THE LIGHTS IN THE TUNNEL / 126
CopyrightedMaterial–Paperback/Kindle available @ Amazon
workforce,lostnearlytwomilliontextilejobstoimprov-
ingautomationtechnologybetween1995and2002.
42
It is easy to imagine factories of the future that are
almostentirelyautomatedandrunbyafewskilledtechni-
cians.Aslaborcostsfall,wecanexpectthatenergycosts
willberising.Nearlyallanalystsagreethatworldoilpro-
ductionwillpeakatsome pointinthecomingyearsand
decades.Beyondthispoint,intheabsenceofreplacement
energytechnologies,thecostoffossilfuelsislikelytorise
inexorably.Giventhis,wecanreasonablyexpectthatthe
primaryincentivesforlocatingthefactoriesofthefuture
will shift away from seeking lowlabor costs and toward
minimizingenergycosts.
Oneofthemostsignificantdriversofenergyexpend-
itureis,ofcourse,transportation.EconomistsJeffRubin
andBenjaminTalhavesuggestedthatsoaringtransporta-
tioncostsresultingfromhighenergypricesalonemaybe
sufficient to reverse globalization. They point out that
once oil reaches a price of $150/barrel, the additional
transportationcostsareessentiallyequivalenttothetariffs
thatexistedinthe1970s.
43
Inaworldwithautomatedfactoriesandhighenergy
costs, there will be clear incentives toward distributed
manufacturing. It will make sense to locate factories as
close as possibleto consumers and/or to the natural re-
sourcesusedasinputsintheproductionprocess.Aprima-
rymotivationinlocatingfactorieswillbetominimizethe
transportation costs associated with moving both inputs
andfinalproducts.Itisalsopossiblethatadvancingauto-
mationtechnologymayultimatelytransformthetradition-
Danger / 127
CopyrightedMaterial–Paperback/Kindle available @ Amazon
aleconomyofscalemodelsothatmuchsmallerandmore
flexible factories located in direct proximity to markets
makesense.
Asidefrom energycosts, asecondcrucialconsidera-
tionwillbepoliticalstability.Theforcesunleashedbyac-
celeratingtechnologyarelikelytohaveahighlydisruptive
impactongovernmentsthroughouttheworld.Businesses
willplaceincreasingimportanceonminimizinginvestment
risk: they will seek to build factories and hold capital in
countriestheyperceiveasstable.Inthefuture,thosena-
tionswhichcanadapttochangesoastocontinuetosup-
portsustainedconsumption,maintainstabilityandruleof
law,andprovidereliableaccesstoenergy,aswellaseffi-
cient,energy-minimizingtransportationsystems,arelikely
to have a significant competitive advantage in terms of
attractingandretaininginvestment.
India and Offshoring
We’venotedthat Chinadoesnot yet haveanintegrated,
self-sustaining modern economy. This is equally true of
India.Indiaisessentiallyanimpoverished,developingna-
tionwithagovernmentthatisdemocratic,butalsooften
mired in bureaucracy. In the midst of this, India has an
isolated island of enormous growth and prosperity: its
softwareandoffshoringindustries.
Indiawillface exactlythe sametwo retardingforces
that are going to hold back China: First, automation is
goingtoinvadeitsoffshoringbusinesses(aswellasitstra-
ditionalindustries)andtakebackmanyofthosejobs.We
are likely to see “jobless repatriation” as technology ad-
THE LIGHTS IN THE TUNNEL / 128
CopyrightedMaterial–Paperback/Kindle available @ Amazon
vances to the point where many lower-skill jobs can be
performedbycomputertechnology.
Indiancompanieswillprobablyrespondbytryingto
outrunautomation.Theywillseektoincreasinglycapture
highervaluejobsperformedbyhighlyeducatedandpaid
workersinWesterncountries.Aswehaveseen,however,
evenmanyhighskilljobswillultimatelybesubjecttoau-
tomation.Andanysuccessincapturinghighervaluejobs
willonlyexacerbatethesecondproblem,whichwillbethe
collapseindemandthatresultsfromfearofjoblossinthe
West.
Economic and National Security Implications
for the United States
WhatwouldallthismeanfortheUnitedStates?Thean-
swer to that depends entirely on how well the U.S. can
adapttothenewreality.Theconventionalviewsallpoint
toadeclineinglobalinfluenceandpowerfortheUnited
States.Thecatchphrasesforthecomingdecadeswillbe
“thepost-Americanera”and“theendofAmericanexcep-
tionalism.”
Onceagain,though,thoseconventionalviewsareall
basedlargelyondemographics—oncountingworkers.Amer-
icaisexpectedtodeclinebecausecountrieslikeChinaand
Indiahavedramaticallymoreworkers—andtheyarewill-
ingtoworkforless.Whatif,inthefuture,workersarenot
goingtobeasimportantasweimagine?Whatifmachines
advancetothepoint whereworkersbecomeincreasingly
superfluoustotheproductionprocess?Inthatscenario,it
Danger / 129
CopyrightedMaterial–Paperback/Kindle available @ Amazon
isallabout whocontrolstechnology. Andasofthemo-
ment,thatcontinuestolargelybetheUnitedStates.
