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.
Hope those machines buy his crappy food...
Remember how they told us that there would be no IT jobs left in the US because everything can be done so much cheaper in India?
Now it's that there will be no burger flipping jobs left because machines can do it cheaper. Let's wait and see how these burgers taste and whether I don't like them over there at [other burger joint] better even if they cost 30 cents more but taste like a burger and not like the bag it came in.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Why pay money if they work for a bowl of rice?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
It's inevitable less qualified humans will be replaced by machines. It's inevitable over time more qualified humans will be replaced. It's extremely short-sighted (or disingenuous) to blame government regulations for doing something that is inevitably going to happen just a few years down the line anyway. As machines catch up to and surpass humans in more areas the percentage of humans who cannot be profitably employedwill approach unity. In my opinion the reasons to reject these changes tend to be bad ones.
You have the traditionalists, who just don't want anything to change. You have the sour grape connoisseurs, who believe positive change is undesirable because they see it as unlikely. Then there's the worst of them, the people who believe experiencing unpleasantness like working is intrinsically valuable. It's happening. The list of things humans can do that robots and computers cannot do is shrinking... and that list never grows longer. It's time to look to a future free of involuntary employment. It's time to make it happen as soon as possible.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
Puzder doesn't believe in [the progressive idea of] raising the minimum wage.
Square brackets are used to modify the original statement only when it would provide contextual accuracy, not when you want to add bias to a statement. If you add bias this way, I instantly think you're a moron, regardless of your views.
I work in automation. It isn't so much that minimum wage matters... sure if you have really, really low minimum wage and people willing to work for it then you might just throw labor at a problem, but typically we automate for a variety of reasons: improved accuracy/quality, better throughput (a robot loading a machine can often keep up better than a human, which means I get more throughput out of my expensive machine), more consistent process. We *want* to automate everything, and when we look at what we *can* automate, it's always the boring repetitive jobs anyway. So it doesn't matter that much whether someone's making $6 or $8 or $10 an hour, if we can automate it we will. Certainly we are growing more concerned with the fact that a growing percentage of the population isn't going to be able to find the easy put-nut-A-on-bolt-B type of work anymore, and there's definitely a portion of those people who may not be able to be retrained to do something that a robot can't do. That's a societal problem, not an engineering problem. First is understanding that this isn't the same thing we saw in the industrial revolution. If I gave a laborer a steam shovel I made them a lot more productive. If I just say "stand aside while this robot does the job" that's different. And no, you're not going to take someone who works on an assembly line and retrain them to be a robot programmer. That's absurd. They won't get a job assembling robots either, as Fanuc apparently has a "lights out" manufacturing facility for their robots - it's a completely automated line. Minimum wage is doing a good thing: encouraging factories to automate by making the payback look better. Automated factories are better. Automated restaurants are probably better too. The fact that we have a very low skilled portion of the populace is a separate issue that needs addressing... maybe a guaranteed minimum income, I don't know. But coming up with make-work jobs for them is no better than putting them in prison and having them dig holes and fill them in. Also relevant to this discussion - has everyone seen the short story, "Manna"?
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
The big point being missed is "Who are you planning on selling your cheap to produce burgers to ?"
I'm confident you can replace my job with machines, most jobs with machines and I don't think CEO's will be last against the wall either. Problem being if you do that, well the machines won't be buying your shit food will they ?
A typical fast food restaurant is already full of machines that need to be cleaned, stocked and maintained. This one isn't going to be much worse. The ordering system is just a simple touchscreen, for instance. It only needs to be wiped off once in a while.
I'm always amazed that the rich think they can hide in their gated communities and enjoy the fruits of other people's labor.
That shouldn't be amazing. No matter what happens in other businesses, or society as a whole, Puzder is still making the optimal choice for himself.
He's arguing against raising the minimum wage because it's pricing human employees out of the market. Okay, so what's the plan in 5 years when the machines cost half as much? Or 5 years after that, when the machines cost half as much again? Are we going to lower the minimum wage to one dollar an hour?
More than that, if minimum wage employees get pay cuts and job losses like he is threatening... who does he think will have the money to buy his robot-made burgers? Cutting the minimum wage means you spend less on payroll, but your customers are somebody else's employees and they got a pay cut too.
This is why basic income is inevitable. Paid for by the corporations through taxes because they put all of the people out of work. There will be no personal income to tax if people don't have jobs. The only thing left to tax will be the corporations.
