Jump to content

Building robot McDonald's staff 'cheaper' than hiring workers on minimum wage


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Free Radical said:

The minimum wage in those countries are nonexistant. They do collective bargaining through unions, which is better in my opinion than a flat minimum wage.

You asked for an example of how the needs of the populations compared. I gave an example of that. You know what an example is, right?

51 minutes ago, Gritzblitz 2.0 said:

This. We can't compete with China who pay their workers pennies and don't have to deal with worker safety or environmental regulations. 

 

At least until their workers and people start demanding those things. China is already starting to deal with a surge in both of those areas. Once that gets into fullswing the low skill factories will move on to the next developing country.

1 hour ago, ransack said:

Bring manufacturing back on shore (buy American), reduce barriers for small businesses, reduce mergers and the borderline monopolies that big companies have attained. Those won't fix everything but it would be a good start.

Manufacturing, at least the kind we think of, isn't coming back for a myriad of reasons. Instead what we need to do is push existing industries, such as the automobile industry, to make high quality goods and to invest in high tech industries and manufacturing that are extremely difficult to offshore (eg. SpaceX, green industries).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 140
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Free Radical said:

Prices will go up, because like I said, we can't compete with slave labour. 

This is plain truth and there's no way around that, which is why businesses are so **** bent on automating these type as well as many other jobs. I don't see a good solution. Do you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, silentbob1272 said:

Those three countries also have a grand total in population to New York State.

5,9, and 5 million citizens vs 300 million. Not exactly an apples to apples comparison.

And again, how does that keep us from implementing anything remotely similar. At what point between 5-10 million and 300 million is it no longer even reasonable to push in that direction. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

You asked for an example of how the needs of the populations compared. I gave an example of that. You know what an example is, right?

At least until their workers and people start demanding those things. China is already starting to deal with a surge in both of those areas. Once that gets into fullswing the low skill factories will move on to the next developing country.

Manufacturing, at least the kind we think of, isn't coming back for a myriad of reasons. Instead what we need to do is push existing industries, such as the automobile industry, to make high quality goods and to invest in high tech industries and manufacturing that are extremely difficult to offshore (eg. SpaceX, green industries).

And my response was saying their system allowed for more flexibility than a flat minimum wage system that we have over here. Their needs are different, but their system allows more flexibility than ours. 

We shouldn't have to wait for the rest of the world to catch up on human rights to progress in our own society. 

High tech industry and manufacturing doesn't do much for the common man. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, silentbob1272 said:

I'll never understand why some people see leftists as America haters, just makes no sense a'talL

Our policy and the ideological frame of mind ******* sucks. 

Using your logic, anyone that rants about the federal government or Obama hates America. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, silentbob1272 said:

This is plain truth and there's no way around that, which is why businesses are so **** bent on automating these type as well as many other jobs. I don't see a good solution. Do you?

Quit acting like any concept of a welfare state is pure evil, when several countries have proven it works **** well. Quit pinning the loss of job opportunities at the lower end of the totem pole is purely because unions and demands for better wages, because it is a fact that no human will compete with a robot. Does a McDonald's employee demanding 15 an hour push them to do it faster? Sure. But it was going to happen either way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Free Radical said:

And my response was saying their system allowed for more flexibility than a flat minimum wage system that we have over here. Their needs are different, but their system allows more flexibility than ours. 

We shouldn't have to wait for the rest of the world to catch up on human rights to progress in our own society. 

High tech industry and manufacturing doesn't do much for the common man. 

1. I'm aware of how their system works and why they don't have minimum wage. However, you are skirting around the issue that just because something works in one place doesn't mean it will work everywhere. It's like saying what works well in Vermont will work in California and vice versa.

2. I didn't say we should wait on them, merely that globalization will move on from China once they progress to a certain point.

3. Workers don't matter unless they're in a low enough industry? Righto. I guess we should just stick our thumb up our *** unless something helps "the common man."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, silentbob1272 said:

This is plain truth and there's no way around that, which is why businesses are so **** bent on automating these type as well as many other jobs. I don't see a good solution. Do you?

Bob I love the idea of 'capitalism' and the idea of vertical movement in society. But even if it worked exactly according to theory (as I have said before) I think it is doomed. As soon as 3D printing reaches its apex and fusion is perfected (it's closer than people think) the job market is mostly dead

I get tired of hearing how technology always leads to new jobs that it replaces and that isn't true. Sure it creates some (robot repairmen) but it isn't as many as it destroyed. It is inevitable and something every country will have to deal with especially with an increasing population.