Inthatsense,thefuturefortheU.S.couldpotentially
bemuchbrighterthantheconventionalwisdomsuggests.
Butthatisonlyifwecanadapt,andthatwillbeaveryse-
riouschallenge.TheUnitedStatesisfundamentallyacon-
servativecountry. Theriskisveryhighthatwewill con-
tinuetoclingtoourexistingsystemsimplybecauseithas
alwaysworkedinthepast.Ifthathappens,agreatoppor-
tunitywillbelost,andothercountriesmaywellseizethe
initiative.
Ifthatopportunityisindeed lost,itwillclearlyhave
dire national security and military implications for the
United States.The obviousreality is thatAmerica’smili-
tarypowerisentirelydependentonitseconomicvitality.If
the trends projected here areallowed toimpact theU.S.
economyin anuncontrolledfashion,thelikelyresult will
begreatlydiminishedeconomicgrowth(orevensustained
decline) and widespread unemployment and social prob-
lems. This will clearly detract from the resourcesand at-
tentionthatcanbeallocatedtonationalsecurity.
Inthepreviouschapter,Isuggestedthattheremayal-
so be a trend away from college education and toward
tradejobsthatareperceivedasbeingsaferfromautoma-
tionandoffshoring.Thisimpactmayfallespeciallyheavily
on technical fields such as information technology and
computerengineeringbecausejobsintheseareasareper-
ceivedasbeingespeciallysusceptibletooffshoring.Clear-
ly, this will threaten the United States’ future leadership
THE LIGHTS IN THE TUNNEL / 130
CopyrightedMaterial–Paperback/Kindle available @ Amazon
position in technology—and therefore its long-term na-
tionalsecurity.
Aswesawpreviously,thePentagonenvisionsafuture
inwhichtechnologiessuchasroboticsandartificialintelli-
gencearedeployedincreasinglyonthebattlefield.There-
alityisthatitisimpossibletosayexactlywhichtechnolo-
gieswillhaveimportantmilitaryandnationalsecurityap-
plicationsinthefuture.Thegeneralaccelerationofcom-
puterinformationtechnology iscertain to haveadisrup-
tiveimpactwithhighlyunpredictableresults.Wecanex-
pect that future technologies that emerge in commercial
settingswillrapidlyberedirectedintothemilitaryarena.It
iscrucial, therefore,thattheU.S.remains competitivein
virtuallyallareasoftechnologydevelopment.
Whileadvancingtechnologyseemslikelytoultimately
eliminatejobopportunitiesforalargenumberofaverage
people,maintainingcontrolofthattechnologywillrequire
thattheminorityofindividualswiththecapabilitytomake
significantcontributionstotechnicalfieldscontinuetobe
educatedandtrained.Thesepeoplecomefromavarietyof
backgroundsthroughoutsociety,andtherefore,thedisin-
tegration of broad-based incentives to pursue a college
education—especiallyinscientificandtechnicalfields—is
likely to be disastrous for the United States in the long
run.
Danger / 131
CopyrightedMaterial–Paperback/Kindle available @ Amazon
Solutions
Nowthatwe’veidentified the dangerwe mightfaceand
someofthepossibleimplicationsforthefuture,let’sstart
thinkingaboutsomepossiblesolutions.Whatcouldwedo
toavoidthescaryeconomicscenariowediscussedatthe
beginning of this chapter? In order to answer that, let’s
startbylookingatthe ideaoflaborandcapitalintensive
industries.
Labor and Capital Intensive Industries: The
Tipping Point
We can place any industry somewhere on the spectrum
that runs from being extremely labor intensive to being
highlycapitalintensive.Inourcurrenteconomy,someof
themostlaborintensiveindustriesareintheretail,hospi-
talityandsmallbusinesssectors.Supermarkets,retailchain
stores,restaurantsandhotelsallhavetohirelotsofwork-
ers. Capital intensive industries, on the other hand, hire
relatively few workers and instead require investment in
technology:inadvancedmachineryandequipmentandin
computerizedsystems.Hightechindustriessuchassemi-
conductor manufacturing, biotechnology and Internet-
basedcompaniesareallcapitalintensive.
Over time, as technology advances, most industries
become more capital intensive and less labor intensive.
Technologyalsocreatesentirelynewindustries,andthese
THE LIGHTS IN THE TUNNEL / 132
CopyrightedMaterial–Paperback/Kindle available @ Amazon
arenearlyalwayscapitalintensive.
*
Thishasbeengoingon
forcenturies,andhistorically,ithasbeenagoodthing.If
youcomparetheindustriesinadevelopednationlikethe
United States withtheindustries in a third-world nation,
youwillinvariablyfindthattheU.S.economyisfarmore
capitalintensive.Ithasbeentheintroductionofadvanced
technology that has increased productivity and made the
advancednationsoftheworldrich.
