• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

$25 hamburger nope....

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
16,713
4,539
136
Why not put on a glove when ordering your food? Or, you could always wash your hands after.
Came to a similar realization when using the ATM. I wish I could go in with a mask on and do my transaction with only one other person touching the stuff I touch. Of course after the cleaning aisles in the stores had been wiped out up until recently, CDC tells us that COVID is mainly transmitted air to air, not from surfaces. But, that's science.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
15,551
5,560
136
lol you're an idiot.

Increased productivity from automation is great... for the upper middle class that has desirable skills and can still be employed to take advantage of that automation.

For the bottom tier? They're royally fucked.

We have a huge over-abundance of unskilled labor in this country - with plenty of you idiots calling for there to be MORE unskilled labor. What do you think that does to wages?

What do you think happens to these people? That they all just magically become skillful - especially a 45 year old single mother types that work in fast food and retail?


All of the nordic countries that you imbeciles love to idolize... guess what they have? NO minimum wage law lol.
Still the minimum wage is ~50% higher than the proposed 15$ ... buy you dont like to talk about that DO you. Why? Functional unions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi420

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
12,644
7,525
136
When will UBI happen? Or at least lowering hours? One of Yang's points was that labor participation is already low.
The short answer is, whenever there is the political will to make it happen. First, we have to remove the GOP from power. Because social Darwinism is an increasingly unworkable idea in a world where jobs are being automated away. For now, eliminating that obstacle is the real focus.
 

Scarpozzi

Lifer
Jun 13, 2000
25,149
1,026
126
Came to a similar realization when using the ATM. I wish I could go in with a mask on and do my transaction with only one other person touching the stuff I touch. Of course after the cleaning aisles in the stores had been wiped out up until recently, CDC tells us that COVID is mainly transmitted air to air, not from surfaces. But, that's science.
We all KNEW it was airborne when they discovered it was a bat disease. There are definitely some restaurants I avoid.

I keep a pump bottle of hand sanitizer in every vehicle on the driver side door. It gives me a way to sanitize for whatever that's worth after using gas pumps, atms, or grocery store terminals.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
12,644
7,525
136
We're not going to need UBI for all the new jobs that are going to be created through automation.
Automation, like all technologies, is a tool. And tools make workers more efficient, more productive, and their jobs easier, not harder. And that increased production means higher incomes and greater consumption, which means more jobs, not less.
Gonna have to disagree here. If automation increased the total number of jobs, there wouldn't be any point in automation. The entire point of it is to reduce labor costs, not increase them. For example, in coal mining, we produced nearly as much coal 35 years ago as we do today, but the number of people employed doing it has declined over 90%.

Yes, we're going to need UBI. Arguably, we already do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fenixgoon
Nov 8, 2012
18,926
4,083
136
Gonna have to disagree here. If automation increased the total number of jobs, there wouldn't be any point in automation. The entire point of it is to reduce labor costs, not increase them. For example, in coal mining, we produced nearly as much coal 35 years ago as we do today, but the number of people employed doing it has declined over 90%.

Yes, we're going to need UBI. Arguably, we already do.
Yeah but one guy who goes around repairing the automation machines for 100k is equal to 50 employees that got paid 20k... Right? It just all lumps up to 1 but trickles back down.

Lol.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
12,644
7,525
136
Yeah but one guy who goes around repairing the automation machines for 100k is equal to 50 employees that got paid 20k... Right? It just all lumps up to 1 but trickles back down.

Lol.
No, it doesn't balance out. No one was disagreeing with you about that, other than maybe Vic. That was never our point. Of course automation reduces total employment. But increased productivity has massive economic benefits, and not just for the producers. Hence, it is inevitable and there is no point opposing it. Instead, we need a social safety net for those who become unemployable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fenixgoon

bbhaag

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2011
5,446
904
126
Last year when covid hit and we were forced to go online only we gathered our core employees and told them we were raising their hourly pay from $13 an hour to $15. We did this because of a couple of different reasons but it was mainly due to the extra work required with online sales versus in person sales. Basically in person sales are always in real time because the customer is doing the picking/pulling of items for you as they shop but with online sales you are always working at a disadvantage because you have to pay a person to do the same thing the customer was doing for you.

