Minimum-wage campaign for $15/h could speed arrival of robot-powered restaurants and reduced number
205 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;48493257]I'm glad I'm a programmer, the machines cant replace me![/QUOTE]
Considering one of the forefront fields of programming is new forms of problem solving/learning ai that can adapt to many diverse tasks without additional programming work, dont feel so assured.
The choice here is to raise minimum wage and maintain people's labor buying power while giving to automation menial work that it's efficient to, or let minimum wage stagnate, which due to inflation lowers buying power and essentially cheapens all human labor.
I dont believe that we can create new jobs fast enough to replace automation. The result will either be subsidized labor or some kind of basic universal income system. Or we just do nothing and our society will devolve as unemployment skyrockets and people riot en masse. The wealthy will end up owning the automation so without some kind of intervention people who had been living hand to mouth on min wage wont be able to find jobs anymore and their only recourse will be crime.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;48493387]But it does raise the bar of entry a lot. Education costs a fuckton and poor people are only getting more disadvantaged as time goes on.[/QUOTE]
Scholarships are key in college education. Just because you are poor doesn't mean you are immediately counted out in the race for wealth. A person who truly wants to succeed in the world will prepare themselves for these costs, and will take all chances to better their situation. That is what my Grandfather did when his family came to America, and what millions of other immigrants did.
Let that happen. The fact of the matter is replacing all people with automation simply creates a non-functioning economy. You can't have a majority unemployed and expect those automated processes to be functioning for any real purpose in an economy where no one has spending power.
In a future where robots replace service industry jobs, we either create jobs for our people or we head towards massive unemployment. This fearmongering bullshit is propaganda. I fully support $15/hr minimum wage.
Come take our jobs.
[QUOTE=Timof2009;48493418]Scholarships are key in college education. Just because you are poor doesn't mean you are immediately counted out in the race for wealth. A person who truly wants to succeed in the world will prepare themselves for these costs, and will take all chances to better their situation. That is what my Grandfather did when his family came to America, and what millions of other immigrants did.[/QUOTE]That's deep and all but not always an option.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48493368]Don't pretend that it's so black and white. Stores know that customers like human interaction, and that some people are simply too lazy to scan and bag their items. Also do consider that in either case they would still have roughly the same number of cashiers hired anyways. During off-peak time they'll often have three people - one manning the front desk and selling smokes, one on the express and perhaps a second person assisting the express in the former case and someone in the self-serve area in the latter case. In peak times not even self-serve can control the flow of customers, especially if customers have loads of items, so they still have the additional cashiers brought in.[/QUOTE]
It is always in a store's best interest to hire and work the most minimal amount of employees needed.
There is zero incentive to have someone come into work when they're not needed, especially in the fast food business where even if one is scheduled for a day, you could end up being sent him early simply because business is very slow.
[editline]19th August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Timof2009;48493418]Scholarships are key in college education. Just because you are poor doesn't mean you are immediately counted out in the race for wealth. A person who truly wants to succeed in the world will prepare themselves for these costs, and will take all chances to better their situation. That is what my Grandfather did when his family came to America, and what millions of other immigrants did.[/QUOTE]
I'll make sure to pull myself up by my bootstraps when I find the money to buy boots.
[QUOTE=Timof2009;48493418]Scholarships are key in college education. Just because you are poor doesn't mean you are immediately counted out in the race for wealth. A person who truly wants to succeed in the world will prepare themselves for these costs, and will take all chances to better their situation. That is what my Grandfather did when his family came to America, and what millions of other immigrants did.[/QUOTE]
Blah Blah excuse me while my wealthy family goes to private school debt free while you pay 300k in student debt. This is a free market after all.
Good luck contributing to the economy for the next N decades while you repay high interest loans. Better not be looking forward to a house!
[QUOTE=Timof2009;48493375]We will never be completely replaced simply because robots can never be as sophisticated as we are. New jobs arise as new technology arise. One great example is the computer industry, which hopefully is self explanatory.[/QUOTE]
"never" is a dumb term to use here, we're just complicated biological machines, theres no reason why some far off distant future wouldnt see us being entirely replaced. In our lifetimes though, yeah we wont be replaced in all aspects, it's just a very significant portion of us that will be replaced in our lifetimes.
