Category Archives: Automation

Written by: Michael A. Lewis Silberman School of Social Work at Hunter College and the CUNY Graduate Center

When I first became interested in the basic income, I was a graduate student studying welfare reform. For those who arent in the know, welfare is the more common name used in the U.S. to refer to a program called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and which used to be called Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). TANF and AFDC arent exactly the same programs, but they do have some key things in common: they provide financial support to low income persons, most of those who receive such support are women and children, and, I think its fair to say, both programs are somewhat controversial.

The controversy around welfare has to do with the fact that many of those who receive benefits are apparently able-bodied persons whore thought capable of working (working in this context means selling ones labor in return for a wage, instead of, say, taking care of ones children, something many would regard as work). Yet not enough of those on welfare are working, according to a common belief among many U.S. citizens/residents as well as, apparently, politicians. So in an attempt to socialize welfare beneficiaries into understanding the importance of work, many of them are required to work in return for their benefits, a practice commonly called workfare. Many also remain poor, even after receiving benefits, because the financial support they receive is pretty meager.

As a graduate student, I thought workfare, as well as the low level of benefits provided to recipients was a very unjust way of assisting poor persons; I also thought we could do better (in fact, I still think these things). My entry into the world of basic income was because I believed it a more just way of addressing poverty than welfare and related programs. Once I started studying basic income and meeting others interested in the idea, I heard other justifications for it. It would enhance freedom, it would allow people to engage in care work if they so choose, it would give people an income representing their share of commonly owned natural resources, it would be a way of replacing some or all of the welfare state (which, of course, assumes there is something wrong with the current system), etc. But the argument that seems to have caught on the most, at least in the U.S., is the idea that a basic income will become necessary as robots/machines take our jobs.

I have to admit that part of me has been a bit concerned about the degree to which the automation argument seems to dominate basic income discussions. My worry is that as we spend so much time debating whos right about whether robots will take most, or perhaps all, of our jobs and, therefore, whether therell be a need for a basic income, other arguments for such a policy get crowded out of the discussion. Yet as Ive voiced this concern, mainly to myself, Ive also wondered why this argument for a basic income seems to have caught on in a way that others havent?

I think part of the answer has to do with where I startedU.S. citizens/residents worry a lot about the degree to which healthy people work to take care of themselves (and their families) and are quite skeptical about policies they believe will allow people to shirk this responsibility. But I think another part of the answer has to do with the role of race in our society.I suspect that in the minds of many citizens/residents the degree to which a basic income would allow people to shirk their obligations to work would vary by race. To put it bluntly, I suspect many assume that black and brown people would be more likely to shirk this responsibility than whites would be. If Im right about all this, then perhaps it shouldnt be surprising that the U.S. isnt naturally the most fertile place for the basic income idea to take hold. But why would it take hold in the form of the automation argument? I think the answer here might be pretty simple. If machines are about to take all our jobs, then automation represents a relatively indiscriminant force. That is, hard working white people might be threatened just as much as lazy shiftless brown ones are. Perhaps this has been enough to get white folks to take notice of a policy that perhaps could address the problem.

About the author:Michael A. Lewis is a social worker and sociologist by training whose areas of interest are public policy and quantitative methods. Hes also a co-founder of USBIG and has written a number of articles, book chapters, and other pieces on the basic income, including the co-edited work The Ethics and Economics of the Basic Income Guarantee. Lewis is on the faculties of the Silberman School of Social Work at Hunter College and the Graduate and University Center of the City University of New York.

Michael Lewis has written 3 articles.

View original post here:

On the 'automation' argument for basic income - Basic Income News

If you have been watching political tectonics on both sides of the Atlantic, you may have noticed that analysts are increasingly getting it wrong: "it" being economics, politics, and social trends. The all of it, wrong. Why is this?

We are now deep into a digital transformation, and a new way of thinking and working and living. The business models of our past are faltering. Legacy thinking is virtually unfit for this digital age. The reality is that the conditions within which humanity operates are not what they used to be. Yet, thousands of self-proclaimed experts continue their important work with obsolete methods and mindsets, outdated hardware and software.

A prime example of this is the hysteria that surrounds automation and artificial intelligence. Almost every newspaper and media outlet warns of an apocalyptic future when technology will fracture the employment landscape. As a result, many fear that technology is creating job-stealing robots.

