[Annotated] Why taxing robots is not a good idea

Bill Gate's proposal is revealing about the challenge automation poses^[각주:1]

Bill Gates is an unlikely^[각주:2] Luddite^[각주:3], however much Microsoft may have provoked people to take a hammer to their computers. Yet in a recent interview with Quartz, an online publication, he expressed scepticism about society's ability to manage rapid automation. To forestall^[각주:4] a social crisis, he mused^[각주:5], governments should consider a tax on robots; if automation slows as a result, so much the better. It is an intriguing if impracticable^[각주:6] idea, which reveals a lot about the challenge of automation.

In some distant future robots with their own consciousnesses, nest-eggs^[각주:7] and accountants^[각주:8] might pay income taxes^[각주:9] like the rest of us (presumably^[각주:10] with as much enthusiasm^[각주:11]). That is not what Mr Gates has in mind. He argues that today's robots should be taxed - either their installation^[각주:12], or the profits firms enjoy by saving on the costs of the human labor displaced^[각주:13]. The money generated could be used to retrain^[각주:14] workers, and perhaps to finance^[각주:15] an expansion of health care and education, which provide lots of hard-to-automate jobs in teaching or caring for the old and sick.

A robot is a capital investment, like a blast furnace^[각주:16] or a computer. Economists typically advise against^[각주:17] taxing such things, which allow an economy to produce more. Taxation^[각주:18] that deters^[각주:19] investment is thought to make people poorer without raising much money. But Mr Gates seems to suggest that investment in robots is a little like investing in a coal-fired^[각주:20] generator^[각주:21]: it boosts economic output^[각주:22] but also imposes^[각주:23] a social cost, what economists call a negative externality^[각주:24]. Perhaps rapid automation threatens to dislodge^[각주:25] workers from old jobs faster than new sectors can absorb^[각주:26] them. That could lead to socially costly long-term unemployment, and potentially to support for destructive government policy. A tax on robots that reduced those costs might well be worth implementing, just as a tax on harmful blast-furnace emissions can discourage^[각주:27] pollution and leave society better off^[각주:28].

Reality, however, is more complex. Investments in robots can make human workers more productive rather than expendable^[각주:29]; taxing them could leave the employees affected worse off^[각주:30]. Particular workers may suffer by being displaced by robots, but workers as a whole might be better off^[각주:31] because prices fall. Slowing the deployment of^[각주:32] robots in health care and herding humans into^[각주:33] such jobs might look like a useful way to maintain social stability^[각주:34]. But if it means that health-care costs grow rapidly, gobbling up the gains in workers' incomes, then the victory is Pyrrhic^[각주:35]. 

The thorniest problem for^[각주:36] Mr Gates's proposal, however, is that, for the moment at least, automation is occurring not too rapidly but too slowly. The displacement of workers by machines ought to register as an increase in the rate of productivity growth - and a faster-growing economy. But since a burst of rapid productivity growth in the late 1990s and early 2000s, America's economy has persistently^[각주:37] disappointed on these measures. Mr Gates worries, understandably^[각주:38], about a looming^[각주:39] era of automation in which machines take over driving or managing warehouses. Yet in an economy already awash with^[각주:40] abundant, cheap labor, it may be that firms face too little pressure to invest in labor-saving technologies. Why refit^[각주:41] a warehouse when people queue up^[각주:42] to do the work at the minimum wage^[각주:43]? Mr Gates's proposal, by increasing the expense of robots relative to human labor, might further delay^[각주:44] an already overdue^[각주:45] productivity boom.

When faster automation does arrive, robots might not be the right tax target. Automation can be understood as the replacement of labor with capital. To save humans from penury^[각주:46], the reasoning^[각주:47] goes, a share of the economy's capital income needs to be diverted^[각주:48] to displaced workers. Expanding capital ownership is one strategy; people could own driverless^[각주:49] vehicles that operate as taxis^[각주:50], for instance, and rely on the flow of fares for part of their income. Taxing robots and redistributing^[각주:51] the proceeds^[각주:52] is another.

But as machines displace humans in production, their incomes will face the same pressures that afflict^[각주:53] humans. The share of total income paid in wages - the "labor share" - has been falling for decades. Labor abundance is partly to blame; the owners of factors of production in shorter supply - such as land in Silicon Valley or protected intellectual property^[각주:54] - are in a better position to bargain^[각주:55]. But machines are no less abundant than people. Factories can churn out^[각주:56] even complex contraptions^[각주:57]; the cost of producing the second or millionth copy of a piece of software is roughly zero. Every lorry driver^[각주:58] needs individual instruction; a capable autonomous-driving system^[각주:59] can be duplicated endlessly^[각주:60]. Abundant machines will prove no more capable of grabbing a fair share of the gains from growth than abundant humans have.

A new working paper by Simcha Barkai, of the University of Chicago, concludes that, although the share of income flowing to workers has declined in recent decades, the share flowing to capital (ie, including robots) has shrunk faster. What has grown is the markup firms can charge over their production costs, ie, their profits. Similarly, an NBER working paper published in January argues that the decline in the labor share^[각주:61] is linked to the rise of "superstar firms". A growing number of markets are "winner takes most", in which the dominant firm earns hefty profits^[각주:62]. 

DOS Kapital 

Large and growing profits are an indicator of market power^[각주:63]. That power might stem from^[각주:64] network effects (the value, in a networked^[각주:65] world, of being on the same platform as everyone else), the superior productive^[각주:66] cultures of leading firms, government protection, or something else. Waves of automation might necessitate^[각주:67] sharing the wealth of superstar firms: through distributed share-ownership^[각주:68] when they are public, or by taxing their profits when they are not. Robots are a convenient villain^[각주:69], but Mr Gates might reconsider^[각주:70] his target; when firms enjoy unassailable^[각주:71] market positions, workers and machines alike^[각주:72] lose out^[각주:73]. 

1. pose ; 1. [타동사][VN] (위협・문제 등을) 제기하다 [본문으로]
2. unlikely ; [형용사] ~ (to do sth) | ~ (that…) …할[일] 것 같지 않은, 있음직하지[있을 것 같지] 않은 [본문으로]
3. Luddite ; [명사] (英 못마땅함) 러다이트, 신기술 반대자 [본문으로]
4. forestall ; [타동사][VN] 미연에 방지하다 [본문으로]
5. muse ; 2. (사색에 잠긴 채) 혼잣말을 하다 [본문으로]
6. impracticable ; [형용사] 실행[실현]이 (거의) 불가능한 [본문으로]
7. nest-egg ; [명사] (비격식) 비상금, 저축금 [본문으로]
8. accountant ; [명사] 회계원, 회계사 [본문으로]
9. income tax ; [명사] 소득세 [본문으로]
10. presumably ; [부사] 아마, 짐작건대 [본문으로]
11. enthusiasm ; [명사] ~ (for sth/for doing sth) 열광; 열정, 열의 [본문으로]
12. installation ; 1. [U , C] (장비・가구의) 설치[설비] [본문으로]
13. displace ; 4. (특히 美) (직장・지위에서) 쫓아내다 [본문으로]
14. retrain ; [동사] ~ (sb) (as sth) (새로운 직종・기술 등에 대해) 재교육을 받다[하다] [본문으로]
15. finance ; [타동사][VN] 자금[재원]을 대다 [본문으로]
16. blast furnace ; [명사] (제철소의) 용광로 [본문으로]
17. advise against ; …에 반대 의견을 제시하다, …을 반대하다 [본문으로]
18. taxation ; 1. 조세, 세수 [본문으로]
19. deter ; (-rr-) ~ sb (from sth/from doing sth) 단념시키다, 그만두게 하다 [본문으로]
20. coal-fired ; [형용사] 석탄을 때는 [본문으로]
21. generator ; 3. (英) 전력 회사 [본문으로]
22. economic output ; 경제 생산 [본문으로]
23. impose ; 2. [타동사][VN] ~ sth (on/upon sb/sth) (힘들거나 불쾌한 것을) 부과하다[지우다] [본문으로]
24. externality ; 4. (예측·의도되지 않은) 외적 영향[결과] [본문으로]
25. dislodge ; 2. ~ sb (from sth) (지위・직장에서) 몰아내다[축출하다] [본문으로]
26. absorb ; 2. MAKE PART OF STH LARGER | [흔히 수동태로] (큰 조직의 일부로) 흡수하다 [본문으로]
27. discourage ; 1. ~ sth | ~ sb from doing sth (무엇을 어렵게 만들거나 반대하여) 막다[말리다] [본문으로]
28. better off ; 형편이 더 나은 [본문으로]
29. expendable ; [형용사] (격식) 소모용의 [본문으로]
30. worse off ; 더욱 더 궁색한. [본문으로]
31. be better off ; (마음이나 처지가) 더 좋은[나은] [본문으로]
32. deployment ; [명사] 전개, 배치 [본문으로]
33. herd ; 1. [자,타동사][+ adv. / prep.] (특정 방향으로) 이동하다[하게 하다] [본문으로]
34. social stability ; 사회적 안정 [본문으로]
35. Pyrrhic victory ; [명사] 너무 많은 희생[대가]을 치르고 얻은 승리 [본문으로]
36. thorny ; [형용사] (주로 명사 앞에 씀) (문제 등이) 곤란한[골치 아픈] [본문으로]
37. persistently ; [부사] 끈덕지게, 고집스레 [본문으로]
38. understandably ; [부사] 당연하게도, 당연히 [본문으로]
39. looming ; [형용사] 어렴풋이 보이기 시작하는, 희미하게 나타나는; 기분 나쁜, 무시무시한 (menacing). [본문으로]
40. awash with ; …이 넘쳐나는. [본문으로]
41. refit ; [동사] -tt- (새 부품・장비 등을 맞춰 넣거나 하여) 수리[개장(改裝)]하다 [본문으로]
42. queue up ; to wait or stand in a line with other people in order to get something or do something [본문으로]
43. minimum wage ; 최저 임금 [본문으로]
44. further delay ; 더 늦추다 [본문으로]
45. overdue ; 2. 벌써 행해졌어야 할, 이미 늦어진 [본문으로]
46. penury ; [U] (격식) 극빈 [본문으로]
47. reasoning ; [U] 추리, 추론 [본문으로]
48. divert ; 2. (돈・재료 등을) 전용[유용]하다 [본문으로]
49. driverless ; [형용사] 운전사가 필요 없는 [본문으로]
50. taxis ; [명사] taxi의 복수형. [본문으로]
51. redistribute ; [타동사][VN] 재분배하다 [본문으로]
52. proceeds ; [pl.] ~ (of/from sth) (물건 판매・행사 등을 하여 받는) 돈[수익금] [본문으로]
53. afflict ; [타동사][VN] [흔히 수동태로] (격식) 괴롭히다, 피해를 입히다 [본문으로]
54. intellectual property ; [U] (법률) 지적 재산 [본문으로]
55. bargain ; [자동사][V] ~ (with sb) (about/over/for sth) 협상[흥정]하다 [본문으로]
56. churn out ; [동사] 대량 생산하다; 잇달아 내다 [본문으로]
57. contraption ; (기묘한) 기계[장치] [본문으로]
58. lorry driver ; 대형 트럭 기사 [본문으로]
59. autonomous driving ; 자동주행 기술, 자율주행 [본문으로]
60. duplicate ; 1. [흔히 수동태로] 복사[복제]하다, 사본을 만들다 [본문으로]
61. labor share ; (노동) 노동분배율 [본문으로]
62. hefty ; 2. (돈의 액수가) 많은, 두둑한 [본문으로]
63. market power ; [명사] (경제) 시장 지배력(판매자 또는 구입자가 상품의 가격·수량을 지배할 수 있는 힘) [본문으로]
64. stem from ; (진행형으로는 쓰이지 않음) ~에서 생겨나다[기인하다] [본문으로]
65. networked ; [형용사] 네트워크화한, 네트워크 방송의 [본문으로]
66. productive ; 2. 결실 있는, 생산적인 [본문으로]
67. necessitate ; (격식) …을 필요하게 만들다 [본문으로]
68. share ownership ; 지분 소유권 [본문으로]
69. villain ; 1. (이야기・연극 등의 중심인물인) 악당[악한] [본문으로]
70. reconsider ; 재고하다 [본문으로]
71. unassailable ; [형용사] (격식) 난공불락의 [본문으로]
72. alike ; [형용사] (명사 앞에는 안 씀) (아주) 비슷한 [본문으로]
73. lose out ; (~을) 놓치다; 손해를 보다 [본문으로]