Meet the future of burger flipping.

[BoberFett]

Welcome to the 21st century. Automation can and will continue to eliminate jobs. It may create 1 skilled job in engineering or machine maintenance for every 5 it eliminates, but the math is inexorable.

The problem with the OP's point is that it is inevitable. Even if you don't bother raising the minimum wage or increasing their salaries, eventually the machines will be more cost-effective. Maybe not if they work for $1/hr but this isn't the third world and no-one can live off that.

Since the elimination of jobs through automation cannot be avoided in the future, the long term question is what happens to all these people who are out of jobs.

That's the trillion dollar question, but I don't see a lot of discussion about that.

 

[woolfe9998]

That's the trillion dollar question, but I don't see a lot of discussion about that.

The problem as I see it is that conservative logic is a dead-end in the long-run. The argument is that by providing the safety net, you take away people's motivation to work. That is certainly true to some extent. I would never claim otherwise. However, it isn't clear why that is even relevant when the jobs don't exist. It doesn't matter how motivated people are when there is long term, structural unemployment built into the economy.

The irony is that automation can increase productivity and make goods and services much, much less expensive. Sounds like there will be plenty for everyone. But our most basic economic premise is that you work for whatever you get. I'm not maligning that idea. It makes sense. It may just not be feasible in the long-run.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Welcome to the 21st century. Automation can and will continue to eliminate jobs. It may create 1 skilled job in engineering or machine maintenance for every 5 it eliminates, but the math is inexorable.

The problem with the OP's point is that it is inevitable. Even if you don't bother raising the minimum wage or increasing their salaries, eventually the machines will be more cost-effective. Maybe not if they work for $1/hr but this isn't the third world and no-one can live off that.

Machines doing check out at grocery stores, chat-boxes handling customer service, robots cleaning houses. They only improve over time.

Since the elimination of jobs through automation cannot be avoided in the future, the long term question is what happens to all these people who are out of jobs.

My statement was not to imply that automation could be forestalled forever for most of these jobs. However the issue is that the day in which such automation occurs is hastened by increased demands for higher wages for jobs which have low to no skills involved in order for the work that a employer demands to be accomplished and fulfilled by a low skilled worker. Thus those with meaningful good intentions in end up hastening the day for which businesses decide that automation is worth the costs in the face of politically backed cries for them to increase their costs by paying more then what the value of those jobs are worth in the marketplace. So while technology inevitably makes many jobs obsolete the rate at which it does so is partly influenced by the artificial and politically motivated demands placed on employers to increase their costs when in reality there is no real business related justification for them to do so considering the value of labor being provided for which they pay for in the marketplace. In other words demanding that ditch diggers or burger flippers to earn a living wage only motivates and incentives employers to seek automation at a faster rate then what would naturally occur without those demands.

 

[umbrella39]

I am an engineer in Silicon Valley. We are the ones building computers to outsource your job to a robot 🙂

Wow. I find it very fitting considering the subject matter that you have also managed to replace Tsavo with <crickets> almost instantly.

Damn... he was there all in the thread and then bam, chirp chirp chirp

Well played sir.

 

[sandorski]

My statement was not to imply that automation could be forestalled forever for most of these jobs. However the issue is that the day in which such automation occurs is hastened by increased demands for higher wages for jobs which have low to no skills involved in order for the work that a employer demands to be accomplished and fulfilled by a low skilled worker. Thus those with meaningful good intentions in end up hastening the day for which businesses decide that automation is worth the costs in the face of politically backed cries for them to increase their costs by paying more then what the value of those jobs are worth in the marketplace.

So damned if they do, damned if they don't.

The question remains, now what do you do?

 

[umbrella39]

Since the elimination of jobs through automation cannot be avoided in the future, the long term question is what happens to all these people who are out of jobs.

As it applies to fast food... when enough them can no longer afford to buy the product how cost effective will those machines look producing only 2-3 burgers an hour... At what point will it become more cost effective to bring those people back.

 

[umbrella39]

Since the elimination of jobs through automation cannot be avoided in the future, the long term question is what happens to all these people who are out of jobs.