New jobs do not just magically arise alongside acceleration of rates of unemployment. Do remember that for people to be able to maintance these automation things they will need to be educated, in our current society education is not free, and even if it was people need somewhere to live while being educted and still need to buy food and all that good stuff. If we replace transportation and service jobs for example, those people just have nowhere to go. Once automation gets cheaper than even our current minimum wages the market will force corporations to mechanize or die, and shareholders will want mechanization because it's inherently more efficient.
I swear i post this shit every thread we have about this, because it's always relevant: (snipped because someone already posted it)
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU[/url]
My solution would be to make education free alongside a universal basic income that's enough for room and board. That would at least let people have a way out of poverty, even assuming people still had enough buying power to keep the automation industry's expansion profitable.
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;48493257]I'm glad I'm a programmer, the machines cant replace me![/QUOTE]
We'll see about that :science101:
[QUOTE=itisjuly;48493426]That's deep and all but not always an option.[/QUOTE]
Correct, depending on the society you are in. I know you can do that in America, but I am unsure about other places in the world. Of course, that never stops those determined to survive and thrive from trying.
[QUOTE=Rofl my Waff;48493422]Let that happen. The fact of the matter is replacing all people with automation simply creates a non-functioning economy. You can't have a majority unemployed and expect those automated processes to be functioning for any real purpose in an economy where no one has spending power.
In a future where robots replace service industry jobs, we either create jobs for our people or we head towards massive unemployment. This fearmongering bullshit is propaganda. I fully support $15/hr minimum wage.
Come take our jobs.[/QUOTE]
Corporations don't get together and discuss issues involving the economy. Each one looks to their own benefit and no one else's.
Sure it may hurt the economy in the long run, but all businesses see is the cutting of labor expenses here and now. Long term effects to the greater economy have no standing in corporate strategy.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48493450]Corporations don't get together and discuss issues revolving the economy. Each one looks to their own benefit and no one else's.
Sure it may hurt the economy in the long run, but all businesses see is the cutting of labor expenses here and now. Long term effects to the greater economy have no standing in corporate strategy.[/QUOTE]
We have to rely on federal and state legislation to curtail that. If we cannot, then we must simply wait a generation for these policies to implode on themselves and then push legislation.
Like I said, I fully support federal minimum wage increases and I really don't see how pandering to corporate America looking for better ways to screw over lower class workers will really do anything. They will head this way regardless.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48493429]It is always in a store's best interest to hire and work the most minimal amount of employees needed.
There is zero incentive to have someone come into work when they're not needed, especially in the fast food business where even if one is scheduled for a day, you could end up being sent him early simply because business is very slow.
[editline]19th August 2015[/editline]
I'll make sure to pull myself up by my bootstraps when I find the money to buy boots.[/QUOTE]
I think people fail to realize how rich most people people in the U.S are. Ever those we consider "poor" are extremely rich compared to others world wide.
Higher minimum wage reduces number of jobs? Wow, nobody expected that...
[QUOTE=Timof2009;48493464]I think people fail to realize how rich most people people in the U.S are. Ever those we consider "poor" are extremely rich compared to others world wide.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, less than $15k annual is really the envy of Europe...
[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;48493254]Yeah but I use my local supermarket as an example you only need one person overlooking 8 self checkouts, 2 if it gets busy. When before you needed one person per checkout.[/QUOTE]
You'd think so but for some reason, walking into a shop seems to multiply a persons IQ by 0.3 and even the most basic of concepts become impossible for them to grasp.
I saw someone walk into a small supermarket that had a self checkout, they DUMPED all their stuff in the bagging area and spent ten minutes arguing with a member of staff about how the damn thing works. When they finally got it in their head that you put the items in the basket area they then fucked up the contactless payment by just smacking the card to the scanner then pulling it away before it had a chance to read it, the machine even said "You pulled the card away too fast, please try again." they did this about five times, there are very nice animated picture instructions on the damn screen.
