Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
You are very tiring to discuss things with as you simply miss basic economic principles in your promotion of the worker. I don't have the Patience to multiquote
|
If you believe a guaranteed universal income funded by a dwindling pool of income earners and profit earning companies will lead to greater economic growth than trying to create employment and increase consumerism, I'm not sure how seriously you should expect me to take your assessment of my position or the relation it has to basic economic principles. If you tire from my critiquing of your argument that automation is always a good thing just because you say it is, while using vague rewritings of history to defend it, I don't know what to tel you other than, enjoy tiring of it.
Quote:
|
If you force someone to work at a task that could be automated you effectively have a minimum income. They provide no value and you pay them for it. Why not tax the profit and pay them to actually do nothing or even better pay for public works programs that employ displaced people.
|
How will taxing the labour cost savings create a better situation for society or the economy? If an employer is taxed at a rate of say 25% for the $50k it saves on labour by replacing an employee with a machine, I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that when no other jobs are available it will be to the economic value of anyone to reduce that former employees' income to $12.5k. It impacts consumer spending, which grows an economy, and it also reduces income tax revenue which was generated from that former employees' earnings, this reduces public services funding, which leads to further job losses and further shrinking of the economy.