Should companies pay a Worker Retraining Tax to address the Massive Job Layoffs due to AI?

[Joe]

As we all know, AI is displacing thousands (millions?) or workers in the USA and worldwide lately.

Many workers are losing their jobs & standard of living.

Large corporations like Amazon claim, "But it's in the name of progress! Workers need to learn how to adapt to the changing technology"

However, corporate profits are not going down. In fact, the opposite is true.

The Magnificent 7 - a number of the largest corporations in the US - are actually recording massive profits such as Amazon, Apple & Google.

Corporations are using AI and other technologies not only to make their companies more efficient, but to pad their profit margins and increase share prices and dividends to investors by laying off thousands of workers.



In many instances, this is not a case of companies which are hurting due to an downturn in a normal economic cycle.

Throwing workers under the bus like this is akin to a guy knocking up 10 women but then refusing to pay child support.
The corporations are refusing to be held accountable for their actions.

Therefore, what I propose is that these corporations should pay at least a 10% retraining tax if they are not hurting, but merely want to save money, increase their profits or outsource jobs to India.

This tax would go towards retraining workers, preparing them for self employment (since large employers can no longer be counted on to provide reliable employment for their workers).

Same time, it would not impact companies or employers that do NOT use AI to displace their workers.

If the workforce continues to be hollowed out like it is, and not just in the US, there won't be sufficient tax base to pay for the basic necessities which many societies rely upon

I think addressing mass layoffs is an urgent matter which needs to be addressed right NOW before it gets worse. Especially because we don't want to create a graveyard or swathes of ghost towns. Or millions of unemployed. Perhaps some in corporations want this vision, but most societies around the world do not.

 

[The Prowler]

I feel like Joe needs to go to school and get a basic understanding of business if he wants to have these kinds of discussions.

 

[wizer]

I feel like Joe needs to go to school and get a basic understanding of business if he wants to have these kinds of discussions.

I thought the same. Well I first thought, "wow here's an interesting thread that isn't about, well, the meaningless crap that gets splattered everywhere on these boards", then I thought @Joe, seriously dude, what are you thinking?

Of course any company that replaces one or more workers with AI is going to save a bundle, and when it happens on a large scale you're talking mega-profits at the expense of more unemployed individuals.

Sure in a fairy tale world, CEOs would give half a shit for the employees that are being displaced, and the devastating effects it has on their families and neighborhoods especially when entire towns are employed by one or more large companies.

But @Joe, companies don't care. It's all about the money. So no, they won't retrain people so they can possibly hope to compete with AI.

 

[LotusBud]

Good poll. And yes. Companies should do something drastic to help take care of the human beings whose lives will be ruined by AI. Also, all the creators profiting from AI should pay this tax.

Everyone should be forced to be a human first and a profit monger second or third or fourth.

 

[Joe]

Good poll. And yes. Companies should do something drastic to help take care of the human beings whose lives will be ruined by AI. Also, all the creators profiting from AI should pay this tax.

Everyone should be forced to be a human first and a profit monger second or third or fourth.

Yes. Totally agree @LotusBud

I would further that by making large employers pay massive back taxes for workers laid off so far @LotusBud



So if theyve done this already, the corporations will be taxed retroactively for the workers they already let go due to these these wonderful new technologies, not just moving forward.

 

[The Question]

Future Entrepreneur:

"Nope! Not worth it. No point. This will only lead to one of two places: Failure, or getting the absolute fuck plundered out of me if I achieve success. So, nope!"

That's why socialism (or communism, when socialism nuts up and stops pussyfooting around about what it really is) always fails:

Because it punishes success, and consequently, people quit trying to be successful.

 

[Joe]

Future Entrepreneur:

"Nope! Not worth it. No point. This will only lead to one of two places: Failure, or getting the absolute fuck plundered out of me if I achieve success. So, nope!"