Thereasonforthisgoesbacktotheeconomists’ex-
planationforthe“Ludditefallacy”whichwediscussedin
the previous chapter. As new technology is adopted by
industries,productionbecomesmoreefficient.Thisresults
insomelossofjobs,butitalsoresultsinlowerpricesfor
goodsandservices.Inotherwords,itputsmoremoneyin
consumers’ pockets. These consumers then go out and
buyallkindsof things, andsotheresultisincreasedde-
mandfortheproductsproducedbyalltypesofindustries.
Some of these industries are very labor intensive, so as
theystrivetomeetthisincreaseddemand,theyareforced
to hire more workers. And so, overall employment re-
mainsstableorevenincreases.Sometimes,ofcourse,this
resultsinanunpleasanttransitionforsomeworkers:they
mayloseahighpayingmanufacturingjobandendupwith
alowerpayingretailjob.
*
Considerthecase ofYouTube,whichwasacquiredbyGooglefor
about$1.65billionin2006.Atthetimeitwasacquired,YouTubehad
onlyabout60employees.That’savaluationofover$27millionper
employee.Comparethatwithabout$100,000peremployeeforWal-
Mart.
Danger / 133
CopyrightedMaterial–Paperback/Kindle available @ Amazon
Laborv.CapitalIntensiveIndustries
44
Company Employees Revenue
per Employee
McDonalds 400,000 $59,000
Wal-Mart 2,100,000 $180,000
Intel 83,000 $456,000
Microsoft 91,000 $664,000
Google 20,000 $1,081,000
Canthisprocesscontinueforever?Aswesawinthe
previous chapter, automation technology is likely to in-
creasinglyinvadetheremaininglaborintensivesectorsof
theeconomy.Whenthishappens,whatindustrieswillbe
lefttoabsorballthedislocatedworkers?Lookatthetable
above. What happens when McDonalds begins to look
morelikeGoogle?
Asimpleapplicationofcommonsenseshouldshow
usthatthereissomethresholdbeyondwhichtheoverall
economy will become too capital intensive. Once this hap-
pens,lowerpricesresultingfromimprovedtechnologywill
no longer result in increased employment. Beyond this
thresholdortippingpoint,theindustriesthatmakeupour
economy will no longer be forced to hire enough new
workerstomakeupforthejoblossesresultingfromau-
tomation;theywillinsteadbeabletomeetanyincreasein
demandprimarilybyinvestinginmoretechnology.Aswe
sawinChapter2,thispointmarksthedownfallofecon-
omists’ faithin the Ludditefallacy,andit alsomarks the
beginning of adownwardeconomicspiralforthesimple
reasonthatworkersarealsotheconsumersofeverything
producedinoureconomy.
THE LIGHTS IN THE TUNNEL / 134
CopyrightedMaterial–Paperback/Kindle available @ Amazon
Whatmightweexpecttohappeniftheoverallecon-
omy were approaching this tipping point, beyond which
industries would no longer be labor intensive enough to
absorb workers who lost their jobs to automation? We
would probablyexpect to see graduallyrising unemploy-
ment, stagnating wages and significant increases inprod-
uctivity(outputperhouroflabor)asindustrieswereable
toproducemoregoodsandserviceswithfewerworkers.
Thatsoundsuncomfortablyclosetowhatactuallyoc-
curredintheyearsleadinguptothecurrentrecession.
*
In
August,2003,TheEconomistwrotethat“theBureauofLa-
bour Statistics offered the latest evidence of America’s
productivityrevival:outputperworkersoaredby5.7%in
the second quarter, at an annualised rate. But in today’s
less exuberant times, the figure has raised the unhappy
prospect of growth without job creation.”
45
Three years
later,inanarticleentitled“TheCaseoftheMissingJobs,”
BusinessWeeksaid:“Since2001,withtheaidofcomputers,
telecommunications advances, and ever more efficient
plant operations,U.S. manufacturing productivity, or the
amount of goods or services a worker produces in an
hour,hassoaredadizzying24%….Inshort:We’remaking
morestuffwithfewerpeople.”
46
Thereisnowaytoknow
for sure how close the economy might be to the point
whereoveralljobcreationwillpermanentlystall.However,
thesestatisticsarecertainlycauseforconcern.
*
AsInotedearlier,wedidnotseeanincreasingunemploymentratein
theyearsleadinguptothecurrentcrisis. Wedid,however,seestag-
natingwages,increasingproductivityandsomeevidenceofunderem-
ployment.
Danger / 135
CopyrightedMaterial–Paperback/Kindle available @ Amazon
The Average Worker and the Average Machine
Anotherwaytoexpressthis ideaofa tipping pointisto
think of an average worker using an average machine
somewhereintheeconomy.Obviously,in therealworld
there are millions of workers using millions of different
machines.Overtime,ofcourse,thosemachineshavegot-
tenfarmoresophisticated.Imagineatypicalmachinethat
isgenerallyrepresentativeofallmachinesintheeconomy.