As it applies to fast food... when enough them can no longer afford to buy the product how cost effective will those machines look producing only 2-3 burgers an hour... At what point will it become more cost effective to bring those people back. I'm not convinced this will every happen in our lifetime at McDs/BK etc... It'd be a risky PR move to dump the staff imo.

 

[theeedude]

That may well be. They may want one highly paid worker instead of five low paid ones.

However that does mean fewer jobs, so the Democrat line about minimum wage not affecting unemployment is looking less and less believable all the time.

People who make more money have more money to spend, so it will create employment in other places. I don't think it's a net negative in terms of employment. Plus people are better off going back to school to improve their skills than staying at a dead end job that can be better done by a robot.

 

[theeedude]

So you advocate your own head on a pike when the revolution comes, eh you capitalist pig?

That's why I support a robust welfare state. People who let inequality get out of hand were the ones whose heads ended up on a pike.

 

[Zaap]

I can't wait till they get to the point where they feed cows in one end of the machine and burgers come out the other.

Automation is nothing new in the food service industry. Why is this discussion-worthy?

Because supposedly the natural course of history is that we're supposed to freeze automation to preserve everyone's 2014 era jobs. 2014 has been decided on as the pinnacle of human development, and we can't go past it...

Now let's go back...

Because supposedly the natural course of history is that we're supposed to freeze automation to preserve everyone's 1914 era jobs. 1914 has been decided on as the pinnacle of human development, and we can't go past it...


Because supposedly the natural course of history is that we're supposed to freeze automation to preserve everyone's 1814 era jobs. 1814 has been decided on as the pinnacle of human development, and we can't go past it...

(yeah, the same hopeless wish worked out about as well for people in the past too. And thank goodness.)

 

[DucatiMonster696]

So damned if they do, damned if they don't.

The question remains, now what do you do?

The real question is why not allow the market to decide what the wages for jobs should based on the actual supply and demand for a given type of labor?

Why impose additional artificial costs onto employers in the form of politically motivated desires to increase wages that will only result in "Arms Race" to outsource, automate, or scale back the demand for low to no-skilled labor over time and at a faster rate then would naturally occur if political rather then actual economic pressure were not being applied onto employers?


While automation in the economy occurs naturally over time and will continue to occur it does not have to be encouraged by political motivations based on good intentions of which said intentions fail to grasp or acknowledge the obvious reactions of employers and their own needs to control the costs of their business in order maintain their own profit margins and the suitability of their businesses/business models. Of which some are based on maintaining razor thin margins by selling in volume so that even a small increase in their costs generally has a negative effect on their ability to stay in business.

 

[ivwshane]

You guys are pathetic humans, seriously!

Exactly why are you opposed to people getting paid more? Because you don't want to pay an extra 4 cents for a highly prepoccesed food product because your cheap ass is too lazy to make your own food!

And if that's not it then why the fuck do you guys care? Let me guess, you think it will drive up costs for everything else, despite the fact, as I already mentioned, the increase in pay would result in a pittance of a price increase in cheap food.

So what exactly is your reasoning to shit on other people that have no affect on you?

 

[ivwshane]

The real question is why not allow the market to decide what the wages for jobs should based on the actual supply and demand for a given type of labor?


Why impose additional artificial costs onto employers in the form of politically motivated desires to increase wages that will only result in "Arms Race" to outsource, automate, or scale back the demand for low to no-skilled labor over time and at a faster rate then would naturally occur if political rather then actual economic pressure were not being applied onto employers?


While automation in the economy occurs naturally over time and will continue to occur it does not have to be encouraged by political motivations based on good intentions of which said intentions fail to grasp or acknowledge the obvious reactions of employers and their own needs to control the costs of their business in order maintain their own profit margins and the suitability of their businesses/business models. Of which some are based on maintaining razor thin margins by selling in volume so that even a small increase in their costs generally has a negative effect on their ability to stay in business.

Uh...because the market is imbalanced and will forever be in favor of the employer, when it comes to wages. Do you think that's going to change when this wave of automation hits?

You argue that some businesses have razor thin margins and think they wouldn't cope with price increases, how long before that low wage drops before people are unable to cope? More importantly, how do you think businesses will fare when their customers can't afford their products?