And the corporations, while they might not paying taxes to give people a basic income will need to. For without the people getting that basic income there are no consumers to consume what the corporations are producing and so they will go out of business.
The corporations will leave and go somewhere else, like China and India you say? Of course they will and they will just do to China and India what they did wherever they moved from, putting everyone out of work and forcing the government to make them pay for a basic income.
What of the country that all the corporations left that now has an unemployed work force but no corporations to pay for their basic income? Probably there will be a new tax to "sellers" of goods and services, so the corporations will pay the tax to keep people in a basic income one way or another. But more likely, a new economy will rise up.
So yeah, keep up the good work you corporate bastards. Looking forward to sitting on my ass while you support me. Well, in fact, I won't be sitting on my ass, but I will be spending my days doing something *I* want to do instead of wasting away 1/3 of my life in your factories.
And unless you continue to support me in that endeavour, you will be unemployed (out of business) too.
Greed is awesome.
The problem is not fast food labor. The problem is that a large percentage of jobs are in China. There are fewer hi-tech manufacturing jobs in the United States. Life in the U.S. is rapidly degrading.
It's good that low-level jobs are taken by machines. It's bad if the hi-level jobs of designing, manufacturing, and maintaining those machines are all taken by Chinese.
In Hong Kong, a long time ago, I met a man who was having golf clubs made in China. He said he taught a Chinese man to design the factory. He found later that the Chinese man's brother was building an identical factory to make golf clubs that would compete with his business.
This is an excellent book that tells one part of the story of degradation: Poorly Made in China: An Insider's Account of the Tactics Behind China's Production Game. There are many other, related issues.
He's not arguing anything. He's making a threat - which means he doesn't have a plan, because if machines were cheaper he wouldn't need a jab at minimum wage. He wouldn't need anything - he'd just do it.
Your premise is that a social safety net must exist.
I'm always amazed by the consumer who thinks that he can demand production and enjoy the benefits of other people's capital.
It's impossible to have a society where a large fraction of people can't find work that pays a living wage. Those people will vote (or act in other ways) to overturn the system that is making their lives impossible.
With real wages having gone nowhere for decades, we're arguably well into that scenario now. How much longer do you think we've got ?
When the wealthy have a police state with killbots on their side, what chance do you think the people have ?
I'm always amazed by the consumer who thinks that he can demand production and enjoy the benefits of other people's capital.
I'm always amazed that people think their "capital" has any sort of meaning unless the mass of society can benefit from it. Guess what, the only thing preventing the masses from stringing you up and taking your capital is the basic social contract that allows you to get rich as long as standards for the masses don't fall too far. You violate that social contract no amount of funny money or gold bars or factories is going to save your head from getting blown off as the police officers and military you depend on to live find it expedient to slay you.
Monstar L
Start a franchise, pretty much any big name brand restaurant. Your contract has set costs, your contract for the building set in stone, your overhead minus labor, non-negotiable... that leaves labor.
So you want more money in your pocket, the only place to grab it is from your workers somehow. I knew a woman that was an "assistant manager" at a Culver's. They cut the health care coverage to the bare bones & made the employees (managers & assistant managers) pay 100% for it. The owners (they had 3 Culver's) saved 10K. Just enough take their families to Hawaii for 2 weeks over Christmas.
SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT
Actually you've got that backwards, fighting against minimum wage laws illistrates economic and historical ignorance at the highest level.
Historically they were associated in a huge increase in the middle class. What you're arguing for is the creation and maintenance of an underclass to keep the wealth centralised in the current upper classes.
But you said it best
Your superstitions need to die out, sadly this is taking a long time.
Your assumptions are based on conditions that dont exist in the real world because of a little economic principle called "externalities". Keynesian and Libertarian economists love to ignore externalities because they 1) Aren't immediately apparent on a balance sheet and 2) completely screw up their chosen economic dogma. OK, so lets allow businesses to decide what is the minimum wage, the first thing they're going to find out is that fewer people can afford to buy they're product. This alone will reduce the available workforce because unlike companies, workers can pick up and leave when they cant make a liveable wage. As a result, anyone with any skill, talent or worth will move to a place with wage laws so all that CEO Stingy-pants will be left with are the most uneducated employees, literally the people who cant get. a job anywhere else.