Atonetime,thatmachinemighthavebeenawaterwheel
driving a mill. Then it became something driven by a
steam engine. Later, an industrial machine powered by
electricity.Today,themachineisprobablycontrolledbya
computerorbyembeddedmicroprocessors.
As the average machine has gotten more sophisti-
cated, the wages of the worker operating that machine
haveincreased.
*
AsIpointedoutintheprevioussection,
moresophisticated machines also makeproductionmore
efficient and that results in lower prices and, therefore,
moremoneyleftinconsumers’pockets.Consumersthen
gooutandspendthatextramoney,andthatcreatesjobs
for more workers who are likewise operating machines
thatkeepgettingbetter.
Again, the question we have to ask is: Can this
processcontinueforever?Ithinktheanswerisno,andthe
veryunpleasantgraphonthenextpageillustratesthis.
*
The ideathatlong-term economicgrowthis,to alargeextent,the
resultof advancing technology was formalized by economist Robert
Solowin1956.Economistshavelotsofdifferenttheoriesabouthow
long-term growthand prosperitycomeabout,butnearlyall ofthem
agreethattechnologicalprogressplaysasignificantrole.
THE LIGHTS IN THE TUNNEL / 136
CopyrightedMaterial–Paperback/Kindle available @ Amazon
Value Added (Wage) of Average Worker Operating Average Machine
Also: Overall Wealth of Society (GDP per capita will look similar)
Theproblem,ofcourse,isthatmachinesaregoingto
getmoreautonomous.Youcanseethisinthegraphatthe
pointwherethedottedline(conventionalwisdom)andthe
solidline diverge. Asmoremachines begin to runthem-
selves, the value that the average worker adds begins to
decline.Rememberthatwearetalkinghereaboutaverage
workers.Togetthegraphabove,youmighttakethedis-
tributionofincomesintheUnitedStatesandthenelimi-
nateboththerichestandthepoorestpeople.Thengraph
theaverageincomeoftheremaining“typical”people(the
bulk of consumers) over time. If you were to instead
graph Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, you
wouldendupwithasimilargraph,butthedivergencebe-
Time
Machines Becoming
Autonomous
Machines Fully
Autonomous
Conventional Wisdom
(Most economists
believe this)
Machines Getting
Better
Value
Danger / 137
CopyrightedMaterial–Paperback/Kindle available @ Amazon
tween the dotted and the solid lines would occur some-
whatlater.Thisisbecausethewealthiestpeople(whoown
themachinesorhavehighskilllevels)wouldinitiallybene-
fitfromautomationandwoulddraguptheaverage.Recall
thatwesawthisinourtunnelsimulationinChapter1.
Once the lines diverge, things get very ugly. This is
because thebasicmechanismthatgetspurchasing power
intothehandsofconsumersisbreakingdown.Eventually,
unemployment,lowwages—andperhapsmostimportant-
ly—consumerpsychologywillcausea veryseveredown-
turn.Asthegraphshows,withinthecontextofourcur-
renteconomicrules,theideaofmachinesbeing“fullyau-
tonomous”isjustatheoreticalpointthatcouldneverac-
tuallybereached.
Some peoplemight feelthat Iam beingoverly sim-
plistic in equating “technological progress” with “ma-
chines getting better.” After all, technology is not just
physicalmachines;itisalsotechniques,processesanddis-
tributed knowledge.Thereality, however, is that the his-
toricaldistinctionbetweenmachinesandintellectualcapi-
talisblurring.Itisnowverydifficulttoseparateinnova-
tiveprocessesfromtheadvancinginformationtechnology
that nearlyalwaysenablesand underliesthem. Improved
inventory management systems and database marketing
areexamplesofinnovativetechniques,buttheyrelyheavi-
lyoncomputers.Infact,wecanconceivablythinkofnear-
lyanyprocessortechniqueas“software”—and,therefore,
partofamachine.
If you still have troubleaccepting this scenario, you
might try asking yourself a couple of questions: (1) Is it
THE LIGHTS IN THE TUNNEL / 138
CopyrightedMaterial–Paperback/Kindle available @ Amazon
possiblefora machinetokeepgettingbetterforeverwith-
out eventually becoming autonomous? (2) Even if it is
possible,thenwouldn’tthemachinesomedaybecomeso
sophisticatedthatitsoperationwouldbebeyondtheabili-
ty of the vast majority of average people? And wouldn’t
thatleadrightbacktomakingthemachineautonomous?
Capital Intensive Industries are “Free Riders”
In Chapter 1, we used lights in a tunnel to simulate the
massmarket.Let’stryaslightlydifferentanalogynow.Im-
agine that themass market consists of a “river”of con-
sumerpurchasingpower.Alongthebanksofthisriverare
locatedindustriesofalltypes.
When anindustry sells a product or service to con-
sumersinthemarket,itpumpspurchasingpowerfromthe
river.Anindustryalsopumpspurchasingpowerbackinto
the river in two primary ways: first it pays salaries and
wagestoworkers,andsecondastechnologyadvances,the
pricesthattheindustrychargesfallandthisresultsinmore
moneyinconsumers’pockets.Aswehaveseen,however,
atsomepoint,theindustriesonthebanksofourriverwill
becometoo capital intensive(themachinestheyemploywill
begintorunthemselves).Oncethishappens,theywillcol-
lectivelybegintopumpmorepurchasingpowerfromthe
riverthantheyreturntoit.Theriverwillbegintorundry.