On that score, there are many lessons to be learned from our past.

For example, the industrial revolution taught us that as traditional jobs disappear, we need to ensure that people of all ages are sufficiently educated to prepare and take advantage of the new emerging roles in our immediate future.

Burying our heads in the sand and arming our children with skills for roles that will no longer exist is certainly not the answer. Neither is clinging to business models of the past or recreating the good-old days. The times demand new skills, new mindsets, new competencies, and new institutions.

This backward glance is one of the problems that I encountered with President Trump's campaign slogan "Make America Great Again." This is not a post against our President, I respect him and respect our presidency. This is not about politics. It's about vision. It is impossible to go back in time or to recreate the past. Building a better and brighter future is the only way forward.

If we compare the jobs of one hundred years ago to the jobs of the present, we would be stunned by the standard of living and the thankless work. Creative directors, content strategists, app developers and social media managers are a product of our times. The mentality of doing what you love is also a product of the epoch.

Indeed, hundreds of traditional roles have disappeared over the years, but they have been replaced with new job titles for our digital age.

The Obama administration had published a report to Congress in February 2016 (link here) that was subsequently removed - I cannot seem to find the PDF anywhere on the web anymore. The HuffPost had also discussed the contents of this report when it was published. I quote from that report:

Despite the big scary headlines, we are not running out of work. The challenge that faces society and government is that many people see the available jobs as, on the one hand, unworthy of them. On the other, they see themselves as lacking the skills to qualify.

It is true that the growing demise of middle-skill jobs could cause employment polarization where lower paid workers serve the more affluent without upward mobility. This dynamic would undoubtedly be a step backward. Howeveronce againthe lessons learned from past economic transformations suggest it does not have to be this way.

For example, today it is difficult to imagine that people once blamed the tractor for killing agricultural jobs. In fact, this new machine left an entire generation without work on farms. It also led to the inception of the high school movement, which then led to greater investment in education and ultimately created tremendous prosperity.

Although we often congratulate ourselves for just how far we have come as a society, the truth is that we have the same problems today as we did 200 years ago.

Whether they be the Luddites of the early 1800s or the analysts and journalists of 2017, the issues are essentially the same. The fear of machines, robots, and technology rendering humans obsolete and taking away our jobs.

Make no mistake that many traditional roles we hold dear will slowly disappear. The transition from an analog to a digital world will not be easy. To thrive, we will need to invest in ourselves rather than in things. We will need to secure for ourselves the relevant skills to succeed.

This transition is as it should be for the same reason that we probably dont want to carry on the work of our grandparents. Not to say preserving a legacy is entirely unwanted, but it is not a sustainable policy for an entire societyespecially one in flux like ours.

As technology continues to pervade every aspect of human life, changewithin us and around uswill remain the only constant. Sure, there are challenges and difficult decisions ahead of us. Take heart. Our destiny is in our hands, not in the hands of the machines we create. Dont let any publication tell you otherwise.

Read more:

Why Automation Will Create, Not Destroy, Jobs - Huffington Post

Could machines really steal jobs?

Gates thinks so.

He's concerned forthe millions of people working in jobslikely to see automation in factories and warehouses, truck and taxidrivers and whether they will be able tofindwork if robots take away their jobs.

In aninterview with the Quartz, Gatessaid industriesand governments needto start looking intothe social consequences of replacing people with robots.

Gates's suggestionhastechnology buffs concerned.

His commentscome at a time whenUS President Donald Trump has ignited debate on how peopleare tired of the government's inability tostem job losses and addressgrowing income inequality.

The tech billionaireandphilanthropisthas proposed an additional taxon companies where robots replace humans. Gates said the tax revenueshould be used to train people for jobs that are available.

A million people who work as delivery truck drivers risk losing their jobs as more companies opt for self-driven vehicles to cut costs. (AP)

There will always be work where human interactionis important, such as teaching and nursing, Gatessaid.

A robot tax, really?

Companies that automate production and serviceswill paythe tax, Gates explains.

But these companieswill also be saving as they won't payincome tax, contribute to social security and have disability insurance. This means that despite the tax, theywill still see increased profits.

Should people be afraid of technology?

The threat that new technology will take away jobs from humans goes back 200 years.

But recenttechnological advancements haveraised anxiety. Half of the jobs in developed countries such as the US are atrisk of being automated,research fromOxford Universityshows.