A good historical example was Henry Ford. Instead of paying the lowest wages possible, he paid the highest and what he saw was a huge uptick in sales because his own workers could now afford to buy his cars. It wasn't just Ford that benefited from this, his workers could now afford other luxuries like a refrigerator.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
My wife's car was broken into several times when she lived in Antwerp for eight months, but never in years of living in Denver, Pittsburgh, Houston or Washington DC. Maybe Belgium hasn't worked out "social peace"?
Pretty sure in the bronze age a horde of barbarians would kill him and take his "capital", possibly also raping him and his family. Beginning mostly with feudalism a group of very low wage earners protects him militarily while a group of other low wage earners and machinery designed by other low wage earners takes his capital and gives it back to him with interest. Those people, while unquestionably delivering more to his (and each others) bottom line than he is compensating them for, refrain from barbaric behavior because their pathetic wages are still better than raping and pillaging. In the modern age there has been a push to realize that simply possessing money is probably not a contribution to society and such people are effectively the same useless parasites their poor non-job seeking equivalents are, unless they are also capable of using that money effectively. Due to the need to maintain the semblance of a meritocracy and stability in society, we do not simply take their money away and redistribute it, this might undermine the productivity of capable and motivated low wage earners ambitions. Regardless, devoid of income and hope the low wage earners that do produce a better world are likely to return to the bronze age or earlier when it becomes the lesser of evils. The latest fashion out of paris suggests a return to togas and horned helmets.
https://youtu.be/7Pq-S557XQU
Yes, the typical fast food restaurant is full of machines that need cleaning.
But who's going to do this when the minimum wage goons are gone?
Are you really this stupid?
It will be two guys in a little white van that says "Carls Jr" on it that drive around and do these things, covering all the locations on the "west side" (maybe 8 or 10 of them)
There might be cameras and "manual steps" to take over a machine run out of Phillipines to fix minor glitches. That will be 8 people covering 120 stores corporate wide.
But in general, two moderately paid employees will drive around, clean, re-stock and troubleshoot machines. A regional tech group will be on call for big problems. There will be a dozen people per shift taking the place of three hundred droolers.
They could pay those dozen people 100k per year and still come out ahead.
"Paid for by the corporations through taxes because they put all of the people out of work."
Corporations simple pass any added taxes and costs on to the customer. Thus if you add taxes to a corporation they simple raise the price and pass that added expense on to the customer.
A CEO I worked for once said "People are idiots, they think they can raise minimum wadge or add taxes to a company to pay for some social benefit. Corporations pass the added expense on to the customer. Thus they never realize they are the ones paying the taxes not the company.
A corporations job is to make money, that means that we take what ever expenses we have including taxes, add them up, attach a profit margin to it, and sell it. Otherwise we would not be making money."
I am all for automation: start with the CEO and the owners, replace them with voting systems.
"Corporations simple pass any added taxes and costs on to the customer. Thus if you add taxes to a corporation they simple raise the price and pass that added expense on to the customer."
No, they don't. Or, at least, they don't do it *automatically*. That's what competition is about.
Currently we all see how high officials' overall wages and shares' profits are increasing well over average/median salaries. This means that given strong competition they can absorb increased costs by reducing their profit margins and still stay in business (of course, this doesn't mean they would accept it out of their free will, but that they'll do if there's no other way).
"A corporations job is to make money, that means that we take what ever expenses we have including taxes, add them up, attach a profit margin to it, and sell it."
Exactly this. Which in turn means that, as long as the profit margin is higher than "the fair profit for money" (in Adam Smith's words), they can possibly reduce their margin and still stay in business (because it's still better to accept the reduced profits than putting their money anywhere else with even lower margins). As an extreme example, you can see how as of now "the money" is accepting even negative returns on long term bonds from healthy economies.
Consider this alternative future:
1) Wealth and control of resources concentrates in the hands of a few.
2) These people stop considering the rest of humanity "humans", or just believe that what is theirs is theirs and no one else has a right to anything. They also don't need labor very much at all because it is automated. So people who have only their labor to offer are frozen out economically.
3) The owners use automated weaponry to enforce their rights of ownership
4) The power of the few snowballs and they eventually own the entire planet and all means of production, and the rest live in misery on whatever pittiance is allowed them or is outright exterminated via automated weaponry.
