This blog post examines various perspectives on whether a robot tax could solve job loss issues or become an obstacle hindering technological progress.
Brian Christian argues that humans must find and develop work only humans can do. Since simple, repetitive tasks can now be performed by robots, humans should focus on tasks uniquely suited to them. As Christian states, robots can perform simple, repetitive tasks better and more accurately than humans. But what about those who previously relied on such work for their livelihood? In a world where jobs are increasingly replaced by robots, one might consider switching to a different field. Yet, retraining for a new career and securing a new job is not as easy as it sounds.
Bill Gates proposed a ‘robot tax’ as a solution to the problem of job loss. A robot tax means imposing taxes on robots, though it’s still difficult for robots themselves to pay taxes. Therefore, the tax is levied instead on the individuals or companies that own the robots. Bill Gates mentioned the robot tax because the revenue could provide welfare benefits to those who lost their jobs and fund retraining for new careers. Concerns about job losses due to robots existed, and Gates’ proposal has sparked debate on this topic. I hold the following position on the robot tax: Even if new jobs are created, the likelihood of job losses remains high. Therefore, solutions are needed, but I believe a robot tax presents several problems in addressing this issue.
Before arguing for a robot tax, it is necessary to define the scope of ‘robots’ discussed in this article. Artificial intelligence (AI) and robots are distinct concepts. Many robots can perform various tasks without using artificial intelligence. For example, a programmed robot can assemble parts placed in specific locations. However, assembly becomes difficult if the parts are not precisely positioned or if multiple parts overlap. In contrast, an AI robot can retrieve the necessary parts and assemble them, much like a human. Based on these examples, the reason people worry about jobs is likely due to AI robots, not simple robots. Furthermore, as AI and robotics advance, many robots now utilize AI. Therefore, this article will consider robots to be AI robots and proceed accordingly.
Among the arguments in favor of a robot tax is the claim that it can prevent the concentration of wealth. If low-income jobs in the service sector disappear, income and wealth polarization will intensify. A robot tax could mitigate this polarization to some extent. Furthermore, various policies for the unemployed are necessary, and the costs associated with these policies must inevitably be borne by those whose income or productivity has increased. Most increases in income or productivity are linked to robot usage. Therefore, a robot tax could be considered a reasonable solution. The European Parliament also addresses the robot tax in a report submitted by MEP Maïdha Delboeuf of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats. She states that the introduction of AI robots will bring significant changes to the job market, necessitating careful consideration of tax issues. Delboeuf argued that a basic income alone might lack sufficient funding, suggesting a robot tax could supplement it, and spoke positively about the concept. Of course, the European Parliament has not yet adopted a robot tax, and some parties opposed it. However, the content of this report and the European Parliament’s designation of artificial intelligence robots as ‘electronic persons’ indicate that many people view a robot tax positively.
Those opposing the robot tax might argue that jobs won’t decrease. Specifically, they contend that more jobs will be created than lost. Some point out that technological innovation during past industrial revolutions never led to job losses. It is said that the Fourth Industrial Revolution could replace not only simple jobs but also various professional roles with machines. However, with each industrial revolution, humans have found new jobs based on previously unmet needs. This time too, people will likely find new jobs to sustain their livelihoods. However, the speed of the Fourth Industrial Revolution is faster, so finding new jobs may take more time. Those holding this view have less concern about job loss and feel less need for a robot tax. However, I do not believe jobs will not decrease. There will be greater changes in jobs than ever before, and solutions to the job problem are needed.
It is impossible to know for certain whether robots will create more new jobs or eliminate more existing ones. Predictions vary from person to person, and the future situation cannot be accurately predicted. However, it is clear that people who originally had jobs will face the possibility of losing them. Policies for the unemployed are necessary. Even if many new jobs are created, they won’t be of much help to the unemployed. Furthermore, the nature of job changes will differ from the past. While simple, repetitive jobs disappeared before, now even service industry jobs are vanishing. Of course, most of the new jobs created will be in the service sector. However, according to a report published by the World Economic Forum, far more jobs are expected to disappear. While this is merely speculation about the future, if robots replace even service industry jobs, far more people will lose their livelihoods than in the past. Therefore, I understand the concerns about future scenarios and the rationale behind proposing a robot tax, and I believe a solution is necessary. However, as mentioned earlier, I see many problems with attempting to solve this issue through a robot tax. I am not unconditionally opposed to a robot tax, but I believe much needs to be discussed before its implementation.
