Trump Tax Plan Gives Jobs Away to Robots and Will Increase Unemployment

Veritas

1 Lord, 1 Faith, 1 Baptism
Aug 7, 2003
17,038
2,806
Pacific NW USA
Visit site
✟109,662.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
And no amount of tax incentives to industry will keep them from going for automation if it is possible.

So let's just punish them out of business with confiscatory tax rates? Gee, that makes a lot of sense.

We need to give up the fiction that giving kickbacks or tax incentives to businesses incentivizes them to care one whit about the workers.

You need to disabuse yourself of the notion that businesses exist solely for the benefit of the employees. People don't start companies as as conduit for jobs. They start companies because they have a product or service that people want. In order to deliver it, they have to hire people to make, distribute or serve. In the process, those workers earn market-based wages and benefits. If the business can no longer provide the product or service in a profitable way, they eventually go out of business. That would be true regardless of whether they used automation or human workers. The fact is, progress will drive these innovative technologies to create efficiencies. Do you want to go back to the horse and buggy days?


In publically traded companies the ONLY people that I am aware of who are mandated by law to be taken care of are investors.

There is no SEC regulation that mandates investors "be taken care of". I know. I'm in the industry. The only regulations publically traded companies are required to follow regarding investors, is filing accurate financial disclosure documents so that investors can make informed decisions. Perhaps you're unaware that people who invest in stocks have zero protection should the company go bankrupt. They assume 100% of the risk that they could lose all their money.
 
Upvote 0

PeachyKeane

M.I.A.
Mar 11, 2006
5,853
3,579
✟91,092.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
So let's just punish them out of business with confiscatory tax rates? Gee, that makes a lot of sense.

Wasn't that the plan for businesses that outsourced? Didn't Trump promise to place crazy fees on imported goods?

You need to disabuse yourself of the notion that businesses exist solely for the benefit of the employees. People don't start companies as as conduit for jobs. They start companies because they have a product or service that people want. In order to deliver it, they have to hire people to make, distribute or serve. In the process, those workers earn market-based wages and benefits. If the business can no longer provide the product or service in a profitable way, they eventually go out of business. That would be true regardless of whether they used automation or human workers. The fact is, progress will drive these innovative technologies to create efficiencies. Do you want to go back to the horse and buggy days?

You're cool with outsourcing then?[/Quote]
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Dec 4, 2017
21
9
56
Austin, TX
✟1,516.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
So let's just punish them out of business with confiscatory tax rates? Gee, that makes a lot of sense.

No, but we need to keep in mind that it is pure fiction to think that giving them tax breaks will somehow inerrantly create more jobs.

Yes it may free up some money for reinvestment, but it isn't necessarily a 1:1 proposition. As we've seen before, when industry is given tax holidays they take the money and plow it into share buy-backs or executive compensation.

Just recently the groups who are overseeing compensation for executives of Toys R Us who completed a major lay off earlier this year as part of their bankruptcy were asking the courts the right to pay them multimillion dollar bonuses to stay on.

We can't expect industry to act in any way that isn't explicitly outlined for them.

You need to disabuse yourself of the notion that businesses exist solely for the benefit of the employees.

And we also need to not allow businesses to exist solely for the benefit of the executive suite.

People don't start companies as as conduit for jobs. They start companies because they have a product or service that people want.

I wholly agree with that. And I hope that you also agree that there are no jobs "created"....just work that needs to be done.

Job creators are a mythical beast. No one "creates" a job out of the goodness of their heart, they create jobs because work needs doing.

For some reason in this country we have elevated the business owner to sainthood status while characterizing the workers as greedy envious graspers.

Do you want to go back to the horse and buggy days?

Not at all! And I fully understand the drive to automation. But we cannot characterize it as a weakness of the worker.

There is no SEC regulation that mandates investors "be taken care of".

I believe the corporation has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders.
Does a Corporation Owe Fiduciary Duty to Shareholders?

This includes "The duty of care requires directors on the board to exercise good business judgment when making decisions on behalf of the corporation."

This is far more than merely filing the proper paperwork.

Some executives take these to also include maximizing profits although that is a controversial stance.

https://www.litigationandtrial.com/...ons-are-legally-required-to-maximize-profits/

There Is No Effective Fiduciary Duty to Maximize Profits
 
Upvote 0
Dec 4, 2017
21
9
56
Austin, TX
✟1,516.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Automation was encouraged when the minimum wage was bumped up to $15 per hour in some places.