Inthecaseofareal-worldriver,wewouldneverad-
vocateallowingabusinessorindustrytopumpunlimited
quantitiesofwaterfromtheriverwithoutbearingtheap-
propriate costs associated with preserving thatpublic re-
source.Abusinessthatsomehowcircumventedtheregula-
Danger / 139
CopyrightedMaterial–Paperback/Kindle available @ Amazon
tionsorcostsassociatedwiththeuseoftheriverwouldbe
considereda“freerider.”Ineconomicterms,afreerider
issomeonewhojumpsonthebus—orutilizesanypublic
resource—withoutpayingthefare.
Economistsdonotconsiderthemarketitselftobea
publicresource.However,Iwillarguethatthemarket(or
thecollectivepurchasingpowerofconsumers)isreallythe
ultimatepublicresource.Itistheresourcefromwhichvirtually
allwealthinafreemarketeconomyderives.Thinkofthe
wordsyou mightuseto describea businessthat youad-
mire: “well-managed,” “innovative,” “efficient.” Within
thecontextofourriveranalogy,allthesethingsamountto
building a better pump. Obviously, a great pump posi-
tioned next to a dry riverbed doesn’t have much value.
Whenabusinessbecomeshighlycapitalintensiveandem-
ploysfewworkers,it becomesafreeriderrelativetothe
marketresource.Thisistrueintermsofpurchasingpower
returnedtothemarketandalsointermsofitstaxburden.
Imagineafullyautomatedfactory.Theonlycontribu-
tionsuchafactorywouldmaketoourpurchasingpower
riverwouldbebycreatingproductsatalowerprice.No
wages would be paid. No payroll taxes would be paid.
While lowerpriceswould return some purchasingpower
totheriver,thiswouldsimplynotbeenough.Overtime,
asallindustriesbecomelesslaborintensive,theriverwill
rundry.
Inthefuture, wewillneedgovernmentpoliciesthat
recognize this reality. We will need policies that prevent
themarketriverfromrunningdry.Inthelongrun,ifad-
vancedmachineautomationpermanentlydisenfranchisesa
THE LIGHTS IN THE TUNNEL / 140
CopyrightedMaterial–Paperback/Kindle available @ Amazon
significant fraction of the work force, we will have no
choice except to make some significant changes to our
economicsystemsothatthefreemarketcancontinueto
function.Thatwillbethesubjectofthenextchapter.In
themeantime,ourobjectiveshouldbetostabilizethesys-
temandensurethatthejoblossesduetoautomationare
asgradualaspossible.Themostimportantshort-termgoal
istoavoidtheseveredownturnandpotentiallycatastroph-
icspiralthatcouldresultifconsumerssomedaylosecon-
fidenceintheirfutureincomecontinuity.
The Problem with Payroll Taxes
Wheneverabusinesshiresaworker,ittakesontheaddi-
tionalburdenofpayrolltaxesonthewagesorsalarypaid
tothat worker.Payrolltaxesaretheprimarymethodfor
funding public retirement, unemployment insurance, and
in manycountries,health care. IntheU.S., payroll taxes
includeonehalfofthecontributiontoSocialSecurityand
Medicare, as well as state and federal unemployment in-
surance.
These taxes create a significant disincentive to hire
andretainworkers.Asthecapabilityofmachineautoma-
tion approaches that of workers, payroll taxes will give
employersanevengreaterincentivetoeliminatejobs—or
avoidhiringnewworkers—asquicklyaspossible.Thisis
especiallytrue in Europe, wherepayrolltaxesaresignifi-
cantly higher than in the U.S. and where it is generally
moredifficultforcompaniestolayoffworkersoncethey
arehired.
Danger / 141
CopyrightedMaterial–Paperback/Kindle available @ Amazon
The payroll tax-based system will come under tre-
mendousstraininthecomingyearsasademographicshift
resultsinalargenumberofretireessupportedbyrelatively
fewer workers. In the United States, nearly everyone is
awarethatSocialSecurity,andespeciallyMedicare,areat
highriskofbecominginsolventinthecomingdecades.In
EuropeandinJapan,thesituationisgenerallyevenworse.
Itisverydifficulttoseehowthegenerouspublicpension
programsin European countrieswillcontinue to besus-
tainable under a payroll tax-based system. The situation
willbefarmoredireifthe trendsprojectedin thisbook
comeintoplay.Ifinadditiontothesedemographicreali-
ties, broad-based automation of jobs unfolds simulta-
neously, the entire payroll tax-based system seems very
likelytofallapart.