There was a time when telephone companies employed people to operate switchboards but then came automatedsystems, ending the need for humans.Tractors and mechanical harvesters forced millions of farmers to migrate tocities.

It's not just assembly-line jobs that the fast-learning algorithms threaten to take over. It seems the work that requireshuman thinking and knowledge will alsobe taken overby computers in a few years.

University-educated radiologists now face being replaced bycomputers that cananalyse images accurately and faster, writes Martin Ford in his bookRise of the Robots.

News organisations are using the algorithm of Automated Insights to produce reports faster than journalists. (Getty Images)

But is automation all that bad?

Opinion is divided.

Critics argue that slowing down automation could stallgrowthand hurt the economy. And machines are more efficient and can produce more.

Amazon opened a store last year where customers walk in, pick up products and walk out without stopping at the cashier. The payment is charged to their online accounts. Such stores can eliminate millions of jobs around the world. (Getty Images)

There are somelike financial columnist, Matthew Lynn,who arguethat technology that destroys jobs hasthe potential to create new ones.

"Gates, who destroyed the typing pool with word-processing software, should know that better than anyone."MicrosoftWord helped millions of people become writers and online content developers.

The Economist said Gates's proposal could help maintainsocial stability but it would also mean higher costs for services such as healthcare.

Gates's backers say immediate action needs to be taken.

QuincyLarson, who runs the Free Code Camp, said in hisblogthat the threat of automation displacing millions of workers is very real.

He cites the example of Amazon Go stores where people can pick up their grocerieswithout going through cashier lines. The bill is charged automatically to a customer's Amazon account.

This Wired video shows the efficiency gains warehousing companies can have by employing robots

Workers should be trained for emerging engineering jobs such as programming work with a portion of taxpayers' money that at the moment is used to subsidised industry, Larson said.

Do other tech giants support Gates?

He has some support.

Business tycoon,Elon Musk,who is at the forefront of self-drivingvehicletechnology, alsowants asafety net for people who are replaced by robots.

The founder of Tesla suggestsauniversal basic income for people who become unemployed as a result of automation.

"There would be fewer and fewer jobs that a robot cant do better," he told a conference recently. "These are not things that I wish to happen. These are things that probably will happen."

Waiterscould lose jobs as the restaurant industry adopts automation, according to an Oxford University study. (Getty Images)

In Europe, politicians are already discussing the repercussions of increased automation.

French presidential candidateBenoit Hamonwon the primaries of his socialist party on the back of a promise to establisha universal pay of $810 funded by atax on industrial robots.

Former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis is also a strong believer of "civilising capitalism."

"If you take an iPhone apart, every single technology in it was developed by some government grant, every single one," he said at a discussion with Noam Chomsky last year.

Earlier,a Luxembourg politician,Mady Delvauxsaid in a report that basic income could be funded by a tax on robots.

Read the original post:

Bill Gates wants to slow down automation. Why? - TRT World

The Hindu

Automation likely to displace 60% of workforce: HR honcho The Hindu When nearly 60 % of the global workforce is likely to be displaced in future due to automation and artificial intelligence, Mr. Hari said generating workable ideas, and improving delivery mechanism would aid in reshaping organisational culture. and more »

Follow this link:

Automation likely to displace 60% of workforce: HR honcho - The Hindu

As technology advances, we are finding newer and cheaper ways to manufacture goods and offer services.

This has come in the form of job automation and artificial intelligence (AI), where the value of human labor decreases resulting in massive losses of jobs. Approximately 47 percent of the entire US work force is predicted to phase out with the progression of automation and AI.

Before Obama left the White House, he left a strong message for Americans stating that strong measures need to be taken in order to prevent millions of job losses. So far, there have been two major proposed solutions to these concerns: Universal Basic Income (UBI) and robot taxes.

It sounds strange that wed be forcing a non sentient object to pay taxes, but many people including Bill Gates have sided with this option. Gates stated that if you tax robots, youll prevent the loss of income tax revenue normally made by human laborers. The total taxed amount could then be used to retrain and prepare displaced human workers for employment again.

But how much would you know to tax robots? Would the amount be the same across all robots? It all sounds like a logistical nightmare. But companies who opt for automation and AI in their labor force would pay tremendous up-front costs on top of the potentially hefty tax amount. It could possibly deter companies from even moving towards using robots in the first place.