And more food for thought; if people were paid more do you think the quality of goods might go up? Would goods increase in quality if people were paid less (ie via inflation, ie removing minimum wage, ie letting the market have free reign)? Do you even care about quality or do you think that a quality product might be an edge American businesses have over their foreign (ie Chinese) counter parts? Do you think Americans would pay for quality if they could afford it?

Without seeing your response I'd assume you are all for cheap, crappy, products, so long as American companies can make a profit, right? Fuck actual Americans, who are currently working low paying jobs! Profit before people! Am I right?

 

[Victorian Gray]

the discussion is not about what time sanitation engineers take out the trash 😉




actually. you're not. most silicon valley jobs went overseas long ago 🙂

Really?

http://www.siliconvalleyindex.org/index.php/economy/employment

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_24139035/california-adds-29-000-jobs-during-august

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_23510892/bay-area-job-growth-california-unemployment-jobless

 

[DucatiMonster696]

You guys are pathetic humans, seriously!

Exactly why are you opposed to people getting paid more? Because you don't want to pay an extra 4 cents for a highly prepoccesed food product because your cheap ass is too lazy to make your own food!

And if that's not it then why the fuck do you guys care? Let me guess, you think it will drive up costs for everything else, despite the fact, as I already mentioned, the increase in pay would result in a pittance of a price increase in cheap food.

So what exactly is your reasoning to shit on other people that have no affect on you?

I have no problem with people getting paid more if the market demands and dictates that the labor and skill set they provide is worth them being paid more money in wages. What I do have a problem with however is forcing employers to pay more in wages for labor that is not worth the increase in wages. So that in the end you end up with unintended consequences in the marketplace occurring for which the victim in the end is usually the lowliest of employees/positions and/or future potential employees with very little in the way of skills and/or experience.

Of whom many see their potential opportunities to gain early footsteps in the the employment marketplace via low wage entry level jobs eroded and cut out from under them due to political and not economic/business concerns or motivations.

 

[ivwshane]

I have no problem with people getting paid more if the market demands and dictates that the labor and skill set they provide is worth them being paid more money in wages. What I do have a problem with however is forcing employers to pay more in wages for labor that is not worth the increase in wages. So that in the end you end up with unintended consequences in the marketplace occurring for which the victim in the end is usually the lowliest of employees/positions and/or future potential employees with very little in the way of skills and/or experience.

Of whom many see their potential opportunities to gain early footsteps in the the employment marketplace via low wage entry level jobs eroded and cut out from under them due to political and not economic/business concerns or motivations.

Well I'm glad you are pro union!


And I'm sure you have mountains of data that shows jobs going away after every minimum wage increase, right? I'm sure it's not hyperbole on your part.

 

[theeedude]

The real question is why not allow the market to decide what the wages for jobs should based on the actual supply and demand for a given type of labor?

Because of the free rider problem. Business owners want other businesses to pay their employees as much as possible so they can afford to patronize their business, while at the same time paying their employees as little as possible to maximize their own profits. This results in a downward spiral that is not good for anyone in the long term. That's why the government should set the minimum wage.

 

[woolfe9998]

My statement was not to imply that automation could be forestalled forever for most of these jobs. However the issue is that the day in which such automation occurs is hastened by increased demands for higher wages for jobs which have low to no skills involved in order for the work that a employer demands to be accomplished and fulfilled by a low skilled worker. Thus those with meaningful good intentions in end up hastening the day for which businesses decide that automation is worth the costs in the face of politically backed cries for them to increase their costs by paying more then what the value of those jobs are worth in the marketplace. So while technology inevitably makes many jobs obsolete the rate at which it does so is partly influenced by the artificial and politically motivated demands placed on employers to increase their costs when in reality there is no real business related justification for them to do so considering the value of labor being provided for which they pay for in the marketplace. In other words demanding that ditch diggers or burger flippers to earn a living wage only motivates and incentives employers to seek automation at a faster rate then what would naturally occur without those demands.

