Wendy’s to install ordering kiosks in 1,000 stores this year - Polidicks

[QUOTE=UziXxX;51890329]Kiosk requirements: Computer engineer, mechanical engineer, electrical engineer, truck driver, assembly line worker, warehouse distribution worker, installer. Total positions: 7 Human cashier requirements: Human working the cash register Number of positions: 1 6 > 1 Nothing about what I've said is dishonest. You've simply misunderstood what I've said.[/QUOTE] Lmao, this is completely dishonest. I hope you realize that half of those jobs already exist with the cashier still being there. The difference is that you need only a handful of engineers to manage hundreds of machines versus a single cashier for every register. You've replaced an enormous amount of jobs with machines with no additional jobs created.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51890388]So Wendy's licences this contract out to a design firm. The firm uses in house designers and engineers. They send this off to a factory who then builds it after sourcing parts and resources out. They then send the kiosks to Wendy's using a truck a job up for automation next, and an installer puts it in and returns for maintemce on occasion on contract again. I don't see how you're right[/QUOTE] Because the entire process from start to finish requires more roles than they're eliminating. How is this a difficult concept to understand?

Not to mention the 'new' jobs require a lot more education to get, how do you expect a recently fired minimum wage cashier to afford to go through several years of school to get a degree with our current system? That's not just feasible. Oh, and you forgot to mention those truck drivers are about to be replaced with self-driving cars. Is that somehow going to create more engineering jobs 1-for-1? [editline]28th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=UziXxX;51890404]Because the entire process from start to finish requires more roles than they're eliminating. How is this a difficult concept to understand?[/QUOTE] More roles (half of which are already present with cashiers), [i]less actual people[/i]. I hope you realize while you need a few more job titles, there isn't going to be a team of engineers sitting a Wendy's working on those machines every day. They hire these people one time to install, maybe to come back once a month/week to do a system check and that's it. [editline]28th February 2017[/editline] And mind you this same team of people is going to work on all the machines in an entire county, or several counties. That's possibly hundreds of employees gone for a single team of people to work on Kiosks.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;51890404]Because the entire process from start to finish requires more roles than they're eliminating. How is this a difficult concept to understand?[/QUOTE] More roles, yes, but it will not create more jobs by any means

[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;51890415]I hope you realize while you need a few more job titles, there isn't going to be a team of engineers sitting a Wendy's working on those machines every day.[/QUOTE] Obviously. Did you even read what I wrote? I grew up in literal poverty, my mom raised the 3 of us making less than $20k a year, don't tell me its impossible to go to college and make something of yourself just because you're poor

[QUOTE=UziXxX;51890404]Because the entire process from start to finish requires more roles than they're eliminating. How is this a difficult concept to understand?[/QUOTE] Let's say a group of 40 engineers, computer programmers and electrical engineers design the kiosk. This design will be used for the next five years. A team of 100 people make an assembly line to produce the kiosks and feature some automation. (likely an overestimaton 50 Truck drivers involved (which could very quickly trend to 0 thanks to technology) Another 50 for warehouse distribution. Installation and maintenance is handled a person who looks after 10 kiosks in an area (underestimation of number of kiosks). It takes 100 people to look after the 1000 kiosks. So in total, 340 jobs are "created" from kiosks. 40 of which are only needed for a period every five years (where they move onto other projects). 100 of which are only needed to produce the kiosks initially before moving onto other projects. 50 truck drivers, an industry which is ripe for almost complete automation. The installation and maintenance are largely the only constant jobs jobs which don't overflow into other projects. So at best in this hypothetical, 340 vs 1000, assuming that there is no other roles involved with those 1000 cashiers. On a long term basis, 100 vs 1000.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;51890486] I grew up in literal poverty, my mom raised the 3 of us making less than $20k a year, don't tell me its impossible to go to college and make something of yourself just because you're poor[/QUOTE] It will be impossible to go to college and make something of yourself when the jobs don't exist as a result of automation. Also: Liberal Individualism

[QUOTE=UziXxX;51890348]I'm talking about job positions not the amount of people.[/QUOTE] I like how your argument requires that all these people spend their time working on one machine for no reason. A factory is going to be outputting thousands of these things and while the factory itself may employ a team of 10 or so engineers and a distribution service of say 100 or so people. This means that there is a net loss in regards to jobs being created by several orders of magnitude. How the hell did you come up with such an asinine position? [editline]28th February 2017[/editline] and before you say maintenance workers I must point out that you only need like a small number of them on call to service a large amount of machines. There most certainly will not be a 1:1 ratio of maintenance workers to machines. If that was the case then the cheapest solution would be to simply hire a cashier, which is clearly not the case.