Got a pulse? Well youre in luck. Universal Basic Income (UBI) is making waves as another popular alternative.

The basic idea of UBI is that every citizen of a country receives a monthly stipend that they can use to cover living expenses. This amount requires no fine print, you pretty much just have to be alive.

Elon Musk swears by UBI, but economists are still debating on whether or not the practice is cost effective. The cost of the welfare program could exceed the overall benefit. Its also necessary to mention the biggest concern for UBI, which is the question of motivation. If a person is handed a check every month for doing nothing, what incentive would they have for trying to find employment?

Finland recently launched its UBI program for 2,000 lucky Finnish citizens, with a couple success stories already floating around.

Juha Jarvinen was one of the 2,000 recipients of UBI, and he stated that the checks would greatly motivate him to restart his previously failed business. The practice was also tested in India by several different NGOs, who found that workers who received cash handouts doubled production rates.

For the generation of millenials, the shift to job automation might not be as bad. Considered the generation to hop through jobs, millenials have been shown to place more emphasis on personal fulfillment rather than income.

For the others who rely on a consistent job and have found employment with the same company for many years, we need to take quick action in developing new occupations and industries. Whether it be UBI or robot taxes, we are still going to face mass job automation and artificial intelligence looming over the labor force in the coming years. Its importantto prevent the problem rather than creating a solution once it happens.

See more here:

Taxing Robots and Free Money in a Future of Job Automation - Futurism

Poultry News

ANALYSIS - KL Automation from Zoetis offers fully automated solutions for hatcheries that improve throughput and reduce manpower, creating a more efficient environment.

Gerry St. Pierre, with KL Automation from Zoetis, speaks to ThePoultrySite's Sarah Mikesell at IPPE in Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

The Zoetis KL Automation portfolio is essentially automation for the hatchery. It covers every aspect in terms of material handling, chick handling - we have automation and scaleable solutions. Depending on the size of your hatchery, whether it is a small producer or a mega-hatchery, we have solutions, including a suite of products in between, said Gerry St. Pierre, with KL Automation from Zoetis. We have a complete portfolio of automation thats complimentary to the Embrex portfolio.

KL Automation is designed to work hand-in-hand with the Embrex system, so machines unload the egg flats, send them down and convey them to the Inovoject system.

"Between all those products, what we do is we give the hatcheries the tools they need to improve throughput and reduce the manpower requirements and we do it all with an extremely efficient and reliable suite of products," he said.

KL Automation's robots are fully integrated with washed down stainless steel perimeter fencing and a light curtain safety barrier that helps adhere to all of the regional and global standards for safety.

Read the rest here:

Automation's New Role in the Hatchery - ThePoultrySite.com

Outlining a modern approach to networking that catalyzes and enables digital transformation.

sponsored

To unlock exponential growth and business transformation, companies need to create a network thats responsive, agile, and easily managed one that is automated to help companies adapt to shifting business needs. Juniper Report: Will Your Company Survive The Next Big Disruption? IT As The Great Enabler

As we transition to the all-digital, all-the-time connected world of people, things and processes driven by cloud, mobility, IoT and analytics demands on your network are skyrocketing. By 2020 there will be 4.1 billion Internet users, 26.3 billion networked devices and connections, and datacenter traffic willjump 330%. Networks must become more flexible, scalable, interoperable, easier to manage, secure and supportive of applications to enable this transformation, and this makes automation an increasingly attractive option.

IT decision makers (ITDMs) believe automation is the cornerstone strategy to increase network agility and reliability while controlling OpEx and CapEx, i.e. automating the 20% of networking tasks that take up to 80% of the staffs time. However, while most ITDMs see automation as essential i.e. only 16% to 30% of daily network administrative tasks have been automated; 80% of businesses experience network errors caused by human mistakes on a regular basis; and non-automated networks average 5-6 errors per month fewer than 40% say theyve managed to deploy automation meaningfully. The top budgets barriers to technology updates are security and compliance, employee skill sets, legacy network technology and organization structure.

Network automation is not the only solution to this onrushing digital disruption, but it gives all businesses, big or small, the ways to stay ahead. A network thats responsive, agile and easily managed one that is automated can help companies adapt to shifting business needs. And it can be surprisingly affordable: an average Return on Investment of 349% over five years and payback in as little as six months.