Perhaps, but when jobs don't pay a living wage, the welfare dole starts to look a lot more attractive. I say pay them a better wage for now, while it lasts. Maybe it hastens the inevitable to some extent, but the result is going to be the same in the end. We're going to have inexpensive goods and services provided by machines, and half the eligible population out of work. Eventually the entire left/right argument is going to be moot.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Uh...because the market is imbalanced and will forever be in favor of the employer, when it comes to wages. Do you think that's going to change when this wave of automation hits?

The market for which jobs is imbalanced? You are applying a hasty generalization that assumes demand for all jobs is relatively the same across industries, let alone regions or periods of time which is false. Depending on the job, depending on the location and period of time certain jobs will be more in demand then others jobs based issues of supply and demand for employees and employers for a given job and the value of the labor it offers the employer and the end customer.

You argue that some businesses have razor thin margins and think they wouldn't cope with price increases, how long before that low wage drops before people are unable to cope? More importantly, how do you think businesses will fare when their customers can't afford their products?

There are some business which do have razor thin margins especially retail business which typically depend on selling products in large volumes and/or have goods which require high turn over rates to justify keeping them on their floor space for various reasons (e.g. expiration dates on certain goods).

If you think businesses like supermarkets or retail chains can survive seeing their labor costs increase without justifiable cause or without there being consequences then you are mistaken. Businesses which must generate a profit to survive have to justify their costs and will always seek to cut costs wherever and whenever they can in order maintain their competitiveness with their competition in a given industry, especially in the retail or service sector related industries.

If that means hiring less, then they will hire less, if that means out-sourcing then they will outsource, if that means increasing the adoption of automation then so be it, if that means cutting benefits to their employees then that is what they will do, etc. They will do this so that they are able to stay competitive with the prices of their goods and services so that will not lose customers to a competitor because they were forced to raise their prices which is the very last thing any business which relies on razor thin margins would like to see occur.

And more food for thought; if people were paid more do you think the quality of goods might go up? Would goods increase in quality if people were paid less (ie via inflation, ie removing minimum wage, ie letting the market have free reign)?

Improvements in the quality of goods and services occurs as result of competition in a market forcing competitors to compete against each other and use any advantage they can gain to earn customers. Sometimes that competition pushes prices down, sometimes it pushes the quality seen in the marketplace to go up, etc but there is no real correlation between higher wages and higher quality goods and services when there is no benefit of paying more for a wage then what the market is willing to bare and when the outcome of producing a product or service remains relatively unchanged no matter how much more you force employers to pay. In other words simply paying people more money to make a assemble a pre-cooked burger won't make that burger taste any better for the consumers so forcing wages up for those types of jobs has no real justification for businesses whose biggest cost related to the wages they pay their employees.

]Do you even care about quality or do you think that a quality product might be an edge American businesses have over their foreign (ie Chinese) counter parts? Do you think Americans would pay for quality if they could afford it?

The quality of a product is certainly a factor for many consumers but the perceived value of the product and its price is what in the end determines whether or not that price paid for the quality delivered is justified in terms of the price for someone is willing to pay for a given product or service and the value they place on its quality.

In other words while some people may love the perceived quality and value provided by consumer electronic goods producer such as Apple others may not value it as much as the affordable prices provide by a rival company such as Samsung. Of whom produces a competing products in some cases at reduced cost compared to the premium prices charged by Apple on its products simply because they are made by Apple itself.

Without seeing your response I'd assume you are all for cheap, crappy, products, so long as American companies can make a profit, right? Fuck actual Americans, who are currently working low paying jobs! Profit before people! Am I right?

I shop to get the most bang for my buck because my time and money has a value to me personally that I consider to be important. Now maybe you do not value the money you earn or the time you spent earning it but I certainly do and how I base my purchasing decisions is very much based on the perceived value view a good or service as delivering to me in relation to what I am willing to spend to acquire it and how much I really want to have it versus how much I do without it.

