It is more cost effective to tax the money saved from using robot employees and repurpose it into welfare for replaced workers.
Worker cost monthly: 2000
Store net profit monthly: 100,000
Welfare monthly: 1200
Robot replacement tax: 15% of net profit
Welfare cost for 10 replaced
workers: 12,000
Cost to keep them working: 20,000
Replacement tax: 15,000
The government can make 3,000 and mcdonalds can make 5,000 with this simple and slightly unrealistic equation for EVERY 10 workers that they keep on welfare, which these people go directly back to mcdonalds to spend their welfare. A complete system. Reminder that poor people spend 110% of their wealth, i.e. velocity of money
There is no reason to employ the bottom 15% of people. Actually there is, as you can see lots of reason to not do this.
The main issue with this is rejection from other economic classes. This requires a social training. We change societal standard to accept another level of development. After schooling you have a pre-skilled class before the worker class.
Good business men make a profit regardless of how shitty the market is.
Obviously there are many other expenses, that is why I left it so loose. Even if it is positive just 1 dollar, it is amazingly advantageous to do this.
>>1273663
No, because welfare transfers go through the government. I do not support having workers get their money from the government because then the government becomes an armed force that works on behalf of the unemployed. I'd rather people get their wages from labor, so they are dependent only on themselves to survive. Even by your math the workers are getting more money working.
>>1273663
>government is efficient
You forgot about the 40 government employees making 6 figures with pensions and benefits who distribute each welfare dollar
the pre-skilled class. lulz were had
>>1273663
what if instead we rate everyone based on IQ and physical fitness and just liquidate the bottom 15%? i mean like literally liquidate, physically
>>1273707
>just liquidate the bottom 15%?
Can't we just pay them to vote Republican? Might be a better use of resources
OP here
You can't just use incompetance as an argument. All systems rely on the enthusiasm and engagement of the people.
>>1273663
Just like communism. It only works on paper.
>>1273712
It wouldn't. Human bodies have a certain energy threshold which must be met to start them burning so while it is highly inefficient to burn a few bodies, past a certain number of people you actually start profiting for each body added to the inferno. What if we converted these people into fuel. Think about it familia.
>>1273728
Really easy to say, but this isnt communism at all.
In reality this makes poor people poorer they just dont have to work.
>>1273663
If this was true why would every business not implement it today. Not the taxes bit, the replace people with robots and instantly cut down on 15% of costs?
Also how do you expect your economy to thrive if you punish success?
>>1273738
You're not factoring in everything else.
What about self-entitlement?
What about being financially illiterate?
What about social repercussions?
We're seeing this in the making as of now.
>>1273744
110% of income creates hyperinflation.
Rising of everything else, while wages stay the same.
Plus class warfare?
Sounds like you're out of the job.
>>1273744
>Because if they are not taxed then you cannot give the consumers the welfare to buy their mcdonalds
So your economy is going to function by the government taxing producers and giving that money to people who then buy what they produce? Why can these people not simply go work in other industries like every other obsolete profession has through history? We are not providing welfare for threshing crews by taking bread, or compensating stage coach drivers by taking cars. Why should it be any different now?
The imagine of a snake eating it's own tail comes to mind.
>>1273750
Taking is taxing in a way I suppose.
Freud you magical son of a bitch.
>>1273750
Because liberals. /thread
>>1273750
A system wouldn't even thrive this way.
People would be depressed due to feeling "stuck".
You'd have more suicide rates.
Crime would go up to move up in status.
Already happening today with countries that do basic income.
>>1273750
There will always be a population of non-replacable employees. Once it becomes more cost effective to have robots it is simply numerical. You pay 2000 for an employee but welfare is 1200 and private and government make money. Why? You are ripping off the ex-employee. They now survive 100% on welfare or increase their skills. They spend 110% regardless.
>>1273747
It isnt hyperinflation because 50% of that 110% is illegal untaxed money.
>>1273744
You're either straight from reddit or fucking retarded
Literally zero incentive to work in a system like this
>>1273707
Fine by me, and I say that being one of the bottom 15%. Why live if I can't do it properly?
>>1273763
The lower 15% doesnt have to work. Any deviantion from this implies they will. The process solves itself.
>>1273663
All I care about is getting my burger plain. If a robot manages that better, then i'll be onbord.
>>1273663
Robot tax? That's fucking ridiculous.
A human shouldn't waste their life doing something so trivial that even a brainless robot can do it. Humans should get paid to do thing only humans can do. We need creative entrepreneurs to create jobs for everyone being replaced by machines. Robots will make the world better off in the long run.
>>1273787
Yes I agree, and tax the profits where workers used to be. Not all of them so mcdonalds still benefits.
>>1273758
>Once it becomes more cost effective to have robots it is simply numerical.
Then why did we not see mass unemployment ad infinitum with the mechanization of farming?
>>1273792
We did. Also, my claim is not that we are efficient enough at this current day.
Funny thing about putting people out of work though, they find other work. We could do this with the energy sector.
>>1273792
1% of the world farms today vs. 90+% say a little over 100 years ago.
>>1273800
>We did.
What? You are going to have to explain why 90% of the population is not unemployed if the mechanization of farming did in fact lead to mass unemployment ad infinitum.
>>1273729
>It wouldn't. Human bodies have a certain energy threshold which must be met to start them burning so while it is highly inefficient to burn a few bodies, past a certain number of people you actually start profiting for each body added to the inferno. What if we converted these people into fuel. Think about it familia.
Astute cost-benefit analysis
>>1273800
Who is "we?" If it was efficient to eliminate energy workers, they would already be gone. This is the beauty of capitalism
>>1273982
>Who is "we?"
Probably Cossacks.
>>1273707
Then you have a new bottom 15%. Where does the creep end?
>>1273663
OP you are overcomplicating things.
Let's say robots take 50% of the jobs, but they bring cost of living down 50%.
Then everyone just works 20 hour work weeks, or works 40 hour work weeks and retires in half the time.
Everything works out fine with no Government coming in to screw things up.
>>1273663
Ita more cost effective to force us into ghettos and give us free vr headsets / soylent and marijuana
Youre dreaming if you think the US will ever have UBI