So not only did our employees have to do their normal duties they also had to pull our customers orders that were coming in online. I'll be honest it was a fucking mess and if we had to do it that way all the time it would require twice as much staff.

Anyway, yes it did affect our bottom line. When you pay more for labor it has to come from somewhere but we found that it was an acceptable level and that offering $15 an hour to our core staff was something we had to do. Once the covid panic subsided and we called them back for the 2021 season we decided to keep their pay at $15 an hour instead of lowering back down to the precovid $13. Now new hires get $13, core staff gets $15, and management gets $18-$20.

This is for a retail b&m store. Non skilled but physically demanding job.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,038
8,443
126
Gonna have to disagree here. If automation increased the total number of jobs, there wouldn't be any point in automation. The entire point of it is to reduce labor costs, not increase them. For example, in coal mining, we produced nearly as much coal 35 years ago as we do today, but the number of people employed doing it has declined over 90%.

Yes, we're going to need UBI. Arguably, we already do.
Sorry, but this is where you're wrong. The point of automation isn't to reduce jobs, it is to increase efficiency. The reason for your coal example is because we produce nearly as much coal today as we did 35 years ago, and not several times more. Hence the reduction in employment in that specific sector. However, if you widen your view to the energy sector as a whole, you'll see an increase in employment over the same time period despite similar advances in technology and automation, due to increased production.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,038
8,443
126
No, it doesn't balance out. No one was disagreeing with you about that, other than maybe Vic. That was never our point. Of course automation reduces total employment. But increased productivity has massive economic benefits, and not just for the producers. Hence, it is inevitable and there is no point opposing it. Instead, we need a social safety net for those who become unemployable.
You guys give far too much credit to the machines. Yes, automation can do repetitive tasks, and yes, automation will replace workers who do repetitive tasks. But what automation can't do, but most humans can do, is exercise simple judgment and common sense. Particularly when interacting with humans, automation is laughably bad.
As for UBI, the idea of a social credit is not new. The problem with it is inflation. If you gave everyone $2500/mo, for example, that income wouldn't become the new zero (because it is something), but it would be so far below the poverty line that it may as well be.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
12,644
7,525
136
You guys give far too much credit to the machines. Yes, automation can do repetitive tasks, and yes, automation will replace workers who do repetitive tasks. But what automation can't do, but most humans can do, is exercise simple judgment and common sense. Particularly when interacting with humans, automation is laughably bad.
As for UBI, the idea of a social credit is not new. The problem with it is inflation. If you gave everyone $2500/mo, for example, that income wouldn't become the new zero (because it is something), but it would be so far below the poverty line that it may as well be.
Yes, automation replaces some jobs and not others. However, your original point was that it did not result in a net decrease in jobs. It certainly does or it wouldn't be implemented.

So far as inflation, the payments can be indexed yearly for that.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
12,644
7,525
136
Sorry, but this is where you're wrong. The point of automation isn't to reduce jobs, it is to increase efficiency. The reason for your coal example is because we produce nearly as much coal today as we did 35 years ago, and not several times more. Hence the reduction in employment in that specific sector. However, if you widen your view to the energy sector as a whole, you'll see an increase in employment over the same time period despite similar advances in technology and automation, due to increased production.
No, for coal, it's very simple. We produce nearly as much coal as we did, with 90% less labor. Because those jobs were replaced by machines.