To see this in its infancy, look at Detroit. People there can't sell their labor, don't have means to leave, and have resorted to subsistence farming. However, if a "landowner" comes along with the means of ejecting the "squatters", they won't even be able to subsistence farm.
Societies that *do* what you say is inevitable (basic income) will avoid this. Societies which allow ever increasing concentration of wealth into the hands of a few might not. The USA's trend on this is pretty scary, witness the almost complete capture of the political system by money.
-PM
You're talking as if this is all theoretical. But you do well to remember a few things:
1) Masses don't string up producers, they string up the wealthy. In a typical society the people getting rich are not the producers but middle men. Suzie can still flip burgers just as well as she used to, and best of all she and the other employees no longer need to share their wealth with a fat CEO.
2) Farmers are not the ones getting strung up, they will be lining up with strings in their hands right along side the rest of the lower class.
3) Society doesn't break down when the top are axed.
4) This isn't theoretical. This has happened many times in many governments in history. Google Peasant's Revolt for an example. Society will live on because the people who society are built upon ARE the middle-lower class.
Corporations that pass through 100% of the cost increases are either in the commodity business, or aren't in a competitive arena. There is always an attempt to trim some in order to offset the new costs, simply because you know that your competitors are looking at this as an opportunity to steal some of your customers if they happen to raise their price less.
This is a simple problem really.
You work at Mcburgerbelldees and you want 15 dollars/hour cause minimum wage just isn't cutting it.
You're right, but the thing is, you should be working towards a better job, flipping burgers or dropping fries in hot oil isn't and shouldn't be a career goal, nor does it merit 15 dollars/hour.
Minimum wage jobs are there for supplemental income and those who are just starting work for the first time.
I understand, shit's expensive, I've been there and done that. Used to work in convenience for 6 years before I started work with a Fortune 500 company making great money for the area I live in, 7 years later and I've moved into the office as part of the management staff. It's not a hard concept to grasp, but if you're not willing to work hard, towards a goal that doesn't involve doing as little work as possible, you'll never get anywhere.
As an aside, if you go into any Wawa or Royal Farms in this area, they have already done away with the waiters, they have been replaced by an automated kiosk. And guess what, they're always to work on time, always do their job and never get the order wrong unless you entered it that way.
So what makes more sense to you? Paying a snotty over-privileged 20 something 15/hour, or buying a 500~ dollar kiosk that never complains? The decision seems cut and dry to me.
Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
So now that the optimum situation is to have no employees
It's the optimum for the business that Puzder is responsible for. Your questions are good questions, but they are questions for society as a whole, not questions for Mr. Puzder to answer. If society allows people to run businesses with no employees, and it makes sense from a business perspective to do so, you can't blame individual business owners for making that choice.
If everybody owns stock, the dividends are going to be too diluted. Your stock plan only works because so few people are doing it.
Companies hate their employees. Labor costs are a barrier to higher profits. Employees are treated as liabilities.
This entire thread is based on a false idea that if people are thrown out of minimum wage jobs that they'll be unemployed forever.
This has been proven countless times since the 1700's to be absolutely false.
Once a technological innovation disrupts employment - the loom, the cotton gin, the computer, the combine planter/harvester, the robot - those who were displaced from employment find new jobs in higher paying sectors, at least in the aggregate. How many file clerks do you know? Know anybody picking corn, wheat, or soybeans by hand? Yet unemployment is around 5%.
The people slinging burgers will find new work. They'll have to. New employment opportunities will open up; they always have.
That's only partially true. During the times of the Luddites, it took 3 generations (70 odd years) for employment to increase to close to full, after a significant proportion of the population was shipped of to the new world.
Around the turn of the 20th century a move was made to reduce the number of people in the workforce due to automation. Woman were turned into homemakers and children were taken out of the workforce, as well as limits being put on the hours worked by everyone else.
The trend of taking children out of the workforce continues with the length of time that people stay in school continuing to increase. My parents get by fine with about a 8th grade education. My brother graduated out of grade 10 to go to technical school and become a well paid glazier. Now kids are expected to spend at least 4 years in collage/university.
Things were also pretty horrible for the poor in 18th century England and only the large amount of land available in the New World etc made things bearable in the colonies and the new nation of the USA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
And no other jobs come to fill their places?
By your logic, we'd be at 75% unemployment (figure pulled out of my ass, admittedly, but just making a point here...) right now with all the technological advances since the 1970s. What do you think happened to our economy to achieve our current 5% unemployment rate? Are all those file clerks and bookkeepers still out of work or did they find something else to do?