As we saw in the previous section, capital intensive
industrieswhichenjoyaccesstothemarketwhileemploy-
ingrelativelyfewworkersarenotbearingtheirfairshare
ofthecostsassociatedwithmaintainingaviableconsumer
market. Such industries are also avoiding the costs asso-
ciatedwithpayrolltax-fundedsocialwelfareprograms.In
a very real sense, capital intensive industries are stealing
fromourpurchasingpowerriverandcircumventingtheir
responsibilitytosociety.
Wecanseethenthatthewholeideaoffundingsocial
programs via payroll taxes is fundamentally flawed and
outdated. It putsanunfairburden onlaborintensive in-
dustrieswhile allowingcapital intensiveindustries to free
ride. That, of course, creates a tremendous incentive for
THE LIGHTS IN THE TUNNEL / 142
CopyrightedMaterial–Paperback/Kindle available @ Amazon
everyindustrytobecomemorecapitalintensiveasquickly
aspossible.
This problem also makes the funding of social pro-
gramshighlysusceptibletodemographicimbalances.The
solutionistogetawayfromtheideaofcountingworkersand
taxingbasedonworkers.Weneedtoinsteadfundsocialpro-
gramswithadifferentformof tax—a taxthatfallsfairly
on both capital and labor intensive industries and which
will be sustainable even as automation increasingly en-
croaches in the future. Taxation should be based on a
business’ssuccess in utilizing the market resource, rather
thanonthenumberofworkersithappenstoemploy.
The “Workerless” Payroll Tax
If we are going to get rid of payroll taxes, then we ob-
viouslyhavetocomeupwithaviablealternative.Weneed
ataxthatfallsfairlyoneverybusinessthatenjoysaccessto
the market—regardless of the number of workers em-
ployed.Asimplesolutionmightbetojustgetridofpay-
roll taxes and instead increase general business income
taxes. This is probably the right direction in which to
move,buttheproblemisthatbusinessesonlypayincome
taxes when they are profitable. Payroll taxes have to be
paidregardlessofyear-to-yearprofitability.Obviously,the
government needs a reliable revenue stream in order to
fundsocialprograms.
Forthisreason,Iwouldsuggestthatagoodalterna-
tive might be some form of gross margin tax. The gross
margin of a business is a measure of its basic operating
profitability.Essentiallyitisequaltorevenuelesscostof
Danger / 143
CopyrightedMaterial–Paperback/Kindle available @ Amazon
goodssold.Grossmarginsvaryagreatdealbyindustry,so
itwouldprobablybenecessarytoadjustthetaxbasedon
thedynamicsofindividualindustrysectors.Nonetheless,it
should be possible to come up with a relatively simple
formulaforagrossmargintaxthatwouldraisethesame
amountofrevenueasthecurrentpayrolltaxsystemwhile
distributingthetaxburdenfairlyamongindustries.Forthe
vastmajorityofbusinessesthegrossmarginwillalwaysbe
positive,andaminimumcouldbeenforcedifnecessaryto
ensureareliablerevenuestream.
Under this new system, businesses would pay two
typesoftaxesjustastheydocurrently:(1)Theywouldpay
agrossmargintaxinsteadofthecurrentpayrolltax,and(2)
they would continue to pay the normal business income
tax.Considersomeoftheadvantagesofthissystem:
Sincepayrolltaxeswouldbeeliminated,theincentive
to automate jobs or move them overseas would im-
mediatelybereduced.Likewise,theprospectofhiring
anewworkerwouldimmediatelybecomemoreattrac-
tive.
A business that did choose to automate or offshore
jobswouldnotbeabletoavoidcontributingtotheso-
cialprogramsthatsupportthepopulation.
The demographic, or “baby boom,” issue would be
mitigated because wewould bemoving away from a
modelbasedoncountingworkersandtowardamodel
where overall economic activity supports social pro-
grams.
The new revenue system would provide an obvious
mechanism for funding universal health care in the
THE LIGHTS IN THE TUNNEL / 144
CopyrightedMaterial–Paperback/Kindle available @ Amazon
U.S. without creating yet another incentive to elimi-
nateworkers.
Itisimportanttonotethatagrossmargintaxwould,
ofcourse,onlyworkinthefor-profitsector.Inotherem-
ployment sectors a different scheme would need to be
used,orperhapspayrolltaxescouldberetained.
“Progressive” Wage Deductions
As this book is being written, there is significant public
outcryovertheissueofexcessivepaychecksforcorporate
CEOs.OneofthebasicmessagesIhavetriedtoexpress
is that extreme income inequality and concentration of
incomeisnotsimplyanissueoffairness.Infact,itdrives
attheveryheartofafunctionalmassmarket.Aswehave
mentioned previously, if you consider nearly any mod-
eratelypricedmassmarketproductorservice,anaverage
workercontributesnearlyasmuchtotheviabilityofthat
market as a corporate CEO. An extremely wealthy indi-
vidualmaypurchaseaverynicecar,orperhapsevensev-
eral cars. But he or sheis not going to purchase100 or
1000 automobiles. When income is too concentrated, it
undermines the mass market. That is a reality that ulti-
matelywillaffect everyone—andthe corporate CEOsof
the future are going to find themselves on the frontline
whenthewavehits.