We don't produce "several times as much" in spite of increasing energy demand because we rely less on coal and more on natural gas + renewables now. Those areas remain more labor intensive. Which doesn't mean the coal jobs weren't automated away, and it doesn't mean jobs in other energy sectors won't be automated away in the future.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
15,551
5,560
136
Yeah but one guy who goes around repairing the automation machines for 100k is equal to 50 employees that got paid 20k... Right? It just all lumps up to 1 but trickles back down.

Lol.
Moron. Grow opium. And sell heroin to the rest of the developed, automated, parts of the planet. Its a proven business model. You will never have to change. You can even get coal back too if you want, you'll probably need it for .... shoving up your ass or something, who knows. Just get me the drugs ok?
 

desy

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2000
5,331
99
91
No, for coal, it's very simple. We produce nearly as much coal as we did, with 90% less labor. Because those jobs were replaced by machines.

We don't produce "several times as much" in spite of increasing energy demand because we rely less on coal and more on natural gas + renewables now. Those areas remain more labor intensive. Which doesn't mean the coal jobs weren't automated away, and it doesn't mean jobs in other energy sectors won't be automated away in the future.
OK pretend we keep all those coal jobs, now coal is much more expensive and we have to pay more for energy, which say steel uses a lot now pays a lot more because it heavily relying on coal which means cars washing machines etc all have to increase in price due to inefficient production methods. . . Which means they sell less and there are better jobs in manufacturing than mining. . . Labor should go where its necessary there are all kinds of farming and construction jobs filled by illegals . . . see it gets complicated
 
Last edited:

Meghan54

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2009
9,879
2,827
136
Sorry, but this is where you're wrong. The point of automation isn't to reduce jobs, it is to increase efficiency. The reason for your coal example is because we produce nearly as much coal today as we did 35 years ago, and not several times more. Hence the reduction in employment in that specific sector. However, if you widen your view to the energy sector as a whole, you'll see an increase in employment over the same time period despite similar advances in technology and automation, due to increased production.
What I have found interesting is no one is considering history. Specifically, the cotton gin.

Whitney’s gin let 2 people do the work of dozens of “laborers” and do that amount in a day instead of a week.

So, did that reduction in necessary workforce mean fewer slaves were now needed? Hardly. The fact of the matter is that the gin is at least indirectly tied to an explosion in numbers of slaves working.

One may ask why and it’s simple...increased efficiency, while causing a decrease in “employment” numbers of those that used to card/clean cotton, created much greater employment opportunities at both ends of the gin..to keep it fed and to handle the gin’s output, which created an employment increase across multiple areas; not restricted to just the raw goods.
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
8,213
5,304
136
I've noticed that many arguments against raising the minimum wage ultimately amount to "the minimum wage should stay where it is forever." That is, businesses and the economy have so little room to budge that everything would collapse if someone working the McDonald's kitchen got paid a true living wage, no matter how much the minimum wage lags behind inflation.

Of course, that doesn't really hold up. The simple reality is that the minimum wage needs to catch up, and that many companies could pay workers more without hiking prices or taking much of a hit to their bottom line. And as I've heard said... if your business can't function unless workers are at or near the poverty line, you need to rethink your business.
 

Dave_5k

Member
May 23, 2017
171
175
86
I've noticed that many arguments against raising the minimum wage ultimately amount to "the minimum wage should stay where it is forever." That is, businesses and the economy have so little room to budge that everything would collapse if someone working the McDonald's kitchen got paid a true living wage, no matter how much the minimum wage lags behind inflation.

