Amazon Go, the Grocery Store

[Deficient Mode]

My argument is not just the minimum wage. Any in increase in labor costs make automation more attractive to a business owners. Minimum wage is a part of that cost but not the entire argument.

As for what I bolded. You can discount the words of fast food CEOs if you want but they employ millions of workers so their actions will have the biggest impact. The former CEO of McDonalds was a robotics expert. I don't think they hired him for scaremongering.

So do you think McDonalds would have continued to employ real people as automation became cheaper? Would they demand the minimum wage go down despite the cost of living continuing to increase? There is really no way that left untouched, this would be resolved favorably for fast food workers. And the interests of executives and major shareholders will inevitably be at odds with their workers, so we can't take them at face value, like they have workers' best interests at heart.

 

[beowulf]

http://www.businessinsider.com/self-service-kiosks-are-replacing-workers-2016-5



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rise-of-the-machines-robots-poised-to-transform-global-manufacturing/article22884032/



http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/05/26/mcdonalds-ex-ceo-says-15-minimum-wage-would-lead-to-robots-and-automation-hes-right/#6296690a7860



The other point you are forgetting in your argument is that humans carry costs other than the hourly wage. Humans take sick days, vacation days, don't work 24 hrs a day, ect ect.

Human Labour is always in competition with automation. As automation gets more advanced and cheaper to operate on a cost per hour basis it will replace humans.

Economists have show that a higher minimum wage is good for the economy as people who have more disposable income will spend it.

The problem people are not taking into account is that people still exist and as jobs become more difficult to find it will hit people hard as the still need to eat, require shelter, etc. It will hit a breaking point and this could cause major revolts around the world.

 

[Deficient Mode]

It will hit a breaking point and this could cause major revolts around the world.

This is what I suspect will happen. I don't see how automation won't bring disparity caused by capitalism to a head. Either the machines and the benefits derived from them will be distributed (somewhat) equally, or they will reach such sophistication that elites will decide they don't need the less privileged at all, and will kill them off and replace them with machines. Sounds extreme, but a lot of these political/technological elites are sick, sick people. Maybe we'll have a climate disaster that only elites will have the means to survive.

 

[Bee Sheriff]

You seem to be conflating "consumers" with "people."



Interesting that in Seattle, where a $15 minimum wage was actually implemented, unemployment hit a new low despite a rapidly expanding workforce and despite all the same naysaying: http://ritholtz.com/2016/12/seattle-min-wage-update/

All the rest is just vague scaremongering from exorbitantly wealthy people who don't want to pay their employees. And if you think they wouldn't have moved toward automated workers even without a push for an increased minimum wage, well, I don't know what to tell you. This started a long time ago.

Stay woke brother

 

[Kairi Zaide]

This is what I suspect will happen. I don't see how automation won't bring disparity caused by capitalism to a head. Either the machines and the benefits derived from them will be distributed (somewhat) equally, or they will reach such sophistication that elites will decide they don't need the less privileged at all, and will kill them off and replace them with machines. Sounds extreme, but a lot of these political/technological elites are sick, sick people. Maybe we'll have a climate disaster that only elites will have the means to survive.

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=1&itemID=F401&viewtype=text

 

[Deficient Mode]

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=1&itemID=F401&viewtype=text

what

 

[Dog]

what

He's trying to say that "dumb" uneducated people deserve to be left behind.

 

[Deficient Mode]

He's trying to say that "dumb" uneducated people deserve to be left behind.

Darwin describes natural selection as a process of some animals randomly developing genetic mutations that allow them to survive and procreate, not as a process of financially privileged people purposefully exploiting the rest then allowing them to die off. Even Zaide isn't that stupid.

 

[Dog]

Darwin describes natural selection as a process of some animals randomly developing genetic mutations that allow them to survive and procreate, not as a process of financially privileged people purposefully exploiting the rest then allowing them to die off. Even Zaide isn't that stupid.

He is using it as a comparison

 

[Kairi Zaide]

Darwin describes natural selection as a process of some animals randomly developing genetic mutations that allow them to survive and procreate, not as a process of financially privileged people purposefully exploiting the rest then allowing them to die off. Even Zaide isn't that stupid.

I do not really see automation as exploitation.

Also, it was an answer to "Maybe we'll have a climate disaster that only elites will have the means to survive".

 

[Deficient Mode]

I do not really see automation as exploitation.

Also, it was an answer to "Maybe we'll have a climate disaster that only elites will have the means to survive".

They have the means to survive because they have money. That's not a genetic mutation. Automation isn't exploitation. Other things that got them money are.

 

[Kairi Zaide]

They have the means to survive because they have money. That's not a genetic mutation. Automation isn't exploitation. Other things that got them money are.

Being born at the right time at the right place (right family for instance) offers sheltering. Being smarter, more creative, more confident, charismatic, leadworthy, etc. are all things that can be caused by genetics and that can lead to having more money, despite not necessarily putting in as much effort as others.

 

[Dog]

Being born at the right time at the right place (right family for instance) offers sheltering. Being smarter, more creative, more confident, charismatic, leadworthy, etc. are all things that can be caused by genetics and that can lead to having more money, despite not necessarily putting in as much effort as others.

Are you saying you're gonna be left in our dust

 

[Deficient Mode]

Being born at the right time at the right place (right family for instance) offers sheltering. Being smarter, more creative, more confident, charismatic, leadworthy, etc. are all things that can be caused by genetics and that can lead to having more money, despite not necessarily putting in as much effort as others.

Jesus, Zaide, I don't really need to explain to you how reductive this analogy is do I

 

[Kairi Zaide]

Are you saying you're gonna be left in our dust

I am the first 2, and i am not the 3 last ones !

 

[tarheelhockey]

You seem to be conflating "consumers" with "people."

When talking about a modern economy -- yes, it's pretty safe to do that.

It's a straightforward fact of economic history that PEOPLE consistently choose automation over manual labor. That principle applies to both those on the production and the consumption sides of the fence.

Swim against the current if you like, but there's more to be gained by trying to adjust social policy than by trying to push back the tides of technological progress.

 

[Deficient Mode]

It's a straightforward fact of economic history that PEOPLE consistently choose automation over manual labor. That principle applies to both those on the production and the consumption sides of the fence.

So automation improves lives because people who have money to spend prefer products made through automation? Pretty big leap of logic there. Consumer rationality does not correlate with improving lives.

 

[Finnish your Czech]

As in kill them?

 

[Finnish your Czech]

Quote this post if you want the destroy capitalism

 

[Kairi Zaide]

So automation improves lives because people who have money to spend prefer products made through automation? Pretty big leap of logic there. Consumer rationality does not correlate with improving lives.

Automation allows people to have access to cheaper products and services, meaning more people have access to them. These products and services contribute to increasing quality of life, well being, enjoyment, etc.

 

[Deficient Mode]

Automation allows people to have access to cheaper products and services.

People would buy something that's a dollar cheaper even if it were made with pseudo-slave labor. That's a net loss for human happiness in my book. A worker who is exploited in a factory might buy a product made for cheap in that factory because she can't afford anything else. Does the consumer's choice there reaffirm that the improving means of production is improving the quality of her life?

I'm not opposed to automation per se. It's just when it comes from soulless antisocial cranks like you who just don't want to talk to cashiers that I object.

 

[tarheelhockey]

So automation improves lives because people who have money to spend prefer products made through automation? Pretty big leap of logic there. Consumer rationality does not correlate with improving lives.

It's not a leap of logic at all. The way people spend money tells you where their priorities lie. The fact that money does not flow in the direction of slow, expensive, manual labor tells you everything you need to know. That sort of production/process does not generate value. This has been proven over and over again in the giant field trial that we call an "economy".

To put it another way -- try and make a case for why people would shop at a store which features only manually-produced products and operations. Presumably this store would charge a premium in order to pay for its inefficiencies, while offering something in return which people found more valuable than their own time and money. As the owner of such a store, what would be your value proposition to the customer?

 

[Knarf9o5o1o4o9]

Political talk is over this way folks

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=160

 

[Kairi Zaide]

People would buy something that's a dollar cheaper even if it were made with pseudo-slave labor. That's a net loss for human happiness in my book. A worker who is exploited in a factory might buy a product made for cheap in that factory because she can't afford anything else. Does the consumer's choice there reaffirm that the improving means of production is improving the quality of her life?

I'm not opposed to automation per se. It's just when it comes from soulless antisocial cranks like you who just don't want to talk to cashiers that I object.

Except automation makes certain things cost much, much less. A computer made with no automation would likely cost 2, or even more, times as much, while not being as performant. Of course it's not about "check outs" here that I'm referring to, more about automation in general, and I guess that's why you are not against it.

Regarding the other part : I don't mind the "interaction" with the cashier. Just a simple "hello, thank you". I've never even used the "self checkouts" lines. But I mind it when I'm stuck in a line, and it causes me to have to wait much longer for transportation, for example. I've shopped at Costco a few times, and the lines there are just unsufferably long. Not to mention that there's a second line after the cashier line where some person has to check your receipt and what you bought. At the grocery I go to, when I go during normal hours, I can easily wait over 5-10 minutes in line. This is why I usually go past 9 PM. Over the course of a year, this adds up to insane amounts of time lost to waiting.

In the long run, I do firmly believe automation of check out processes would do good to more people than it would do "harm" to. In a similar way as online shopping (which you support).

 

[Deficient Mode]

It's not a leap of logic at all. The way people spend money tells you where their priorities lie. The fact that money does not flow in the direction of slow, expensive, manual labor tells you everything you need to know. That sort of production/process does not generate value. This has been proven over and over again in the giant field trial that we call an "economy".

No, it's only the most superficial marker of quality of life. Handmade products unquestionably have more fetish value in themselves and people with surplus income like to buy them. Machine-made and/or cheaper products are bought because people are able to/need to ignore the way it was produced to afford the things commercial culture tells them they need. Consumers make decisions based on their most basic concern - saving money so they can buy more things, since they are inundated by incitements to buy things and keep buying things. That in no way guarantees that making cheaper products has a net positive impact on "quality of life" especially among the producers.

To put it another way -- try and make a case for why people would shop at a store which features only manually-produced products and operations. Presumably this store would charge a premium in order to pay for its inefficiencies, while offering something in return which people found more valuable than their own time and money. As the owner of such a store, what would be your value proposition to the customer?

There are plenty of premium stores where I live that charge extra for "handmade/hand-picked", "small batch", "pollinator-friendly", etc. exclusive products. All such tags have a fetish value for consumers. They tell their economically privileged customers "our product isn't part of the problem" to ease their consciences or make them feel like they have a special product for their special, unique lives. Purchasing isn't driven by the cheapest option in many cases.