The just-passed Republican tax plan favors corporations and the rich over the middle class and poor, and Americans seem to realize it, with polling data showing the American public is against it by a 2-1 margin. This unpopular tax plan is awash with corporate giveaways, and not only embodies a pressing danger for working people now, but pushes us closer to a time where many people may struggle to find jobs at all. That’s because instead of putting people to work, it incentivizes businesses to invest in the future of automation.

Tax policy will now make it easier and cheaper to invest in software, automation, and robots, rather than all of us. Before, capital investments had to be depreciated over a series of years, but now businesses can write them off right away. Imagine a warehouse owner in Southern California is faced with increased demand and must hire to meet those needs. They now face a choice to immediately buy a tax-advantaged robot or instead hire a human to make sure they can ship out more kitchen sinks and ramen noodles. With the tax plan in place, it shifts the balance and makes it a much easier choice to invest in a new robot that can slide goods across the floor. Should a business that does not want to pay a competitive wage to attract employees be incentivized to do so by the government through tax policy?

Work is changing rapidly and current trends portend further shifts in what we do and how we do it. This is the time for policies that are supportive of the future of work: a time of greater automation, more contract work, and limitless opportunity all mixed together. Rather than think about what we can do to support people–with the rise in gig economy workers, the transition away from driving jobs as autonomous cars and trucks come online, or even how we prepare employees to be more flexible and develop soft skills–the tax plan doubles down on the past.

The human that could potentially fill the role needs to be hired and trained, but the new tax plan does not incentivize employers to invest in worker training. The robot, on the other hand, does not need a great deal of training, just minimal programming, and business owners do not have to make the same investments in human capital or pay for payroll taxes and benefits. A system that was meant for the future of work would at the very least be neutral in its approach to capital and labor investments.

This ultimately raises a very real question of how and whether the government should pick winners and losers in business, and there are a lot of good economic reasons to say that the government should not. But, I do think that the question of whether the government should pick winners and losers when it comes to humans versus robots has a very different answer–people overwhelmingly think the government should make that choice and make it on their behalf. Seventy-two percent of people express worry that automation will take jobs and a whopping 85% of Americans favor limiting machines to dangerous or unhealthy positions, according to a recent survey from Pew Research.

By all means, nuance is necessary and this is not a clear-cut issue where we should automatically choose not to invest in capital equipment writ large. Businesses do need to invest in equipment in order to grow and ultimately hire people. However, not all capital equipment is the same—a baker needs an oven and a factory needs a forklift—there are investments that clearly need to be made.