This seems disingenuous of corporations. Considering that the purchasing power of the minimum wage has not increased (but has actually decreased) over the last 40 years or so.

The federal minimum wage hit its peak purchasing power nearly 50 years ago

We cannot put people on an ever-decreasing value for nearly half a century and then, when someone asks for a modest recouping of that value to scream that that will collapse the economy.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: whatbogsends
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,653
12,106
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,944.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
This seems disingenuous of corporations. Considering that the purchasing power of the minimum wage has not increased (but has actually decreased) over the last 40 years or so.

The federal minimum wage hit its peak purchasing power nearly 50 years ago

We cannot put people on an ever-decreasing value for nearly half a century and then, when someone asks for a modest recouping of that value to scream that that will collapse the economy.

40 years ago, I was only 6. When I was 16, I got my first job where I was paid $3.35 per hour, which was the minimum at that time. It's $7.25 now, and most people make more than that.
 
Upvote 0
Dec 4, 2017
21
9
56
Austin, TX
✟1,516.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
40 years ago, I was only 6. When I was 16, I got my first job where I was paid $3.35 per hour, which was the minimum at that time. It's $7.25 now, and most people make more than that.

Money does not have the same "value" over time. That is why the analyses are in terms of either "current dollars" or "purchasing power".

What $7.75 can buy you today is very, very, very different from what $7.74 could buy in 1960.

In "real dollars" (constant dollars, or dollars adjusted for inflation) the minimum wage has actually decreased over time.
 
Upvote 0

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
37,039
13,063
✟1,077,460.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
My first job was 50 years ago. I earned the minimum wage, a dollar sixty an hour. Hard to believe it purchased more than the minimum wage does today.

Companies are short-sighted if they don't realize that they won't be able to sell any products if people aren't working. Robots don't need clothes, food, or iPhones. They are on a collision course for destruction, as is our country's economy, the more jobs they try to eliminate.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Innsmuthbride
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PeachyKeane

M.I.A.
Mar 11, 2006
5,853
3,579
✟91,092.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
40 years ago, I was only 6. When I was 16, I got my first job where I was paid $3.35 per hour, which was the minimum at that time. It's $7.25 now, and most people make more than that.

Average price of a gallon of gas in the USA in 1981: $1.19
Average price of a gallon of gas in the USA today: $2.49
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,653
12,106
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,944.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
This is a scary subject. I have heard predictions recently that within a few years, 20% of the U.S. factory jobs will be lost to robots.

If it costs less to manufacture things using robots, then prices for things will drop, and your dollars will go further.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,653
12,106
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,944.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
What's the difference? Corporations save money by replacing American workers with (x) labor, and pass the savings on to you!

The robots/automation would have to be installed and maintained on location, which would mean American workers (unless they're illegal immigrants) on American soil.
 
Upvote 0

Veritas

1 Lord, 1 Faith, 1 Baptism
Aug 7, 2003
17,038
2,806
Pacific NW USA
Visit site
✟109,662.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
I believe the corporation has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders.
Does a Corporation Owe Fiduciary Duty to Shareholders?

This includes "The duty of care requires directors on the board to exercise good business judgment when making decisions on behalf of the corporation."

This is far more than merely filing the proper paperwork.

Now you're moving the goal posts. You specifically stated that "In publically traded companies the ONLY people that I am aware of who are mandated by law to be taken care of are investors." And as I responded, there is no such law. Further, fiduciary duties are reflected in the financial reports that are required by law. And in case you didn't know, the board of directors are voted on by the shareholders. The fact that shareholders continue to vote for directors that keep executive compensation high is something you fail to address. The general perception however, is that paying someone a lot of money and giving them stock options will incentivize them to make the company more profitable. This is largely true. If a big chunk of your compensation was stock and your leadership increased shareholder value, than your shares are worth more.
 
Upvote 0

Veritas

1 Lord, 1 Faith, 1 Baptism
Aug 7, 2003
17,038
2,806
Pacific NW USA
Visit site
✟109,662.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
What's the difference? Corporations save money by replacing American workers with (x) labor, and pass the savings on to you!

I don't appreciate words being put in my mouth. I didn't imply anything you stated.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums