Slashdot Mirror
Fast-Food CEO Invests In Machines Because Regulation Makes Them Cheaper Than Employees (yahoo.com)
An anonymous reader writes: The CEO of Carl's Jr., Andy Puzder, has been inspired by the 100-percent automated restaurant, Eatsa, as he looks for ways to deal with rising minimum wages. "With government driving up the cost of labor, it's driving down the number of jobs," he says. "You're going to see automation not just in airports and grocery stores, but in restaurants." Puzder doesn't believe in [the progressive idea of] raising the minimum wage. "Does it really help if Sally makes $3 more an hour if Suzie has no job? If you're making labor more expensive, and automation less expensive -- this is not rocket science," says Puzder. What comes as a challenge is automating employee tasks. This is where he draws the line and doesn't think that it's likely any machine could perform such work. But for more rote tasks like grilling a burger or taking an order, technology may be even more precise than human employees. "They're always polite, they always upsell, they never take a vacation, they never show up late, there's never a slip-and-fall, or an age, sex, or race discrimination case," says Puzder in regard to replacing employees with machines.
Support for minimum wage laws illustrates the economic and historical illiteracy that is so widespread in this country: not only are minimum wage laws ineffective and economically harmful, historically, they were motivated by a desire to hurt racial minorities. Minimum wage laws actually hurt low income and low skill workers twice: not only does it price many of them out of the labor pool, it also increases the cost of goods and services, which hurts low income groups the most. After a couple of centuries of enlightenment, history, and basic economics, you'd think that people would be smart enough to catch on to this, but I guess some superstitions just take a long time to die out.
So, if a new development makes machines cost 1/10 or their current cost, salaries should be cut in ten? The reasoning falls flat under the smallest analysis.
Workers' rights are independent to the advance of automatisation. And if automatisation becomes move profitable, it's time to automatize and, as a society, find occupation for those who've lost their job because of it. Just as for everyone else, incidentally.
The technological progress has been leaving humans without a job since the first "fire-keeper" was replaced by fire making technology. Almost no living humans has a job that has existed since the times of the cavemen. It mystifies me that we've decided to be worried by this now; after a few millenia.
I'd favor a two-tiered minimum wage, one which is the status quo, and one which is for larger businesses, which may or may not affect the individual businesses... especially if we make it three-tiered with factoring in franchises.
However, I will say this. Copied from another one of my posts...
I would propose, in the U.S. at least, the following...
$500/month/adult (22+ years old)
$250/month/child (21- years old)
Not an additional to Social Security. It's be an expanded version of it though.
If we scrap S.N.A.P., increase the above figures by $200/month.
Adjust the above figures for inflation on an annual basis.
It may be not seem like much, but for the working and non-working poor, it could go a long way. And while it won't benefit financially-well off people who suddenly lose their jobs, it's a partial fall-back.
Paid for by higher taxes. Also paid for in part by a 10% tax on income (federal AGI) earmarked for this program. Someone who makes $60k per year by themselves will break even regarding this special tax.
Two adults, two children would get four checks, but would net: $1500/month or $18k/year with this program. But of course, if the parents and children work, they'll lose 10% of whatever they earn plus any higher taxes they may be subject to-to help fund this program.