First, I believe clear criteria are essential when establishing any law. Many machines have replaced human jobs throughout history. Of course, as AI robots advance, more jobs across diverse fields could vanish. Yet, no tax has ever been imposed on machines that have replaced human labor. Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Larry Summers opposed a robot tax, arguing that while robots and other machines have displaced human jobs, they were never taxed. For example, the use of tractors in agriculture instead of oxen or horses led to a significant reduction in the agricultural workforce. The advent of the spinning machine also caused many people to lose their jobs. The development of computers replaced various repetitive tasks. Yet, no taxes were imposed on tractors, spinning machines, or computers. Since no taxes have been levied on these machines until now, clear criteria are necessary to impose taxes on robots. Discussions are also needed on how to define robots and what constitutes a robot. Furthermore, it must be determined whether taxes should be levied only on robots replacing specific jobs (e.g., in the service industry) or on all robots. It must also be clearly established how robots subject to taxation differ from computers or machines that have not been taxed until now. Thus, I believe a simple robot tax, which merely aims to tax robots, is inappropriate.
Furthermore, imposing a robot tax could hinder technological advancement. Some might counter that the tax isn’t intended to obstruct robot development. However, the very nature of taxation means it won’t aid the progress of artificial intelligence and robotics. Even without such intent, imposing a tax carries a high risk of suppressing robot development. Focusing the robot tax on people’s jobs rather than robot-related technology could lead to the stagnation of robot advancement. Consider past situations. What if taxes had been imposed on the spinning frame, the computer, and other machines mentioned earlier? Had taxes been levied on the grounds that they replaced human jobs, we would not have seen the technological progress we enjoy today.
Of course, technological progress is not inherently good. However, I cannot agree with the argument that we should slightly suppress technological progress to prevent job losses. Through technological advancement, repetitive tasks that humans currently perform with great effort can be handled more easily. Humans would be better off entrusting these repetitive, arduous tasks to robots or machines and focusing on work only humans can do. In other words, opposing technological progress to protect one’s current repetitive job is inefficient.
Moreover, it is difficult for all countries to introduce a robot tax simultaneously. If only some countries apply a robot tax, those countries alone will fall behind in robot technology development. James Bessen, an economics professor at Boston University, stated that implementing a robot tax would actually delay the creation of new jobs. His argument is that new jobs related to robots and technology will emerge more quickly as these technologies advance.
Furthermore, the situation varies by country. Compared to China or several Southeast Asian nations, South Korea is a country with high labor costs. Companies that operate with a human-centered approach rather than utilizing robots mostly relocate their businesses overseas. This is because companies seek to operate in countries with lower labor costs. Consequently, Koreans would find it harder to secure jobs. Conversely, companies utilizing robots do not necessarily require low labor costs, making it more likely they would keep their operations in Korea. Of course, Koreans could lose simple jobs that robots can perform. However, it is better to retain many jobs than to have companies leave the country entirely. Humans can perform complex tasks that robots cannot, allowing Koreans to be employed in such roles. To summarize, job losses are inevitable regardless of whether companies adopt robotics or not. However, by utilizing robots, Korea can provide more jobs to its citizens. From this perspective, employing robots in countries with high labor costs can actually create more jobs for their citizens.
Introducing a robot tax could lead to various problems. The criteria are unclear, and it could hinder the development of advancing robot technology. Furthermore, situations differ by country, and it is difficult for all nations to implement it simultaneously. While I oppose the introduction of a robot tax, I believe solutions to the job issues arising from the development of AI robots are absolutely necessary. As one such solution, the robot tax still has many problems that need to be resolved. Before introducing a robot tax, I believe laws must first be created to regulate the various issues surrounding AI robots. For instance, we must define how to classify intelligence levels and determine which robots would be subject to the tax. Addressing potential problems arising from the robot tax and then modifying and applying it could be one approach. However, I believe better solutions exist than a robot tax. For example, the International Bar Association (IBA) has also argued that policies must be prepared to address the impending job losses. Proposed policies include defining specific fields only humans can perform, implementing human employment quotas, establishing a basic income system, introducing a robot tax, and labeling human-made products with “made by humans.” Examining the policies suggested by the IBA beyond the robot tax could yield better solutions. Before introducing a robot tax, thorough discussion on both the robot tax and alternative policies is essential.