People made the same arguments you're making for every technological leap forward. The net result has always been people thrown out of low wage, miserable jobs have found higher wage, less miserable jobs, given enough time.
It's called Structural Unemployment. It is a problem for workers who are too old to retrain - think people in their upper 50's trying to sprint to retirement - but for the vast majority of the workforce, it's a net benefit in the long run at the cost of a little short term pain.
The only problem with this idea that the unemployed will find work is that the number of people required to design/operate/maintain technology is much smaller than the number of people required to do the work the technology replaces.
We've gone from 95% of people doing agricultural work to less than 5%. Yet people found new jobs: almost everyone did. Same thing with manufacturing. But somehow not with burger flipping jobs? Those are magic? Seems unlikely.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
What do you think happened to our economy to achieve our current 5% unemployment rate?
What happened is that the powers-that-be pulled a fast one on you and you're too foolish to see it. You've been hand fed a statistic that is false on its face but you didn't care to look into the truth...
Check out the population-employment ratio numbers and they speak a much different story. You see, the unemployment rate that is mainly touted is the U3 rate. The U3 rate is made up of people with no job who've actively tried to find one in the last month. Today we have a good number of discouraged workers* and a vast number of people who have no intentions of ever being employed again. And these numbers are likely to continue to grow. And this doesn't even take into account the underemployed either.
That 5% number you're kicking around means nothing in the real world but keeps the sheep voting under the illusion of what is good/bad in the economy.
*Discouraged workers are people who want to be employed and have looked for work in the last year but have stopped looking due to poor prospects.
We didn't have cell phones in the 1700s.
There's population versus technology, there's people spending less on food and clothes while buying bigger houses, the increase in non-necessity expenditures as a percentage of income, and all kinds of other data showing we actually do increase the number of people in the economy.
You're right, though: The number of people needed to do a job doesn't increase. That's the point: technology *decreases* the number of people required to do a job, freeing their labor time up for other tasks. That's why we've moved people out of agriculture and manufacture and into construction, medicine, retail, and business services. Somebody has to sell those products from China; somebody has to handle the logistics, the distribution, the shipping; somebody has to drive the trucks; somebody has to run the involved IT systems.
Even after we've reduced the share of labor per product in *all* of these types of jobs, we create more jobs by buying more products. You buy 3 times as much shit, you need 3 times as much logistics. Maybe it takes 1/5 as much labor to provide those logistics, so you have 60% as many people doing that; the other 40% are running Spotify and Netflix.
We don't create higher-class jobs; we reduce costs and improve the standard-of-living of the lowest income earners. We may create more or fewer poor people; those poor people will be objectively wealthier than last generation's poor people, but they're still poor because literally everyone else has more than they do. Some of the replacement jobs are higher-income-class, some are lower-income-class, and we wind up with more things produced per wage-labor hour, more stuff per-capita, and more luxuries in the hands of everyone as their basic needs become cheaper.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
As well as making labor more productive, you get the double whammy of lower prices. As long as regulators stay out of it, that is.
And after the masses string up the producers for their wealth.
Nobody's talking about stringing up the producers for their wealth. They're talking about stringing up the parasites for their wealth. Let's face it, nobody is productive enough to become wealthy from their own productivity - even the best brain surgeons and rocket scientists are barely rich. Those that have become truly wealthy have done so through business - by exploiting the labor of others - or by exploiting markets - simply taking the wealth of others. These people don't make a net positive contribution to society, and yet they're the ones that amass all the wealth. It's the producers that are losing wealth, as the middle class is eroded, and wealth stratification continues to worsen.
If you disagree, can you explain to me how stringing up, say, the Walton family would meaningfully impact society? Would we be lost in a world incapable of conducting retail sales operations without the Waltons? Would the lack of their high-volume low-margin retail empire really result in a world where nobody produces anything, farmers stop farming, cats and dogs start living together? By what mechanism?
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
This entire thread is based on a false idea that if people are thrown out of minimum wage jobs that they'll be unemployed forever.
This has been proven countless times since the 1700's to be absolutely false.
Once a technological innovation disrupts employment - the loom, the cotton gin, the computer, the combine planter/harvester, the robot - those who were displaced from employment find new jobs in higher paying sectors, at least in the aggregate...