They have these at local Sonic's in my area. Perhaps I only feel this way as the Sonics near me is generally empty, but it's the eeriest feeling to sit in a room with no one around to only be surprised by a random person on rollerblades come crashing through a door with food. Wendys may not have rollerblades, but the idea of it still seems creepy; Get stoned at night wanting chili, and fast food robots send minions after you.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51885436]Do you know what socialism actually means?[/QUOTE] But m-muh socialism. Spooky cold war-era buzzwords! They're the core of being a patriotic MURICAN!

[QUOTE=Liam968;51890651]They have these at local Sonic's in my area. Perhaps I only feel this way as the Sonics near me is generally empty, but it's the eeriest feeling to sit in a room with no one around to only be surprised by a random person on rollerblades come crashing through a door with food. Wendys may not have rollerblades, but the idea of it still seems creepy; Get stoned at night wanting chili, and fast food robots send minions after you.[/QUOTE] Don't worry - if Boston Dynamic's Handle gets mass produced, they'll be the ones delivering your food and your daily dose of nightmare fuel (if they look the way they currently do).

[QUOTE=UziXxX;51890329]Kiosk requirements: Computer engineer, mechanical engineer, electrical engineer, truck driver, assembly line worker, warehouse distribution worker, installer. Total positions: 7 Human cashier requirements: Human working the cash register Number of positions: 1 6 > 1 Nothing about what I've said is dishonest. You've simply misunderstood what I've said. As someone who is 3 months away from having a B.S in mechanical engineering, I can say that yes there is more computers and automation but you still need human engineers to operate and design these systems. Of course its not feasible or realistic for everyone to become an engineer, I'm not sure anyone even suggested that.[/QUOTE] 2, probably 3, of those 6 jobs(trucker, warehouse worker) will very easily be automated within the next decade- one of those jobs already popularly being automated(assembly line worker)

[QUOTE=snookypookums;51885702]I wonder if it's even possible to code in random complimentaries to a computer. "My, your screen sure looks bright today!" --10% DISCOUNT ACTIVATED (WENDYBOT OVERRIDE) :v:[/QUOTE] Even better: input a seemingly "random" set of actions in a shoddily protected machine to write in Assembly code on the machine's data stack and jump to it The code would obviously be free food :v:

Whelp, goodbye my job.

All of the fast food chains around here have installed those types of kiosks in their restaurants. McDonald's took it one step further by [I]completely[/I] removing ordering at the counter, so you can only have your order taken through these, or at a drive-thru. It did not make jobs disappear. What it did was streamline the employees work by replacing the messy, time-consuming order taking with just looking at a screen, putting everything in there and sending it out - in the case of Mc Donald's, you even get it served at your table instead of waiting in line, and for that kind of service to go relatively smoothly you need a [I]lot[/I] of active employees. Put simply, it's a system that works, makes it better for the employees and and the customers, and doesn't magically delete jobs. Removing employees from the equation simply because taking an order is faster would be dumb and likely make them lose money, it's only beneficial because it means more orders can be taken faster with the same amount of employees.

I am triggered at the idea that UBI is "socialism." My fuckin sweet baby Marx no. Socialism is social ownership of the means of production. UBI is a redistributive welfare program, one that extends the life of capitalism (because as everyone else in this thread has said, without it, capitalism is due to implode in the US within the century due to automation). Until the workers (or the state, with worker control, if we're going the state socialism route) own the TJ Maxx, the Applebees, and the Wal-mart, it isn't socialism. It is so wild to see that Marx's theories on capitalism and communism stemmed from the fact that increasing technological advancements allowed for the development of capitalism from feudalism, and now technology is soon to once again change the landscape of society [I]in our lifetimes[/I] (assuming Trump doesn't end the world). We should embrace this technological progress because it ultimately means liberation (for the west at least, the developing world is still going to get fucked by capitalism). So it may not be socialism, but I am in favor of UBI, because as long as it's high enough, it will allow one of communism's primary goals to become a reality: [B]freedom from alienating labor.[/B] If everyone has: Food to eat A home/domicile Means of transportation Healthcare[B] Life becomes infinitely better for millions of people.[/B]