Currently,businessesintheUnitedStatescandeduct
all wage and salary expenses when calculating corporate
income taxes.No consideration is given to howthat de-
ductionisdistributedamongworkers.Thissimplymakes
nosense.
Danger / 145
CopyrightedMaterial–Paperback/Kindle available @ Amazon
Iwouldsuggestthatasignificantjobcreationincen-
tive could be established if we instead used a progressive
schedule for deductions. This would work in a somewhat
similar fashion to the progressive
47
tax brackets we now
have—exceptthatitwouldapplytodeductions.Hereisan
examplethatisintendedonlyasaverysimpleillustration.
Employers might be allowed to deduct twice the amount
paid to workers makingupto$50,000. From $50,001 to
$200,000 a full deduction would be allowed. From
$200,001to$400,000halftheamountcouldbededucted.
Andbeyond$400,000nodeductionwouldbeallowed.
Soforexample:
For a worker earning $50,000, twice this amount, or
$100,000couldbededucted.
Foraworkerearning$150,000,$200,000couldbede-
ducted(2×$50,000+$100,000)
Foraworkerearning$400,000,$350,000couldbede-
ducted(2×$50,000+$150,000+$200,000/2)
For a CEO earning $20million, amaximum ofonly
$350,000couldbededucted.
Thebasicproblemwithexecutivepayisthatitcreates
an excessive and wasteful incentive. Suppose that CEOs were
abletoearnamaximumofonly$10millionperyear(in-
cluding bonuses). Would there suddenly be an extreme
shortageofcorporateCEOs?Wouldnoonewanttobea
CEO?It’spossiblethatafewCEOswhohavealreadyac-
quired substantial wealth might decide to just play golf,
butbyandlarge,Ithinkitisevidentthatbeingacorporate
CEOwouldremainaprettyattractiveoption.
THE LIGHTS IN THE TUNNEL / 146
CopyrightedMaterial–Paperback/Kindle available @ Amazon
Thefactisthatsuchenormouspaychecksaresimply
notnecessaryinordertoattracttalenttothesepositions.
The huge paychecks come about because of corporate
cronyism,whereexecutivessitontheboardsofeachoth-
er’scompanies,andalsobecauseofcompetitionbetween
companies.A board that does not offer an outsized pay
packagemaywellfearthattheCEOwillgotoacompeti-
tor.Thisisclearlynotahealthyornecessarydynamicfor
theeconomyasawhole,anditisreallynotsomethingthat
shouldbeencouragedbytaxpolicy.Obviously,ifprogres-
sivewagedeductionswereimplemented,thiswouldhave
an impact on the total amount of revenue collected. To
addressthatwemightneedtoadjusttheoveralltaxrateso
thatthechangesare,ataminimum,revenueneutral.
Defeating the Lobbyists
InChapter2,Imadethepointthatinformationtechnolo-
gy is advancing at a geometric (orexponential) rate. Un-
fortunately,thereisalsosomethingelsethatisaccelerating
geometrically: the number of lobbyists in Washington.
48
The federaltax codeoffersoneof the few availableop-
portunities to design specific incentives that might result
insignificantjobcreation.Thesystemofprogressivewage
deductionsthatI proposedearlierisjustoneexampleof
suchanincentive;otherswithexperienceintaxationcould
nodoubtsuggestotherideas.However,anysucheffortto
leverage the tax code seems very unlikely to survive the
influenceofthespecialinterestgroupsthatnowdominate
thelegislativeprocess.
Danger / 147
CopyrightedMaterial–Paperback/Kindle available @ Amazon
InhisbookTheFutureofFreedom:IlliberalDemocracyat
HomeandAbroad,FareedZakariamakesthepointthatthe
ever increasing power that lobbyists and special interests
wieldisatleastinpartduetolawswhichforceeveryas-
pectofthelegislativeprocessintotheopen.While,onthe
surface,itmayappearthatopennessingovernmentisal-
waysdesirableandmoredemocratic,therealityisthatvery
fewofushavethetime,energyorattentionspantotake
anactiveinterest in the intricateand mundanedetailsof
thelegislativeprocess.Thepeoplewhodotakeactivead-
vantageofthistransparencytendtobetheoneswhohave
a very significant vested interest in the legislation being
considered. Lobbyists are able to follow every vote in
every committee and can immediately exert influence
whenever they see the slightest hint of something they
don’tlike.Thishasledtodramaticallyreducedopportuni-
tiesforthetypeofbehindthescenesbargainingandcom-
promise that was once an integral part of the political
process.TheendresultisamorepartisanCongressanda
lotlessconsensus.
Oneveryinterestingideathatoffersatleastapartial
solutiontothisproblemhasbeenproposedbyeconomist
AlanS.Blinder.
49
Hehassuggestedthecreationofanin-
dependent agency, similar to the Federal Reserve, which
wouldhavetheauthoritytospecifythe detailsofthetax
code. Congress would maintain its overall constitutional
authorityovertaxation,butthedetailswouldberemoved
fromthepoliticalprocessandinsteadhandledbyaboard
ofhighlyskilledprofessionals.