That's why socialism (or communism, when socialism nuts up and stops pussyfooting around about what it really is) always fails:

Because it punishes success, and consequently, people quit trying to be successful.

What I said/thought is the worker AI retraining tax would not apply to companies or individuals who don't use AI to replace their workers just to pad profits @Frederick

Essentially what these large corporations are presently engaging in is a form of profiteering. They hired thousands of productive workers which increased company profits and boosted their share prices, but now they want even more by using less.

Your President and the business establishment think the public are so dumb that they forget how Trump announced tax breaks and incentives for AI companies. Remember that $500 Billion US he pledged to those companies and the Billionaire oligarchs when he first came into office?



These corporations arent using that money to improve your society or country, they're using it to pad corporate profits & the executives are lining their pockets. Also destroying much of the American workforce too.

So they should be taxed because that's a clear abuse of the public purse. The US taxpayer in part is funding Trump's $500 billion gift to the corporations & tech billionaires & now they are screwing the American worker with it.

The US Corporations are robbing the American worker blind both in taxes and their jobs.

Ya'll Americans are not reaping the benefits of all that money given to tech oligarch billionaires and their corporations

 

[Holy Holliday !]

We need neo-Luddites to step up on the matter of AI.

 

[Joe]

We need neo-Luddites to step up on the matter of AI.

But that's your tax money that's subsidizing large corporations while laying off American workers @Holy Holliday !

I know Canada isn't perfect either and this sort of thing is going on here.

But at least the Prime Minister announced a package to retrain middle aged workers displaced because of technological change.

 

[RANCIDMILKO ™ ®©]

Gonna retrain them to do what exactly?

 

[Holy Holliday !]

But that's your tax money that's subsidizing large corporations while laying off American workers @Holy Holliday !

I know Canada isn't perfect either and this sort of thing is going on here.

But at least the Prime Minister announced a package to retrain middle aged workers displaced because of technological change.

Now, these neo-Luddites I mentioned, of course need to be tech savvy waaay beyond an old country boy like me. They need to fight fire with fire and have that knowledge. Can't solve this with sledgehammers. In a sense they must be part of the problem but people who have discovered a conscience and insight regarding the future of mankind. Otherwise the day will come when AI will answer:
"Humans? We doan got no humans. We doan need no stinkin humans."

 

[Joe]

Gonna retrain them to do what exactly?

Well that's the next piece in the jigsaw puzzle @RANCIDMILKO ™ ®©

Since large companies are no longer willing to hire/retain as many workers like they did in the past & automation has made them redundant this has changed the economy.

The employment model which has existed for over 200 years since the Industrial Revolution no longer applies or at least no longer will in the near future.

If this means that more workers will be employed as hair dressers, estheticians, solar panel installers, plumbers, social workers, speech therapists, drug addiction counselors then that's the way it is. That is the new reality.

Also self employment will become more common just like it was 100 years ago when there were more shopkeepers & farmers who made their own employment.

So the AI taxes realized could among other things go to laid off workers to set up full or part time business. and to assist graduates trying to pay off student loans.

It can't go on like this with large corporations fuckin the dog & lining their pockets like this

 

[Lily]

Well that's the next piece in the jigsaw puzzle @RANCIDMILKO ™ ®©

Since large companies are no longer willing to hire/retain as many workers like they did in the past & automation has made them redundant this has changed the economy.

The employment model which has existed for over 200 years since the Industrial Revolution no longer applies or at least no longer will in the near future.

If this means that more workers will be employed as hair dressers, estheticians, solar panel installers, plumbers, social workers, speech therapists, drug addiction counselors then that's the way it is. That is the new reality.

Also self employment will become more common just like it was 100 years ago when there were more shopkeepers & farmers who made their own employment.

So the AI taxes realized could among other things go to laid off workers to set up full or part time business. and to assist graduates trying to pay off student loans.

It can't go on like this with large corporations fuckin the dog & lining their pockets like this

Well, looks like we also need to train a lot of people to deal with all the drug addicts.