Network Automation Benefits

One of the biggest benefits of network automation is lower operational expense. By eliminating tedious and manual processes through automated and orchestrated infrastructures, you not only extend your networks capabilities but also achieve a faster ROI.

Automation also reduces errors and builds resiliency. In addition to automating manual tasks to minimize network errors, many solutions automatically respond to network errors without intervention, improving business resiliency and ensuring employees have access to the applications and data they need whenever they need it.

Junipers approach to automation is to reduce operational complexity through simplification and abstraction, enabling customers to deploy new network services faster, and improve capacity utilization and network resiliency through deep telemetry. These zero touch networks rely on telemetry, automation, machine learning, and programming with declarative intent. For example, our Zero Touch Provisioning (ZPT) allows you to automate Day One provisioning and configuring tasks on our switches and routers, saving time and resources, and eliminating costly errors.

In addition to all the other benefits, the potential savings from network automation are also significant. An IDC study found that companies lowered their networking costs by 33% using network automation solutions from Juniper.

The bottom line is that you need to automate your network to ensure its speed, reliability, efficiency, and flexibility will meet your needs today and tomorrow. Your network is the essential link between you and your customers, your critical applications and your staff and partners. In a digital world, the network is everything, and automation is the capability that will help make it future-proof.

Network Automation: Build or Buy?

Once youve decided that you want to automate your network, the next decision is do you do it yourself, outsource, or some combination of both? Answering these questions can help you make your decision:

Follow everything from CIO

Sponsored Links

More:

Network Automation: Adding Up the Cost Savings and Benefits - CIO

The 2018 event will be free and open to the public, and includes rigorous testing of the next generation of technology that can make wood stoves consistently cleaner, more efficient, easier to use and, like solar energy, a renewable source of electricity.

The fourth Wood Stove Design Challenge is modeled after the U.S. DOE's Solar Decathlon, a competition between teams from universities worldwide to design more efficient and cheaper residential solar power. Like the Solar Decathlon, the Wood Stove Challenge also attracts teams from around the world and focuses energy and resources on innovation and improved performance. The stove competitions have been in partnership with the DOE Brookhaven National Lab, the New York State Energy Research and Development Administration (NYSERDA), the US Forest Service and others, the Osprey Foundation, among others.

Participants will compete in two events: One is to automate the wood stove with 21st century technology like sensors and WIFI-enabled controls that improve combustion efficiency, reduce air pollution and improve ease of use.

The second competition will focus on thermoelectric wood stoves that generate electricity to power lights, cell phones, and WIFI-enabled controls. Thermoelectric generators are similar to solar PV systems except they turn heat instead of light into electricity. When integrated with a residential solar PV system, a thermoelectric wood stove and battery power system, like the TESLA Powerwall, could effectively double the wintertime output of solar PV system in areas like northern United States, Canada and northern Europe.

Wood stoves are still used by 30 to 60 percent of homes in hundreds of rural and suburban counties around the country. Yet, the technology revolution that has swept household appliances in the last 20 years has bypassed wood stove technology.

Teams in the 2018 stove challenge will be competing for up to $50,000 in prizes. The teams and exhibitors will also have a chance to showcase new technology on the National Mall just blocks away from the DOE, the USDA and U.S. EPA

This is a chance for students, back yard inventors, and wood stove manufacturers to re-invent this age-old technology for todays environmentally conscious and time-conscious consumer, said John Ackerly, founder of the Wood Stove Competition and president of the Alliance for Green Heat. An affordable, smart wood stove is achievable and could help millions of families reduce their reliance on gas and oil while significantly reducing pollution, Ackerly added.

This is the first Wood Stove Challenge to promote wood stoves that generate electricity to power everything from a cell phone to an entire home. Thermoelectric wood stoves, when integrated with solar PV systems and home batteries like the TESLA Powerwall, have the potential to make solar energy more affordable, reduce air pollution, and pave the way for a more sustainable energy future," said Ken Adler, senior technology advisor at the Alliance for Green Heat and formerly with the EPA.

View post:

Wood stove competition to focus on automation, electricity - Biomass Magazine

Forbes

Luddites Against Job-Killing Automation And Technology Enthusiasts Creating New Industries Forbes This week's milestones in tech history include the first mass movement fighting automation, the first photography studio in New York, and the first meeting of the hobbyists club where the first Apple computer was demonstrated throughout its development.