Should that occur as many believe it will, what is the solution?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Dago 3.0 said:

Bob I love the idea of 'capitalism' and the idea of vertical movement in society. But even if it worked exactly according to theory (as I have said before) I think it is doomed. As soon as 3D printing reaches its apex and fusion is perfected (it's closer than people think) the job market is mostly dead

I get tired of hearing how technology always leads to new jobs that it replaces and that isn't true. Sure it creates some (robot repairmen) but it isn't as many as it destroyed. It is inevitable and something every country will have to deal with especially with an increasing population.

Should that occur as many believe it will, what is the solution?  

That's an interesting thought. I'm as much a capitalist as anyone, but if it's true that the more technology advances, the fewer jobs will be available then it seems that we will be forced into a system of income redistribution simply because there won't be enough jobs in any sector of the economy for most of the population to earn a living wage. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will minimum wage hikes lead to a huge boost in automation? Only if we're lucky.

As states like California and cities like Seattle boost their minimum wages up to $15 an hour, critics warn that job losses will be inevitable. In particular, one major line of criticism from outlets like the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Forbes's Tim Worstall is that big increases in pay floors only lead to job loss via automation. Both critics point to initiatives at McDonald's and Wendy's to automate more of the service process, and warn that robots, rather than workers, will be the real winners if liberals succeed in boosting minimum pay.

This is doubly wrong. On the one hand, there's little guarantee that increased minimum wages really will increase the pace at which labor-saving technology is developed. On the other hand, there's no reason to think this would be a bad scenario.

If minimum wage hikes really do spur the creation and adoption of high-quality new equipment to automate elements of, say, the food service industry, then that would be a very positive outcome that implies minimum wage hikes are a great idea. Productivity-enhancing technology, after all, is a crucial pillar of social and economic progress. The problem in recent years is that we haven't had nearly enough of it.

California's minimum wage hike pushes the issue beyond the terrain in which it's been studied. Given that, a huge increase in automation is really the optimistic outcome. The thing to worry about is that the robots won't happen, not that they will.

Welcome our new robot wage slaves

What about the workers thrown out of jobs by the new robo-waiters? Many would get new jobs, though the way this would work is often ignored.

  • Most restaurants would keep longer hours (they're paying for the rent and the robots anyway), meaning many workers would get a raise and change shifts.
  • The advanced robo-restaurant technology would itself be a valuable American export good, and people would be employed in designing and selling it.
  • Some low-wage work would be reallocated out of the relatively low-social-value restaurant sector and into things like child care and home health assistance, for which there is ample demand.
  • Since poor people are now making more money, there will be opportunities to sell them things — things like restaurant meals! — that they couldn't previously afford, which in turn creates demand for new jobs.

Even better, to the extent that we are able to produce everything we need with less labor, we can afford to let people work less.

Right now the retirement age is rising from 65 to 67, and most people think it will have to go up to 70. If robots can do a lot of the work instead, we could put it back down to 65 or even to 62 while still growing the economy. We could give more financial support to college students so fewer of them are doing part-time food service work. We could give new parents more paid leave time and mandate four weeks of paid vacation for everyone.

It would be great!

Worry that the robots won't take the jobs

The scenario to worry about with minimum wage hikes is that no technological solution will emerge. Restaurant operations will remain about the same, but employing people to work in them will get more expensive.

In pricey, crowded cities the results won't be so bad. Operating a restaurant will become less lucrative, which in the long term will mean restaurateurs offer lower bids for leases on prime restaurant locations. That will mean lower returns for landlords, which is a small price to pay for better living standards for low-wage workers.

But in less crowded, less expensive locations where labor is a bigger slice of the overall cost pie, it will just mean fewer restaurants open and those that do open will keep shorter hours. People will have a harder time finding jobs (not just super low-end jobs, but also better-paying managerial and construction jobs) and convenient meals.

Some people will benefit through higher pay, but others will just find themselves unable to find work unless they move to a different state that's friendlier to opening new restaurants.

http://www.vox.com/2016/4/2/11348148/minimum-wage-robots

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dago 3.0 said:

Bob I love the idea of 'capitalism' and the idea of vertical movement in society. But even if it worked exactly according to theory (as I have said before) I think it is doomed. As soon as 3D printing reaches its apex and fusion is perfected (it's closer than people think) the job market is mostly dead

I get tired of hearing how technology always leads to new jobs that it replaces and that isn't true. Sure it creates some (robot repairmen) but it isn't as many as it destroyed. It is inevitable and something every country will have to deal with especially with an increasing population.