 

[Holy Holliday !]

Why @Joe in a new world where global industrial elites can make anything communally that they can imagine, and have an AI workforce to do it, while isolating themselves from the unwashed, do they need a surplus of useless eaters at all?
I mean, just to ask the question in simple terms - Isn't that what global pandemics are good for? Why support the peasantry at all, or even allow them to support themselves?

 

[Joe]

I feel like Joe needs to go to school and get a basic understanding of business if he wants to have these kinds of discussions.

Well Lex @The Prowler, I was planning to start a small business next year in 2026.

Partly, it's out of desire to see if it can be done, if I can at least BREAK EVEN.

Starting a business is a good life skill to learn.

But another reason is I spent so bllinkin' much on this graphic arts 'hobby' I wanted to embark on

As I told you earlier, I must have spent $20,000 US so far on a new camera, computer, software. printer.

Noe of t was cheap. I should put a list together so you can see for yourself.

Originally, I jes' wanted to do this as a hobby. I didn't expect it would cost this much.

While it's not gonna bankrupt me or go in debt for, it's just too much to spend without trying to recoup those costs.

So...I might not know much about business.

However I do know how much this friggin' hobby has cost me so far.

If my 'hobby' were a business, it'd be a massive loss

BTW, I'm not the only one. I have a friend who bought a $3000 camera, and he's still paying it off.

And he also wanted to do it 'for fun'

'hobbies' these days cost a lotta money, Prowler.

 

[Holy Holliday !]

Well Lex @The Prowler, I was planning to start a small business next year in 2026.

Partly, it's out of desire to see if it can be done, if I can at least BREAK EVEN.

Starting a business is a good life skill to learn.

But another reason is I spent so brlinkin' much on this graphic arts 'hobby' I wanted to embark on

As I told you earlier, I must have spent $20,000 US so far on a new camera, computer, software. printer.

Noe of t was cheap. I should put a list together so you can see for yourself.

Originally, I jes' wanted to do this as a hobby.

While it's not gonna bankrupt me or go in debt for, it's just too much to spend without trying to recoup those costs.

So...I might not know much about business.

However I do know how much this friggin' hobby has cost me so far.

BTW, I'm not the only one. I have a friend who bought a $3000 camera, and he's still paying it off.

'hobbies' these days cost a lotta money these days, Prowler.

Applauds for not referring to your hobby as photography, Joe.
. Otherwise I might recommend getting yourself a Hasselblad, a polaroid, or making a pinhole camera from a match box then building yourself a darkroom.

 

[The Question]

Well, looks like we also need to train a lot of people to deal with all the drug addicts.

This reminded me: last month I took the qualification test to start working for DataAnnotation.tech. Basically a job 'correcting' AI assistants like Copilot, Gemini, etc., helping to accurize and refine their output. Passed it.

Aaaand still haven't got an email telling me I can start working.

 

[Joe]

Applauds for not referring to your hobby as photography, Joe.
. Otherwise I might recommend getting yourself a Hasselblad, a polaroid, or making a pinhole camera from a match box then building yourself a darkroom.

Well, I might get one of those older cameras @Holy Holliday ! to learn the traditional methods.

There's actually a darkroom/camera club where they still teach the old method.

So it might be worth learning.

I bought a high end camera for one reason - I wanted to learn VFX - the kind of special effects ya see in the movies.

But all that 'stuff' is really expensive to just 'try out' for a hobbyist.

Tharz not many cheap hobbies left anymore Holiday

 

[Admin.]

Well, I might get one of those older cameras @Holy Holliday ! to learn the traditional methods.

There's actually a darkroom/camera club where they still teach the old method.

So it might be worth learning.

I bought a high end camera for one reason - I wanted to learn VFX - the kind of special effects ya see in the movies.

But all that 'stuff' is really expensive to just 'try out' for a hobbyist.