[QUOTE=HappyCompy;51892431]I am triggered at the idea that UBI is "socialism." My fuckin sweet baby Marx no. Socialism is social ownership of the means of production. UBI is a redistributive welfare program, one that extends the life of capitalism (because as everyone else in this thread has said, without it, capitalism is due to implode in the US within the century due to automation). Until the workers (or the state, with worker control, if we're going the state socialism route) own the TJ Maxx, the Applebees, and the Wal-mart, it isn't socialism. It is so wild to see that Marx's theories on capitalism and communism stemmed from the fact that increasing technological advancements allowed for the development of capitalism from feudalism, and now technology is soon to once again change the landscape of society [I]in our lifetimes[/I] (assuming Trump doesn't end the world). We should embrace this technological progress because it ultimately means liberation (for the west at least, the developing world is still going to get fucked by capitalism). So it may not be socialism, but I am in favor of UBI, because as long as it's high enough, it will allow one of communism's primary goals to become a reality: [B]freedom from alienating labor.[/B] If everyone has: Food to eat A home/domicile Means of transportation Healthcare[B] Life becomes infinitely better for millions of people.[/B][/QUOTE] Now now, don't get to that commie speak. If those people are poor and starving, they surely deserved it, and the free market will fix it. /s On a serious note however, the idea that UBI is socialism is wrong, and the idea that automation will not be a defining factor in the economy's change in the next few years is also wrong. I seriously doubt a Capitalist economy is viable with total automation in the next few years, and Automation based Socialism is the future.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;51885530]How good are these things, in terms of customization of an order?[/QUOTE] If it's anything like one I've seen in another fast food place (I can't remember where), then full customization. This thing laid out every single ingredient and let you add/remove/replace to your heart's content.

I don't think many fast food places have a 'cashier'. They have crew members, who at any time could be doing upwards of 5 tasks depending on who the manager has scheduled and if everyone showed up. Taking orders and money are only 2 things among a very diverse amount of work. If I don't have to take orders, there's plenty of other things that need doing, and people making their own orders would cut down on time repeating orders or just flat out not understanding what someone says, which I think means more orders being made and more people coming at the same time expecting faster food.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;51885872]even engineering jobs will become obsolete in the future [editline]27th February 2017[/editline] we will get to a point in machine learning that quite literally no job is better done by a human than by a computer, including creative jobs[/QUOTE] There's already an upper limit on how much human work you can replicate with a computer. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem[/url] [QUOTE=Crumpet;51886003]Sorry, but you're wrong. Social Democracies are working well in most places where they are implemented properly and seem to be a good solution for the problems of late stage capitalism. If you can propose a good solution that isn't on the other end of the spectrum I'd love to hear it. r.e the rest of your post, a debunked myth[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=JeSuisIkea;51886132]What is a Mixed Market economy. What is literally all of Europe west of Belarus.[/QUOTE] The problem with the social democracy systems in Europe is that there's sort of a cap on how productive any of their economies are. If you compare the 20-year performance of the American S&P 500 with the European equivalent (FTS Eurofirst 300 I believe), the difference is almost embarrassing. The technological innovations that are driving the world require capitalism to develop; how many Microsoft, Amazon, or Google counterparts exist in the entirety of Europe? The best example of capitalism properly was during the 19th century, when America was almost a completely free market, and it went from farmland to an economic superpower over the course of 100 years. The industrial revolution didn't throw farmers out of employment, it just found them new jobs and their standard of living went up with it. Hong Kong also saw a similar leap forward when they heavily deregulated their economy. That being said, I lean somewhat in favor of a UBI, because I'd rather have one simple system to just write a check to everyone. Currently we're in the process of making a mess out of every single sector in the economy, with an argument that always boils down to "well what if someone can't afford it?". I still have trouble getting behind the idea that individuals are entitled to taxpayer money, though.

[QUOTE=halofreak472;51897227]There's already an upper limit on how much human work you can replicate with a computer. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem[/url][/QUOTE] Uh, what? The halting problem has nothing to do with how much human work a computer can do.