Should that occur as many believe it will, what is the solution?  

Honest to God, I don't know. I wasn't being sarcastic or snarky earlier when I asked FR this same question. I don't know what the solution is. Businesses are increasing their profits by eliminating their workforce, but it would seem they are (or soon will) eliminate their customer base because so many are following this same business model. If no one can work, how can they spend? There's an answer, and I don't think that answer is an all encompassing welfare state, people much more intelligent than I am are directing this course of action, so they must have good reason to think they can remain profitable. I'm just not seeing it presently.

So many career paths are being eliminated by technology, while very few are being born to replace those. Maybe we are headed the way of Wall-E

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gritzblitz 2.0 said:

That's an interesting thought. I'm as much a capitalist as anyone, but if it's true that the more technology advances, the fewer jobs will be available then it seems that we will be forced into a system of income redistribution simply because there won't be enough jobs in any sector of the economy for most of the population to earn a living wage. 

 

That's how I see it. With no offense to him, that article posted by Georgiafan seems like Utopian bs, wishful thinking and willful ignorance at it's worst. I may be the one who is wrong, but the predictions laid out in that article seem too far fetched to even be someone's real pondering s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Gritzblitz 2.0 said:

That's an interesting thought. I'm as much a capitalist as anyone, but if it's true that the more technology advances, the fewer jobs will be available then it seems that we will be forced into a system of income redistribution simply because there won't be enough jobs in any sector of the economy for most of the population to earn a living wage. 

 

The entire concept of technology advancement eliminating jobs is completely untrue. The theory goes back decades and there is 0 data supporting it. The telephone eliminated the need for messengers, which was once a career path. The typewriter improved the productivity of a single human being. The computer increased productivity leaps and bounds for each employed worker. What could be accomplished with 10 people can now be done by 1 person in a lot of instances due to technological advancements. The unemployment rate was over 6% in 1950 and it's 5% today. The same thing happened with factory workers with the advancement of the assembly line, with corporate farms having automated tractors that work off of GPS for tilling and harvesting. 

There are reasons we do not see that effect. One is because higher unemployment creates less demand, which results in less investment in advancing productivity. Two is because people with money invest in new businesses when technology advancements prove new business models. It creates jobs because the people with money will invest in 100 new businesses in the hopes that 10 are successful.

There is literally no historical data what so ever that lends any validity to the theory. It's fear mongering that has been used many times every time technology advances because of the job it looks like it replaces. The truth is that it has created more new jobs every single time throughout history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, pzummo said:

The entire concept of technology advancement eliminating jobs is completely untrue. The theory goes back decades and there is 0 data supporting it. The telephone eliminated the need for messengers, which was once a career path. The typewriter improved the productivity of a single human being. The computer increased productivity leaps and bounds for each employed worker. What could be accomplished with 10 people can now be done by 1 person in a lot of instances due to technological advancements. The unemployment rate was over 6% in 1950 and it's 5% today. The same thing happened with factory workers with the advancement of the assembly line, with corporate farms having automated tractors that work off of GPS for tilling and harvesting. 

There are reasons we do not see that effect. One is because higher unemployment creates less demand, which results in less investment in advancing productivity. Two is because people with money invest in new businesses when technology advancements prove new business models. It creates jobs because the people with money will invest in 100 new businesses in the hopes that 10 are successful.

There is literally no historical data what so ever that lends any validity to the theory. It's fear mongering that has been used many times every time technology advances because of the job it looks like it replaces. The truth is that it has created more new jobs every single time throughout history.

your evidence has a very serious flaw in it

they don't compute unemployment the same way now as they did in 1950 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, ransack said:

Bring manufacturing back on shore (buy American), reduce barriers for small businesses, reduce mergers and the borderline monopolies that big companies have attained. Those won't fix everything but it would be a good start.

American Manufacturing is strong.

 

manufacturing%201947%202007.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Flip Flop said:

American Manufacturing is strong.

 

manufacturing%201947%202007.png

Do you have a link about how they calculate the index.  I'm curious if they adjust for population and other similar things.  I'm sure they do, but I'd like to verify it myself if there's a link to the methodology.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...