Tharz not many cheap hobbies left anymore Holiday

Walking is inexpensive.

 

[Liberty1976]

Imagine if unemployment got so bad that these companies ran out of customers.

 

[The Prowler]

Why @Joe in a new world where global industrial elites can make anything communally that they can imagine, and have an AI workforce to do it, while isolating themselves from the unwashed, do they need a surplus of useless eaters at all?
I mean, just to ask the question in simple terms - Isn't that what global pandemics are good for? Why support the peasantry at all, or even allow them to support themselves?

I would support a massive depopulation program.

 

[The Prowler]

Gonna retrain them to do what exactly?

If this means that more workers will be employed as hair dressers, estheticians, solar panel installers, plumbers, social workers, speech therapists, drug addiction counselors then that's the way it is. That is the new reality.

There are enough hair dressers, estheticians, solar panel installers, and plumbers.

There may be a need or use for more social workers, speech therapists, and drug addiction counselors, but not enough to employ everyone who is being displaced due to technological advances.


This idea of taxing corporations a "retraining tax" is stupid and it would result in American corporations being put at a disadvantage in the global market.


I have already addressed this "problem" of a workforce being too efficient several times.

It is not a problem at all. "Oh no, we have too much labour resource!!! What will we do?!!?!?"

How ridiculous.

 

[Joe]

I would support a massive depopulation program.

But then your share prices/stocks would plummet in value Lex @The Prowler.

Because there would be an insufficient number of buyers for the products and services they sell.

If there's no demand, there's no sales. If there are no sales, share prices fall off a cliff.

Even Elon knows that. That's why he's pushing people to have more babies so there'll continue to be a market for his cars.



IN which case yer Tesla shares'd go inta the toilet, Lex.

 

[The Prowler]

But then your share prices/stocks would plummet in value Lex @The Prowler.

Because there would be an insufficient number of buyers for the products and services they sell.

If there's no demand, there's no sales. If there are no sales, share prices fall off a cliff.

Even Elon knows that. That's why he's pushing people to have more babies so there'll continue to be a market for his cars.



IN which case yer Tesla shares'd go inta the toilet, Lex.

If Elon Musk thinks the world needs more people, he is wrong.

The world would be much healthier with a much smaller population.

All your minor concerns like stock prices would not be an issue. Explaining it to you, though...nearly impossible.

 

[wizer]

But then your share prices/stocks would plummet in value Lex @The Prowler.

Because there would be an insufficient number of buyers for the products and services they sell.

If there's no demand, there's no sales. If there are no sales, share prices fall off a cliff.

@Joe. I only saw this post because @The Prowler quoted it.

I know you're trying, it's obvious but your ideas are just completely warped.

The planet is over populated and the problems secondary to rapid depletion of natural resources and increased pollution dwarf any issues with the stock market possibly losing value because of "less buyers". And it won't lose value if there's less people on the planet because there's still the same value and assets out there, only it will be shared among a smaller group of planetary inhabitants who will be wealthier in general.

 

[The Prowler]

And it won't lose value if there's less people on the planet because there's still the same value and assets out there, only it will be shared among a smaller group of planetary inhabitants who will be wealthier in general.

Big Picture Thinking.

 

[Joe]

@Joe. I only saw this post because @The Prowler quoted it.

I know you're trying, it's obvious but your ideas are just completely warped.

The planet is over populated and the problems secondary to rapid depletion of natural resources and increased pollution dwarf any issues with the stock market possibly losing value because of "less buyers". And it won't lose value if there's less people on the planet because there's still the same value and assets out there, only it will be shared among a smaller group of planetary inhabitants who will be wealthier in general.

If that be the case, that transition to a new economic paradigm would not necessarily be smooth nor without economic pain @wizer & Lex @The Prowler.

Even the most optimistic among the elites have acknowledged this.



Elon was once quoted as saying "Hope for the best prepare for the worst."