Of course, that doesn't really hold up. The simple reality is that the minimum wage needs to catch up, and that many companies could pay workers more without hiking prices or taking much of a hit to their bottom line. And as I've heard said... if your business can't function unless workers are at or near the poverty line, you need to rethink your business.
I would also add in the socialized cost of a low minimum wage - effectively a large and direct business subsidy. At current minimum wage, even full time workers are still needing government assistance just to get by:
  • About 69.2 percent of all public assistance benefits received by non-elderly families or individuals go to those who work.
  • Roughly 60 percent of all workers in the bottom decile of wage earners (those paid less than $7.42 per hour) receive some form of government-provided assistance,
  • For every $1 that [hourly] wages rise among workers in the bottom three wage deciles, spending on government assistance programs falls by roughly $5.2 billion [per year].
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi420

desy

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2000
5,331
99
91
Will economic growth always rely on population growth? - Marketplace
o, “we’re not about to do away with labor force growth,” Farka said. “In 100 or 200 years, I’ll have a different answer. Maybe by then, we’ll have such sophisticated robots and machines that would replace the rest of us that we could stay at home and write poetry and sing songs. But we’re not there yet.”

This seems like a good spot to place this article
 
Nov 8, 2012
18,926
4,083
136
I've noticed that many arguments against raising the minimum wage ultimately amount to "the minimum wage should stay where it is forever." That is, businesses and the economy have so little room to budge that everything would collapse if someone working the McDonald's kitchen got paid a true living wage, no matter how much the minimum wage lags behind inflation.

Of course, that doesn't really hold up. The simple reality is that the minimum wage needs to catch up, and that many companies could pay workers more without hiking prices or taking much of a hit to their bottom line. And as I've heard said... if your business can't function unless workers are at or near the poverty line, you need to rethink your business.
Thats not at all what anyone is saying lol.

Were saying that the going-market rate for those skills is what it is. Trying to alter that to a minimum amount is simply pure stupidity and immediately will get employers to seek out ways to cut the entire cost through investment instead of continuing to pay ridiculous costs for basic human behaviors that are learned by the age of 8.

Your ability to hear someone else and punch a key on a cash-register is literally the skills of an 8 year old.

If you want the market rate to climb for these professions - stop producing skillless labor - and stop importing skilless labor. This really isn't difficult.

You're simply too stupid to understand what a market rate is for something. It's not a matter of "YALL CAN AFFORD IT!!!"
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
28,897
9,072
136
Anyone want to help out the fucking moron who is too fucking stupid to understand that in the scenario he created, where businesses seek out other ways to be more efficient, itself creates jobs which then creates a shift in employment opportunities. The bottom rung employees simply end up shifting a different rung or move up.

The fucking dumb ass of a poster would understand this if he had a single fucking clue about any subject he talks about or had some grasp of history.

Many posters have tried to help him out but I’m guessing the cuck and his tiny penis gets in the way of learning anything new outside his bubble.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
20,342
11,789
136
Anyone want to help out the fucking moron who is too fucking stupid to understand that in the scenario he created, where businesses seek out other ways to be more efficient, itself creates jobs which then creates a shift in employment opportunities. The bottom rung employees simply end up shifting a different rung or move up.

The fucking dumb ass of a poster would understand this if he had a single fucking clue about any subject he talks about or had some grasp of history.

Many posters have tried to help him out but I’m guessing the cuck and his tiny penis gets in the way of learning anything new outside his bubble.
The forum would be better if everyone just ignored that poster. There is never an honest discussion to be had with him.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
27,888
3,029
126
Anyone want to help out the fucking moron who is too fucking stupid to understand that in the scenario he created, where businesses seek out other ways to be more efficient, itself creates jobs which then creates a shift in employment opportunities. The bottom rung employees simply end up shifting a different rung or move up.

The fucking dumb ass of a poster would understand this if he had a single fucking clue about any subject he talks about or had some grasp of history.

Many posters have tried to help him out but I’m guessing the cuck and his tiny penis gets in the way of learning anything new outside his bubble.
Or that people who have more money also spend more money
 
  • Like
Reactions: ivwshane

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
28,897
9,072
136
The forum would be better if everyone just ignored that poster. There is never an honest discussion to be had with him.
All discussions with him are honest; he’s honestly the dumbest mother fucker on this forum. I think he takes pride in it. He’s like the honey booboo of p&n and likes to find ways to highlight his stupidity, because he’s good at it.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY