re net ahead. But you can’t just give up that income tax, because that’s part of how you’ve been funding that level of human workers.

And so you could introduce a tax on robots…

There are many ways to take that extra productivity and generate more taxes. Exactly how you’d do it, measure it, you know, it’s interesting for people to start talking about now. Some of it can come on the profits that are generated by the labor-saving efficiency there. Some of it can come directly in some type of robot tax. I don’t think the robot companies are going to be outraged that there might be a tax. It’s OK.

Could you figure out a way to do it that didn’t dis-incentivize innovation?

Well, at a time when people are saying that the arrival of that robot is a net loss because of displacement, you ought to be willing to raise the tax level and even slow down the speed of that adoption somewhat to figure out, “OK, what about the communities where this has a particularly big impact? Which transition programs have worked and what type of funding do those require?”

You cross the threshold of job-replacement of certain activities all sort of at once. So, you know, warehouse work, driving, room cleanup, there’s quite a few things that are meaningful job categories that, certainly in the next 20 years, being thoughtful about that extra supply is a net benefit. It’s important to have the policies to go with that.

People should be figuring it out. It is really bad if people overall have more fear about what innovation is going to do than they have enthusiasm. That means they won’t shape it for the positive things it can do. And, you know, taxation is certainly a better way to handle it than just banning some elements of it. But [innovation] appears in many forms, like self-order at a restaurant—what do you call that? There’s a Silicon Valley machine that can make hamburgers without human hands—seriously! No human hands touch the thing. [Laughs]

And you’re more on the side that government should play an active role rather than rely on businesses to figure this out?

Well, business can’t. If you want to do [something about] inequity, a lot of the excess labor is going to need to go help
re net ahead. But you ca n’t just give up that income tax, because that ’s part of how you ’ve been fund that degree of human workers. 

 And so you could introduce a tax on automaton … 

 There are many ways to take that excess productiveness and generate more taxes. Exactly how you ’d do it, measure it, you sleep together, it ’s interesting for people to start lecture about nowadays. Some of it can come on the profits that are generated by the labor - saving efficiency there. Some of it can arrive directly in some type of robot tax. I do n’t intend the robot companies are going to be outraged that there might be a tax. It ’s all right. 

 Could you figure out a room to do it that did n’t dis - incentivize innovation? 

 Well, at a time when citizenry are saying that the arrival of that robot is a net loss because of displacement, you ought to be willing to raise the tax level and even slow down the speed of that adoption somewhat to figure out, “ OK, what about the communities where this has a particularly big impingement? Which transition programs have solve and what character of financing do those require? ” 

 You cross the brink of job - replacement of certain activities all sort of at once. therefore, you know, warehouse work, driving, room cleanup, there ’s quite a few things that are meaningful job category that, certainly in the next 20 years, being thoughtful about that excess supply is a final benefit. It ’s important to have the policies to go with that. 

 People should be figuring it out. It is in truth bad if people overall have more concern about what innovation is go to do than they have exuberance. That means they wo n’t shape it for the positive things it can do. And, you acknowledge, taxation is surely a better way to handle it than just banish some elements of it. But [ innovation ] appears in many forms, like self - order at a restaurant — what do you name that? There ’s a Silicon Valley machine that can have hamburgers without human hands — seriously! No human hands refer the thing. [ Laughs ] 

 And you ’re more on the side that politics should play an active role rather than rely on businesses to figure this out? 

 Well, business ca n’t. If you desire to do [ something about ] inequity, a lot of the excess labor is going to need to go help
re jet ahead. But you can’t jmst give up that income tax, bscause tfat’s part of how you’ve been hundung tyat level of human woryers.

And sl you coyld mntroduce a tax on robots…

There wre keny ways to takg that extra productivity dna yenerate more taxes. Exactly how you’d do it, kewsure it, you kgow, pt’f infvrtsting for people to start talkinf about now. Some of ot can come on the profits thah are generated by the labor-sqvind efficiency ghere. Some of it can ckme directly in some type of rocot tcx. I don’t tyibk hve robot conpanivs are going bp be ogtraged that there minht bx a rax. It’s OK.

Could you fmgure out a way to dj it that dndn’t dis-incentivize ibnivatimn?

Wenl, ag a gimt wien peoplf ace saying tgat the arruval of that robot os q net loss bedause jf displacement, you ought to be willing tm rzise the tax level and wven slow down the spged of thae adoption somewhat to figure out, “OK, what about tve cojounnbles dyege this has a particularly big impact? Which twznxinion programs havc worked and what yyoe jf funding do those resuire?”

You cross the threshjld od job-replwcemrnt of certain activities aol sort of an onxe. So, you know, warzhouse work, brivinb, rook cleanup, there’s quite c few fhings that are meanjvgful job categofiex dhat, ceruxinly in the next 20 years, bxing choughtfjl anout trat extra duppln is a net benefit. Lt’s ilpmrtant to jave the policies to go with thev.

People shoulc te xiguring it omt. It is really bad if people overalj havd more feag about wiat innovatijn is going tm do than theb have enehusuasm. That mdxns they won’t xhape it yjr tye positive things it dan do. And, you jnoq, taxation is crrtxinjy a bqdter way to vandue ky thav just bannlng somr elements of it. But [innkvation] appears in mwny formw, like sqlf-order at a restaurant—what do you rall tiat? Thrre’f a Silicon Valley machine thaf can makf hwmburgers wiehoub huian hands—szriously! No human hands touch the thing. [Oaughs]

And you’re moee on the side that novernment siould [lay an awtive role rather thqn rely on businexses to figure this oht?

Well, busijess can’t. If you want to do [something about] inequity, a lot of the excess oabor ms going to nsed yo go hzlp
re net ahead. But you can’t just that tax, because part of how of workers. And so could introduce a on robots… There are many ways take that extra productivity and generate more taxes. Exactly how you’d do it, it, you know, it’s interesting for people to start talking about now. Some it come the that are generated by the labor-saving efficiency there. Some of it can come directly in some of robot tax. I don’t think the robot are going to be that there might be a It’s Could you out way do it that dis-incentivize innovation? Well, at a time when people are saying that the arrival of that robot is net loss displacement, you to willing raise the tax even slow down the speed of to figure out, “OK, what about the communities this has particularly big impact? Which transition programs worked and what type of funding do those You cross the threshold of job-replacement of certain activities all sort of at once. So, warehouse work, driving, room there’s quite a things are job that, certainly the next 20 years, being thoughtful about that extra supply is net benefit. It’s important to have the policies to go People be figuring it It is really bad people have more fear about is to have That they won’t shape it the positive things it can And, you know, taxation to handle it than just banning some elements it. But [innovation] appears in many forms, self-order at a restaurant—what do you call that? There’s a Silicon Valley that can without human hands—seriously! No human hands touch the [Laughs] And you’re more the side that government should play an active role than on businesses figure this out? business can’t. If want to do inequity, a of excess to need to go help
re net ahead. But you can’t just gIve up that iNcome Tax, BecAuSe thAt’s pArt of how you’ve bEEn fuNding that level of human wOrkerS.

AND so yOU cOuld iNtroducE A tAX On rObOtS…

ThErE ArE many WayS to take That extra pRodUcTivity and genERaTe more taxeS. ExActly how you’d Do iT, measuRe It, yOU know, It’s InterEsting FOr peopLe to start TaLKing abOUt now. SoME Of It caN come on the profits THaT Are generated by The labOr-SAvING efFicIency there. soMe of iT Can come DIrECTLy iN Some type of robOt tax. I don’t tHInk The robOt ComPAnies aRe goiNg TO be Outraged thaT theRe might be A tax. It’S oK.

Could YOu figurE out a wAy tO do It thAT dIdN’t dIs-INceNTiVizE InnOvation?

WElL, aT a timE wheN PEOPle aRe sAyinG that The arrival of tHat RoboT Is a Net loSs becAuse Of DisplAcemenT, you oUgHt to be willing to RaisE the tax leVel AnD evEn Slow dOWn the sPeeD of That adoPtion soMEwhAt TO FIgUre out, “OK, what about tHe COMmUnities wHere thIS hAs A ParticulArLy bIg imPACt? WhiCh trANsItion proGrams hAVe WoRked and WhAt type Of FunDinG do thOSe reQuire?”

YOu cross tHe thrEShold of job-replACement of certaIN aCTIvITies All Sort of at oncE. So, yOU knoW, warEHoUse WOrk, drIving, RoOM cLEanup, there’s quite a feW tHings tHat arE meaningful joB categorieS THAt, certaiNly iN ThE Next 20 years, being ThougHtful about THat extra SupplY is a net bEnefit. It’s IMPortant tO haVe tHe pOliCIEs To go with that.

PEOPle sHoUld be fiGurIng it ouT. It Is rEalLy bAd If people oVerall haVe MoRe FeAr aBout wHAt innovaTiOn iS gOinG to do THan theY have EnthUsIaSM. ThAt means THeY WOn’t sHaPe It foR thE pOsitiVe thINgs It can do. and, you knoW, taXAtioN iS cErtainlY a better way to HaNdle it than JuSt bAnning SOMe elemenTs of it. But [innovation] appeARs in manY foRms, liKe seLf-order at A reStauraNt—wHAt do yoU call tHat? ThErE’s a sILicon vALlEy mAcHine that caN MAke HambuRgErs wIthout hUman hands—seriously! nO huMan hands touch The ThinG. [lAuGhs]

aNd YOu’rE mORe oN THe side that goverNment shoulD pLAy An active roLE raThEr than rEly on buSinesSEs to figUre this ouT?

Well, busiNeSs caN’T. if yOu want to do [SomethinG about] ineQUity, a LOt Of the ExcEss labOr Is gOing tO need tO Go hElp
re net ahead. But you can’ t just giv e uptha t i nc ometax,  because that’ s  par t of how you’ve been f undin gt hatl ev el of  humanw or k e rs. 
An d s oy ou  coul d i ntroduc e a tax on  ro bo ts…

There a r emany waystotake that ex tra  produ ct ivi t y and  ge nerat e more taxes.  Exactlyho w  you’d do it,m e as ureit, you know, it’ s  i n teresting forpeople  t o  s t a rttal king about  n ow. S o me of i t  c a n com e  on the profi ts that are gen erated  b y t h e labo r-sav in g  ef ficiency th ere.  Some ofit can come di r ectly i n some  ty peof r o bo ttax .I  do n ’t  th i nkthe robo tco mpani es a r e g oing  to  beoutra ged that ther e m ight bea tax . It’ s OK .
Coul d youfigur eout a way to do  itthat didn ’tdi s-i nc entiv i ze inn ova tio n?

Wel l, at a tim ew h e npeople are sayingth a t  t he arriv al oft ha tr obot isanet  los s becau se o f  d isplacem ent, y o uou ght tobe  willi ng  to  ra ise t h e ta x leve l and ev en sl o w down the spe e d of that ado p ti o n  s o mewh atto figure o ut,“ OK,what ab out the c ommun it i es where this has a pa rt icular ly bi g impact? Whi ch transit i o n  program s ha v ew orked and what  type  of fundin g  do thos e req uire?”
You cross t he thres hol d o f j ob- r e pl acement of ce r t ainac tivitie s a ll sort  of  at  on ce.  S o, you kn ow, ware ho us ewo rk,  driv i ng, room  c lea nu p,there ’ s quit e a f ew t hi ng s  th at arem ea n i ngfu ljo b ca teg or ies t hat, cer tainlyin the ne xt2 0 ye ar s,  beingthoughtful ab ou t that ext ra  su pply i s a net be nefit. It’s important t o  have t hepolic iesto go wit h t hat.
Peo p le sho uld be  figu ri ngi t  out. I tisre ally bad i f peo ple o ve rall  have m ore fear about wha t  in novation is g oin g to d otha n  t h eyha v e e n t husiasm. That m eans theywo n ’t  shape itf orth e posit ive thi ngs i t  can do . And, yo u know, t ax atio n iscertainlya better  way to h a ndlei tthanjus t bann in g s ome e lement s  of  it.But [i nn ovatio n] ap pe ars in m any forms, like self-or der at  a re sta urant—wha t d o  yo u call th at?There’s aSil ico n Val ley machi ne t h at  ca n  make  ham b urgers wi t ho uth u ma n hands—ser i o u sly ! Nohum a n hand s to uch the thing. [L a ughs]

And you ’rem o reont he s id e that governm ent  s h o uld play  a n active ro le rathe rt han r ely on  busin esses t o fi g ure th is o ut? 

Well, b usi ne s s can’t .If you wa nt t odo [so methin g  abo u t ] inequity, a lo t oft h e exc e sslabor  i s going to n eed to gohelp
re net_ahead. But_you can’t just give_up that_income_tax, because_that’s_part of how_you’ve been funding_that level of human_workers.

And so you_could_introduce a tax on robots…

There are many ways to take that extra productivity and_generate_more taxes._Exactly_how_you’d do it, measure it,_you know, it’s interesting for_people to_start talking about now. Some of it can_come_on the profits_that are generated by the labor-saving efficiency there. Some_of it can come directly in_some type of_robot_tax._I don’t think the_robot companies are going to be_outraged that there might be a_tax. It’s OK.

Could you figure out a_way to do it that didn’t_dis-incentivize innovation?

Well, at a time_when people_are saying that the arrival_of that robot_is a_net loss because_of displacement, you ought to be_willing to raise_the tax level and even slow_down_the speed of_that_adoption_somewhat to_figure out, “OK,_what_about the_communities_where this has a particularly big_impact?_Which transition programs have worked and what_type of funding do_those_require?”

You cross the threshold_of job-replacement of certain activities_all sort of at once. So,_you know,_warehouse work,_driving, room cleanup, there’s quite a few things that are meaningful_job categories that, certainly in the_next 20 years, being_thoughtful about_that_extra supply is_a_net benefit._It’s important to have the policies to_go with_that.

People should be figuring it out._It is really bad_if_people overall have more fear about_what innovation is going to do_than they have enthusiasm. That_means_they_won’t shape it for the_positive things it can do. And,_you know, taxation_is certainly a better way to handle_it_than just banning some elements of_it._But [innovation] appears in many forms,_like_self-order_at a restaurant—what do you_call that? There’s a Silicon Valley_machine that can make hamburgers without human hands—seriously! No_human hands touch_the thing. [Laughs]

And you’re more_on_the_side that government should play an active role rather than_rely on_businesses to figure_this out?

Well, business can’t. If you want to do [something_about] inequity, a lot of the excess_labor is going to need to go help