[QUOTE=halofreak472;51897227]There's already an upper limit on how much human work you can replicate with a computer. [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem[/URL] The problem with the social democracy systems in Europe is that there's sort of a cap on how productive any of their economies are. If you compare the 20-year performance of the American S&P 500 with the European equivalent (FTS Eurofirst 300 I believe), the difference is almost embarrassing. The technological innovations that are driving the world require capitalism to develop; how many Microsoft, Amazon, or Google counterparts exist in the entirety of Europe? The best example of capitalism properly was during the 19th century, when America was almost a completely free market, and it went from farmland to an economic superpower over the course of 100 years. The industrial revolution didn't throw farmers out of employment, it just found them new jobs and their standard of living went up with it. Hong Kong also saw a similar leap forward when they heavily deregulated their economy. That being said, I lean somewhat in favor of a UBI, because I'd rather have one simple system to just write a check to everyone. Currently we're in the process of making a mess out of every single sector in the economy, with an argument that always boils down to "well what if someone can't afford it?". I still have trouble getting behind the idea that individuals are entitled to taxpayer money, though.[/QUOTE] Okay, I got some bones to pick, lemme buckle up. For the sake of argument it's important to get out of the way that we are not a purely capitalist economy (not saying that you think we have one, I'm just saying it for posterity), as it's widely accepted that pure capitalism without state propping it up would implode in seconds. Conversely, there has also never been a truly socialist economy either. 1. [I]The technological innovations that are driving the world require capitalism to develop; how many Microsoft, Amazon, or Google counterparts exist in the entirety of Europe?[/I] First, yes, markets do provide a profit motive which can be an effective motivator, however the blanket statement that capitalism is [B]required [/B]for the technological systems driving the world is fallacious. Remind me again which under economic system did we put the first man-made satellite into orbit? This doesn't include the numerous other medical inventions (Cardiopulmonary bypass, being the big one), the Soyuz rocket launch system considered by the European Space Agency to be the most reliable in the world (and is still widely in use today), the AK47, etc. Second, the idea that because the tech giants are based in the US, that the US is the only country capable of hosting them is appealing to determinism, or saying that because the United States ended up being the nation to develop these tech giants, that another (potentially non-capitalist) nation would not have done or have been able to do the same. You are placing way too much emphasis on capitalism and not near enough on the fact that the USA's economy was one of the few that wasn't annihilated after WWII, and it enjoyed a post-war boom unlike anything it had seen before. You simply cannot compare the United States' economy with the Nordic countries, because it is in a league of its own (read: fucking gigantic, third most populated in the world with an economy to match it). As an aside, China (state socialist/hybrid model) developed the Hadron Collider. People don't just stop innovating under other economic systems my man, and I feel obliged to remind you that monopolies (which is what capitalism trends toward) are inefficient. 2. [I]The best example of capitalism properly was during the 19th century, when America was almost a completely free market, and it went from farmland to an economic superpower over the course of 100 years. The industrial revolution didn't throw farmers out of employment, [B]it just found them new jobs and their standard of living went up with it.[/B][/I] The bolded sentence, I'm sorry man, is just flat out false. Living conditions of workers in the industrial cities were atrocious. Poverty was rampant, and death rates were well above their rural contemporaries. Child labor, dimly lit, dangerous as fuck working conditions (workers sometimes would come out after a long day covered in soot), pennies for wages, gangs, crowded tenement housing, the list goes on. The government was corrupt, and many politicians were in bed with the railroad companies and other trusts. In fact, the dismal life of wage-slaves was a huge selling point for unions, socialism and communism throughout this period in other industrialized nations. [I][B]"You have nothing to lose but your chains!"[/B][/I] Please don't paint the Gilded Age as some utopia, because for the majority of people, it was horrible. If that is the ideal that free-market capitalists want to use as a benchmark to live up to, count me the fuck out of it. There's a reason why rough ridin' Teddy Roosevelt was disgusted by the excesses and corruption of the period, and made one of his goals using the levers of the state to smash up monopolies. 3. [I]I still have trouble getting behind the idea that individuals are entitled to taxpayer money, though. [/I]I wholeheartedly disagree, but I cannot say that you are wrong, either. This one is just personal preference. :)

[QUOTE=StonedPenguin;51885383]Because socialism has worked so well throughout history.[/QUOTE] And capitalism is so much better when there are no jobs.

[QUOTE=gk99;51897651]And capitalism is so much better when there is [B][U]no state to [U]i[/U]ntervene on behalf of the worker.[/U][/B][/QUOTE] [IMG]http://www.learnnc.org/lp/media/uploads/2009/09/nanniecolson.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/photo/2015/07/child-labor-in-america-100-years-ag/c17_02697u/main_1500.jpg?1435773349[/IMG] [I]Ah, the good ol' days. Look at all that progress![/I]

[QUOTE=Atlascore;51894076]This is just the beginning, fast food can and will become fully automated. So will a lot of other jobs.[/QUOTE] There's probably proper economics terms for all of these things but I don't know them so I'll try and make do with what I know. Whenever a market shifts towards large scale industrialization, there's a counter-market that is created for smaller-scale, "humanized" production. For instance the rise of industrial agriculture saw the creation of "organic agriculture", a smaller production with a friendlier image that conveys quality and this reassuring idea that it looks after its employees and after its customers. This applies to practically anything that went from small to large scale production. This applies to restaurants: the rise of fast-food chains as this massive, industrial machine lead to (smart) smaller businesses promoting themselves as the healthier, more friendly alternative. That's how Wendy's already operates: they promote fresh food when their competitors have a far less friendly image. It doesn't take a genius to see that when this type of industry becomes "fully automated" as you say, there will be a market for "human contact" services. People have been nurtured to think that automation and industrialization rhyme with worse quality and worse service, and that sentiment won't go away as long as there's clever marketers who know their job.