Real history shows that it is THIS claim that is absolutely false. The people displaced in the original Industrial Revolution did not ever find new employment, in high paying jobs or elsewhere. They became destitute. Eventually the productivity increase of the IR created a wealthy enough society that decent employment was restored for the full population, but it took 70 years to do this. Most of the people whose livelihoods that were destroyed in 1770 did not ever get decent jobs again. Their children did not. Their grandchildren did not. Their great-grandchildren did however, around 1840.
The beggars, squalid poverty, workhouses, debtors prisons of Dickens time were all very real.
Interestingly, that little clause you stuck in there "at least in the aggregate" indicates you realize to some degree the falseness of your claim. It is exactly the problem that people exist as people, not as aggregates, that makes the average increase in wealth from automation completely useless to the people put out of work.
If robotics puts people out of work in large numbers today, we need a solution that helps the people put out of work as soon as it happens - not in 2086 after they are long dead.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
> This has been proven countless times since the 1700's to be absolutely false.
Yes because new jobs come along all the time that people gradually shift to that are too complex to be automated. People stopped making cloth by hand when looms and later power looms came in, people stopped farming when tractors became a thing, assembly line workers were somewhat phased out when specialized robots came to the line, etc. The difference this time is we are finally on the cusp of general machine learning.
In the not too distant future robots and computers are going to be in a position to replace not only easily-repeatable low skill labor, but almost ANY job not requiring super specialized knowledge or skills. Those in high paying "intellectual" jobs are also going to be on the receiving end of a pink slip. It's already starting to happen. Lawyer firms used to employ armies of articlers and clerks to do discovery and research on case law, and are already being replaced by automated systems that do the same work in less time. RBS just the other day cut 400+ investment adviser positions to be replaced with their digital robo-adviser system that recently rolled out.
When a machine can learn to do anything you can do, and do it consistently without error, even if it only works at 1//4 your speed you're gone. The machine won't take coffee breaks, surf /. or get sick while it works at its task 24/7/365. And it will get faster over time as the hardware and software inevitably improves.
Or maybe they'll just shoot you and take your wallet. Desparate people are dangerous and social security nets keep the crime rate low.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
You have failed to understand the entire argument as presented. Running a business with no employees inevitably results in a business with no customers (because people without incomes won't be customers)
No, it is you that have failed to understand my argument. The guy can run a business just fine serving food to people who work at other businesses. Now, you'll probably start yelling that "but, but, but, if every other business did the same thing, then there would be no customers left", to which I will respond that Mr Puzder has no responsibility for those other businesses, and his choices don't affect them. We can be sure that somebody will move to robots, and they'll gain a competitive advantage, either driving Mr Puzder to quit or to do the same thing.
"Why must I give up my property at gunpoint to someone claiming to act for those who refuse to work?"
If I take your sentence at face value, no, you don't forcibly have to give up your property at gunpoint, you just need to if you want to stay alive after the encounter.
But I suppose you are not talking about any real gang of armed robbers but that you are allegorically talking about taxes and the government power to collect them.
On one hand, what in hell makes you think that even a minimally significant part of your taxes are collected "for those who refuse to work"? Not facts, for sure.
On the other hand, about the wider issue about taxes, no, you are not giving up your property *at all*. Government only collect taxes in the form of money. Now, take a bill from your wallet and look carefully at it: you see? it is *not* your property; it is just a government issued certificate for all debts, public or private so whatever portion the government reclaims of it, it's still nothing of yours but something you shouldn't have in your control to start with. You can barter your cows for grain instead, if so you like.
And, of course, in the wider issue of social contract, what are you really claiming to be "yours"? You are able to make a living because of a society you didn't built up, going to work over roads you didn't built up, with a level of security you didn't built up, trading things over both national and international channels you didn't built up, tradings that are secured because of a legal system you didn't built up, using a legal tender whose confidence you didn't built up... need I to follow? And still you whine about "giving up your property at gunpoint"? What property at all would you own without all that coverage you didn't built up and that you wouldn't possibly build up even if you lived one thousand lives exclusively devoted to that task?
It is of course legit to ask for always greater levels of scrutiny and efficiency about our taxes, but taxes themselves? I won't tell here what I think of that kind of people... Anyway, there must be some place, somewhere, where you can be left alone. Just don't bother calling 911 to the rescue if you ever happen to break a leg, you never payed for it, you know.