Robots are tools, they are only as useful as the humans using them.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;48493330]It's like when people claim factory automation will merely shift job market. As if it will. One factory that replaces 200 workers with 200 machines only needs ~10 people to maintain these machines.[/QUOTE]
Machines which are designed, built, and serviced by other people, so the net workforce is still well over 10 people. It will not still be 200 workers, since increasing efficiency is the point of automation, but two hundred years of industrialization have shown that businesses are far more likely to build a second factory with the money they save, in turn employing more people, than they are to just chop the workforce and be done with it. It's not as simplistic as 190 people getting fired and that's that.
Anyways, people should have seen this coming- when wages suddenly double, automation becomes the cheaper alternative, and businesses are all about the bottom line.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;48493439]"never" is a dumb term to use here, we're just complicated biological machines, theres no reason why some far off distant future wouldnt see us being entirely replaced. In our lifetimes though, yeah we wont be replaced in all aspects, it's just a very significant portion of us that will be replaced in our lifetimes.
New jobs do not just magically arise alongside acceleration of rates of unemployment. Do remember that for people to be able to maintance these automation things they will need to be educated, in our current society education is not free, and even if it was people need somewhere to live while being educted and still need to buy food and all that good stuff. If we replace transportation and service jobs for example, those people just have nowhere to go. Once automation gets cheaper than even our current minimum wages the market will force corporations to mechanize or die, and shareholders will want mechanization because it's inherently more efficient.
I swear i post this shit every thread we have about this, because it's always relevant:
[video=youtube;7Pq-S557XQU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU[/video]
My solution would be to make education free alongside a universal basic income that's enough for room and board. That would at least let people have a way out of poverty, even assuming people still had enough buying power to keep the automation industry's expansion profitable.[/QUOTE]
Addressing your last point, Nothing of value is free. If you want to get out of poverty you better get creative on how you make money. That is how people have done it is the past and how it will happen in the future. Minimum wage was set with the intention of preventing worker abuse, but it did not have the intention of being able to support a livelihood.
[editline]19th August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rofl my Waff;48493478]Yeah, less than $15k annual is really the envy of Europe...[/QUOTE]
Yea, but it is considered pennies in Africa, and south america.
[QUOTE=Timof2009;48493490]
Yea, but it is considered pennies in Africa, and south america.[/QUOTE]
We should compare ourselves to countries with similar economies rather than third world nations. We have the largest economy on our planet after all....
[QUOTE=Timof2009;48493464]I think people fail to realize how rich most people people in the U.S are. Ever those we consider "poor" are extremely rich compared to others world wide.[/QUOTE]
We should send all our poor to the Congo, they'd live like kings!
[QUOTE=itisjuly;48493330]It's like when people claim factory automation will merely shift job market. As if it will. One factory that replaces 200 workers with 200 machines only needs ~10 people to maintain these machines.[/QUOTE]
Except it always has shifted the job market.
I don't get why people keep coming up with bullshit about how machinery will make everybody unemployed. The process of automation has happened for centuries and their predictions haven't happened.
[QUOTE=CreeplyTuna;48493509]We should send all our poor to the Congo, they'd live like kings![/QUOTE]
Or get robbed.
[QUOTE=Timof2009;48493490]Addressing your last point, Nothing of value is free. If you want to get out of poverty you better get creative on how you make money. That is how people have done it is the past and how it will happen in the future. Minimum wage was set with the intention of preventing worker abuse, but it did not have the intention of being able to support a livelihood.[/QUOTE]
Uhm, i didnt say it was free, resources dont materialize. I thought my intention to tax the wealthiest heavily enough to support such a system was clear. In an automation heavy society, everyone who owns automation would naturally become very wealthy, it makes sense to tax.
My suggestion is based on what i believe to be the best way to prevent a collapse of society due to extreme unemployement rates which would be shitty for everyone, not some arbitrary idea of "well i want you to need to be *creative* before you can leave poverty" despite entering poverty often not being your own choice. People born into it and people with legit shitty lucky dont deserve that kind of treatment.
"That is how people have done it is the past and how it will happen in the future." is such a funny idea. How many times throughout history has some moron said this right before they got thrown on their ass because, surprise surprise, things change, societies change, governments change, technology changes.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48493523]Except it always has shifted the job market.