 

[ivwshane]

I'm not talking about the whole job market, I'm talking about the entry level, low skilled job market. More specifically the fast food industry, after all the topic of the thread is about the end of burger flipping😉

 

[DucatiMonster696]

I'm not talking about the whole job market, I'm talking about the entry level, low skilled job market. More specifically the fast food industry, after all the topic of the thread is about the end of burger flipping😉

Again the market for even low skill labor varies from industry, location and place, e.g. SF is currently in short supply of restaurant cooks (not to be confused with the more skilled and educated salaried chiefs found in restaurants)and certain places in North Dakota saw dramatic increases for low skill labor due to the tar-sands oil boom where even McDonalds workers saw their wages increase dramatically.

However going along with you original premise there still is no economic justification provided by you as to why employers who provide such jobs should be forced to pay low skilled employees higher wages simply based on your perception of fairness. Nevermind the fact that most of these jobs are actually filled by teenagers and senior citizens for whom higher wages being inflicted onto the industry would mean some of them would be priced out of the marketplace and would force employers to seek cost cutting measures such as automation. Why? Because the higher wages are not being set by the value of the labor provided to the employer or consumer or even being demand by the marketplace but instead the costs toward higher wages is being pushed due to political reasons which in turn does not take into consideration what that demand for higher wages will end up causing in the long term.

 

[ivwshane]

Again the market for even low skill labor varies from industry, location and place, e.g. SF is currently in short supply of restaurant cooks (not to be confused with the more skilled and educated salaried chiefs found in restaurants)and certain places in North Dakota saw dramatic increases for low skill labor due to the tar-sands oil boom where even McDonalds workers saw their wages increase dramatically.

However going along with you original premise there still is no economic justification provided by you as to why employers who provide such jobs should be forced to pay low skilled employees higher wages simply based on your perception of fairness. Nevermind the fact that most of these jobs are actually filled by teenagers and senior citizens for whom higher wages being inflicted onto the industry would mean some of them would be priced out of the marketplace and would force employers to seek cost cutting measures such as automation.

I said nothing about being forced to do anything, I commented on the lack of supporting higher wages for your fellow Americans. It's the exact opposite of your position, which is the corporate apologist, only care about companies and their well being where as I care about people and their well being. I assume that's how you feel because you haven't said anything to the contrary.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

I said nothing about being forced to do anything, I commented on the lack of supporting higher wages for your fellow Americans. It's the exact opposite of your position, which is the corporate apologist, only care about companies and their well being where as I care about people and their well being. I assume that's how you feel because you haven't said anything to the contrary.

So basically your argument revolves purely around appealing to emotion. Gotcha. As for being a corporate apologist you seem to not understand that pushing low skill wages artificially higher than they should be for value those jobs provide hurts smaller mom and pop business way more then it does big businesses who have a better time of it in terms of shifting and passing costs around to keep their prices more competitive again their equals and especially against their smaller rivals.

 

[ivwshane]

So basically your argument revolves purely around appealing to emotion. Gotcha. As for being a corporate apologist you seem to not understand that pushing low skill wages artificially higher than they should be for value those jobs provide hurts smaller mom and pop business way more then it does big businesses who have a better time of it in terms of shifting and passing costs around to keep their prices more competitive again their equals and especially against their smaller rivals.

Does it? Do you have a reputable study you can cite to make your claim?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Where there is a will there is a way. Artificially pushing up costs on producers for low to no skill jobs will only force them to seek other alternative avenues to cut costs. If that means employing technology to reduce positions which have been artificially made more expensive than the value they provide in labor then technology will be used to reduce that cost and eliminate those positions. So in the rush to deploy good intentions to "benefit" the poor you will inevitably force many of them out of their jobs as employers seek to cut costs in order to maintain their profit margins and stay competitive price wise with their competition.

There's nothing wrong with technological advance. Decades ago light bulbs replaced candles and put the candlemakers out of business. Then automobiles replaced the horse-and-buggy and put horseshoers and buggymakers out of business.

Although the free market dogmatist ubermenschen and Lucky Sperm Clubbers might gleefully anticipate the evil poor (who just want to be able to afford a decent living) being put out of work and starving to death, automation will simply lower the prices of affected goods and services, which means that the money spent on those goods and services will end up being spent in other fields, resulting in new jobs in different fields.

Furthermore, labor costs spur innovation and the application of technology. If the supply of labor were infinite and the cost of labor were nil, there wouldn't be any reason to have efficient production.