Read the original here:

Luddites Against Job-Killing Automation And Technology Enthusiasts Creating New Industries - Forbes

Bill Gates at Munich Security Conference on February 17, 2017 in Munich, Germany. Michael GottschalkPhotothek via Getty Images

In a recent interview, Microsoft ( msft ) founder Bill Gates proposed that robots should be taxed. He anticipates that robots will replace large numbers of workers over the next 20 years. By taxing the robots, he argued, we would slow down the pace of automation and the funds raised could be used to retrain and financially support displaced workers, who could then move into new jobs in health care, education, or other areas where human labor is needed.

While Gates is right that robotsnot just traditional industrial robots, but all sorts of artificial intelligence applicationsare indeed likely to automate a lot of work over the next 20 years, computer automation is actually increasing employment in most industries, so taxing robots would just slow job growth and limit economic opportunity for millions.

Its true that many manufacturing jobs have been lost to automation in recent years. Where we used to have 500,000 steel workers in the U.S. in the 1950s, we now have 100,000; where we used to have 400,000 cotton textile workers, we now only have 16,000. Globalization played some role in eliminating these jobs, especially since 2000. But economists estimate that most of the decline in manufacturing employment has come about because machines took over human tasks.

Perhaps surprisingly, it was not always that way in these industries. Before the mid-20th century, rapid automation in textiles and steel was accompanied by robust employment growth. Indeed, the Industrial Revolution was powered by rapid automation. For example, 98% of the labor that had been required to produce a yard of cloth in 1810 was taken over by machines by 1910. Nevertheless, the number of textile workers grew during this period.

How could that be? Demand increased. About 200 years ago, cloth was very expensive and most people had little of it. A typical person had only one set of clothing, often made of wool or linen. Automation sharply reduced the price of cotton cloth, and so people bought moremuch more. By 1910, people were consuming 10 times as much cloth per capita as in 1810. Contrast that with today, where people have closets full of clothing, and the market for cotton cloth is saturated. A price decline isnt enough to induce consumers to buy much more. As a result, automation has been reducing employment in textiles since the 1950s.

Today, when it comes to information technology, the evidence still points to large, unmet demand in most industries, generating growing employment. In the non-manufacturing sector, research shows that information technology use is associated with faster industry employment growth , about 1% to 2% faster, on average. Bar code scanners, for example, widely adopted in the 1980s, automated much of the work of cashiers, but the number of cashiers increased. Electronic document discovery automated much of the work of paralegals in 2000, but employment of paralegals grew. Electronic document discovery has been a billion-dollar business since 2000, and from 2000 through 2013, full-time equivalent jobs for legal assistants, paralegals, and legal support occupations grew 1.1% per year, faster than the workforce. ATMs took over cash handling tasks from bank tellers, but bank teller employment has since grown in the U.S. Specifically, since 2000, the number of full-time equivalent bank tellers has increased 2% per annum, substantially faster than the entire labor force. The ATM made it substantially less expensive for banks to open up a branch office since fewer employees were necessary per officedown from 20 to 13 in the average urban marketso they opened up more. This increased the demand for tellers, even though there were far fewer tellers per branch.

Jobs grew in these occupations because automation allowed workers to deliver better, faster, and cheaper services that were in demand. Bank customers wanted more convenient banking at nearby offices, and the ATM allowed banks to meet that demand. In the process, employment grew.

Although automation will lead to further job losses in manufacturing, warehouse operations, and truck driving, the overall impact of automation across most industries will be to increase employment. Even though the pace of advances in robotics and artificial intelligence may accelerate over the next two decades, the impact of that changewhether it tends to increase or decrease employmentdepends not on the technology, but on demand. And overall, these technologies will boost employment because they are addressing major unmet needs.

But there are winners and there are losers. Some people will see their jobs become obsolete and will need to acquire new skills in order to obtain well-paying work. Robots and artificial intelligence will exacerbate economic inequality and place a burden on many workers to learn new skills. And many employers will face a continued skills gap because too few workers have learned to work with the new machines.

So Gates is right about the need to provide funds to retrain workers and to support them in making these job transitions, but taxing robots will just slow job creation. Automation is creating more jobs than it is destroying.

James Bessen is an economist at Boston University's School of Law.

Go here to read the rest:

Bill Gates Is Wrong That Robots and Automation Are Killing Jobs - Fortune