots becomes some people’s sole form of income. At that point, if companies are still inclined to make as much money as possible regardless of the consequences, then they will look for ways to cut corners. Obviously laws can limit this from occurring, but I question whether they couldn’t eliminate it from occurring altogether.