THE LIGHTS IN THE TUNNEL / 148
CopyrightedMaterial–Paperback/Kindle available @ Amazon
Thecurrentfinancialsituationhasclearlydemonstrat-
edtheabsolutenecessityofhavingacentralbankwiththe
authoritytorespond rapidlyintimes ofcrisis.While not
everyonemayagreewiththewisdomofeachspecificac-
tion taken by the Federal Reserve as the crisis has un-
folded,veryfew would dispute thefact that theseinitia-
tiveshavebeenextraordinarilycreativeandhavebeenex-
ecutedwitha timelinessthatfew other branchesofgov-
ernmentcouldhopetomatch.Wewouldnotwanttoim-
agineascenarioinwhichtheactionsundertakenindepen-
dentlybytheFedinsteadrequiredavoteinCongress.
Inthefuture,technologicalchangeislikelytocontin-
uetocauseincreasinglydisruptive changes intheecono-
my.Wehavealreadyseenhowtheavailabilityofpowerful
computersmadeitpossibleforWallStreettechniciansto
create new, exotic forms of tradable securities and how
thisleddirectlytotheseverityoftheglobalfinancialcrisis.
Unanticipatedeconomicandfinancialimpactssuchasthis
willalmostcertainlybecomemorecommonastechnology
continuestoprogress.Giventhis,wesimplycannotafford
tohaveagovernmentthatrunsononlyonecylinder.We
needa government withthe flexibilitytoleverageallthe
toolsatitsdisposalintimesofrapidchangeorcrisis.Get-
tingthedetailsofthetaxcode,andperhapsothercritical
facetsofgovernmentoperation,awayfromthedirect,de-
tail-level influence of Washington lobbyists would be a
veryimportantfirststepintherightdirection.
Danger / 149
CopyrightedMaterial–Paperback/Kindle available @ Amazon
A More Conventional View of the Future
Manyoftheideaspresentedsofarinthisbookareuncon-
ventional;manypeoplemayevenfeelthattheyareradical.
Ifyouvisitanybookstoreorlibrary,youcaneasilyfinda
dozen or more books, often written by well-known au-
thors,thatpresentanentirelydifferent,andperhapsmore
palatable, forecast of the future. Before you dismiss the
ideas presented here, perhaps it would be worthwhile to
lookinalittlemoredepthatsomeofthemostwidelyheld
conventionalassumptionsaboutthefutureandseeifthey
arereallyreasonable:
Theprimaryforcethatwillshapethecomingdecades
willbeglobalization.Offshoringofjobsandthecon-
tinuingmigrationofmanufacturingtolowwagecoun-
tries will be the major threats to the job market in
Westerncountries.Technologywillcontinuetoenable
globalization,andjobswillmoveacrossborderswith
increasingease,butautomationtechnologywillnotre-
sult in broad-based, permanent elimination of jobs.
Under pressure from globalization,jobsinthe devel-
oped economies will evolve increasingly toward pro-
vidingservicesthatareanchoredlocally—andneither
automationtechnology nor globalization will succeed
inpenetratingtheseprotectedemploymentmarkets.
Technology will improve the way we communicate
and collaborate. It will increasingly allow us to work
fromhome,andmanyofuswillhavetheopportunity
toofferouruniqueskillsdirectlytotheglobalmarket
onapiecemealorfreelancebasis,joiningad-hocteams
ofotherworkersfromaround theworldtowork on
THE LIGHTS IN THE TUNNEL / 150
CopyrightedMaterial–Paperback/Kindle available @ Amazon
specificprojects.Technologywillchangeourjobsand
thewaywework;itwillallowustoworktogetherin
new ways, but it will never become capable of autono-
mouslydoingourjobs.
Even as artificial intelligence becomes far more so-
phisticatedandasrobotsareincreasinglydeployedfor
military applications and perhaps even as consumer
products,theroutineandrelativelyrepetitivejobsheld
by millionsof workers in offices, warehouses, super-
markets, retail chain stores and small businesses will
remainsecure.
To the extent that any average workers are, in fact,
displacedbyautomation,theywillberetrainedorre-
educated—and the economy will always create jobs
thatwilltakeadvantageofthosenewlyacquiredskills.
Futuretechnologywillresultinthecreationofentirely
newindustries,andtheseindustrieswilloffernewem-
ployment opportunities. History has shown that the
moretechnologicallyadvancedanindustryis,themore
capital intensive it typically is; as a result, it employs
relativelyfewpeople.Thiswillsomehowchangeinthe
future,sothatmillionsofnewjobswillbeavailablefor
averageworkers.
As technology advances, manufactured products will
becomefarmoresophisticatedandincreasinglyminia-
turized. Specifications and tolerances will be tighter.
Automation will have to be introduced to make this
possible.Nonetheless,factoriesthroughouttheworld
willcontinuetoberelativelylabor intensive, and un-
told millions of third-world workers will continue to