I don't get why people keep coming up with bullshit about how machinery will make everybody unemployed. The process of automation has happened for centuries and their predictions haven't happened.[/QUOTE]
The thing is that people who worked unskilled labor lost their job and source of income and now they can't really do anything about it. If they were previously working min wage labor job, I doubt they will up and go get a mechanical engineering degree. More likely they will either get on benefits or become homeless due to their inability to find job or get education.
Back to grocery stores, my local one actually [I]removed [/I]all their self-checkout robots. Now, you must go through a human to buy your groceries. At least some businesses will market themselves as having a "human element" to bring in customers who want that kind of shopping experience.
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;48493257]I'm glad I'm a programmer, the machines cant replace me![/QUOTE]
Skynet.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;48493527]Uhm, i didnt say it was free, resources dont materialize. I thought my intention to tax the wealthiest heavily enough to support such a system was clear. In an automation heavy society, everyone who owns automation would naturally become very wealthy, it makes sense to tax.
My suggestion is based on what i believe to be the best way to prevent a collapse of society due to extreme unemployement rates which would be shitty for everyone, not some arbitrary idea of "well i want you to need to be *creative* before you can leave poverty" despite entering poverty often not being your own choice. People born into it and people with legit shitty lucky dont deserve that kind of treatment.
"That is how people have done it is the past and how it will happen in the future." is such a funny idea. How many times throughout history has some moron said this right before they got thrown on their ass because, surprise surprise, things change, societies change, governments change, technology changes.[/QUOTE]
Not only that, but this guy is [b]full of shit[/b]. When "his grandfather" was young, many state colleges were free, minimum wage supported the middle class better, you could maintain a family and a livelyhood in the service industry, unions were stronger, and more social welfare programs were in place.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;48493527]Uhm, i didnt say it was free, resources dont materialize. I thought my intention to tax the wealthiest heavily enough to support such a system was clear. In an automation heavy society, everyone who owns automation would naturally become very wealthy, it makes sense to tax.
My suggestion is based on what i believe to be the best way to prevent a collapse of society due to extreme unemployement rates which would be shitty for everyone, not some arbitrary idea of "well i want you to need to be *creative* before you can leave poverty" despite entering poverty often not being your own choice. People born into it and people with legit shitty lucky dont deserve that kind of treatment.
"That is how people have done it is the past and how it will happen in the future." is such a funny idea. How many times throughout history has some moron said this right before they got thrown on their ass because, surprise surprise, things change, societies change, governments change, technology changes.[/QUOTE]
People have adapted and evolved to different situations as time goes by. How do you think companies like Microsoft, Apple, or Google became economical giants? They see a change in technology and took advantage of it. Someone still has to create the robots and program the AI. Because of the nature of robots today, they can never compete with humans purely because they are limited to 1's and 0's where our DNA is much more complex than that. Creativity in a changing environment has always proven to yield better results when a success does happen.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;48493540]The thing is that people who worked unskilled labor lost their job and source of income and now they can't really do anything about it. If they were previously working min wage labor job, I doubt they will up and go get a mechanical engineering degree. More likely they will either get on benefits or become homeless due to their inability to find job or get education.[/QUOTE]
And now some kid is going to graduate college and be able to get a job designing food service robots rather than flipping burgers and complaining on the Internet that his degree isn't doing him any good. I sympathize for the individuals getting displaced but on the whole society doesn't suffer. Really you're making an argument for having social programs to help people who are out of work.
People have adapted ... that's why millions of people are still on the lowest rung of the employment ladder unable to get off of it, and if you take their job (which they already know is shit) away from them then what? Just write them and their kids off from existence i guess.
[QUOTE=Rofl my Waff;48493574]Not only that, but this guy is full of shit. When "his grandfather" was young, many state colleges were free, minimum wage supported the middle class better, you could maintain a family and a livelyhood in the service industry, unions were stronger, and more social welfare programs were in place.[/QUOTE]
Nope, the unions blocked my grandfather from working sometimes because he was non-union. He did not go to college, only a vocation school for sheet metal. Back then, people were not working at low-skill jobs like flipping burgers, but they were working on high-risk jobs that resulted in better pay because of their risk. He was not on social welfare because he was smart enough to use the public schools in place so he can go into a skilled job that can support his family.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.