California's $15-an-Hour Minimum Wage May Spur Automation (computerworld.com)

An anonymous readers links to an article on ComputerWorld: For many California business groups, the state's decision to gradually raise its minimum wage to $15 by 2022 is a terrible thing. But for its technology industry, it may be a plus. Higher wages, says the California Restaurant Association, will force businesses to face "undesirable" options, including cutting staff, raising prices and adopting automation. But a higher minimum wage will "signal to tech companies and entrepreneurs" to look at the restaurant industry, said Darren Tristano, president of Technomic, a research group focused on the restaurant industry. The state's governor and legislators reached an agreement Monday to raise the wages. "I think there are a lot of tech companies that are looking at the restaurant industry to accelerate their growth," said Tristano. The restaurant industry is primed for change, said Tristano, "Many of the routines that take place in restaurants are not very different from 30 to 40 years ago," he said.

Comments

May spur automation

[turkeydance]

by May this year.

Re:May spur automation

[Striek]

But then again, it may not...

Here in Ontario, Canada, we raised the minimum wage from $10.25 to $11.00, and unemployment went down in the following months and year, from around 7.5 %to 6.75% (source). While that doesn't prove that minimum wage increases never result in unemployment rises, it does disprove that they always result in unemployment rises.

Minimum wage increases killing jobs is a ridiculous notion - prices can always raise as well, and besides, the naysayers repeat this line almost Every. Single. Time. - even for overdue inflation-indexed increases, which generally casts doubt on their positions. In reality, it's a lot more complicated than that.

I will never understand why minimum wage is not tied to inflation rates - this is a ridiculous argument to have Every Five Years.

http://www.thenation.com/artic...
http://www.thestar.com/busines...
https://www.weforum.org/agenda...

Re:May spur automation

[Penguinisto]

Funny... but that does bring up the subject of how quickly such automation would go into effect.

Call day 0 the day the law goes into effect.

By day 1, all businesses that have not started up yet, or who have grown enough to start hiring employees, will probably start looking very hard at adding automation to their list of things to implement, even on a small scale. Consider that some of this is in place now; at the Apple Store, there is no checkout counter, because nearly every employee on the floor is not only the sales-critter and light technical POC, but also handles checkout right then and there with a smartphone/app combination. That eliminates at least 2-3 employees who would otherwise sit around and handle money.

By month 1, most of your existing businesses/franchisees in California with traditionally high turnover will likely start talking to folks willing to sell them automation solutions, so long as the quotes for purchase and maintenance are cheaper than the aggregate labor required to perform the automaton's function. Makes perfect sense - as long as the automaton is more efficient and reliable than the person(s) replaced, why not?

By year 1, we'll see the effects: higher unemployment across certain sectors (unskilled labor, the extremely young, folks in depressed areas, etc), and slower hiring among smaller businesses, since they not only have the option of automation (especially as the market starts seriously filling the demand), but because they're not going to be as willing to take risks on hiring unknown candidates, or on hiring an extra employee (or more) in anticipation of growth (the latter due to increased costs per employee - the business is risking more money now when they do that.)

By year 5? Well...

Re:May spur automation

[harrkev]

To be fair, a wage hike of $0.75 (Canadian) is not really comparable to a $5.00 (US dollars) wage hike.

One constitutes less than an 8% raise, while the other is a 50% raise.

Re:May spur automation

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, the california hike is actually five one-dollar/hour hike a year apart.

Re:May spur automation

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the old US car makers who refused to let the government force them to provide cars that were safer and got better gas mileage.

They fought the regulations, refused to comply, sued and delayed, and eventually got their market taken away by car makers who provided all of those benefits in less expensive vehicles

At which point, the manufacturers tried to blame it all on the unions without considering their own recalcitrant behavior

Yeah, they can all suck it, we see through their bs for the lies that it is

Re:May spur automation

[sycodon]

Just a few minutes on YouTube browsing videos showing various manufacturing machines and the processes they do suggests that making a machine to cook and build Hamburgers and other fast food orders would be child's play.

The only question is where the point between the capital costs of such a device and the higher wages cross.

Re:May spur automation

[Muros]

I've never understood the argument that minimum wage increases increase unemployment. People on minimum/low wages spend all of their money, and usually locally. People who can save money invest it where they get the best return, which is likely not locally. Increasing the minimum wage is the best thing you can do for an economy, as long as it isn't taken to ridiculous lengths where wages exceed production.

Re:May spur automation

[ShanghaiBill]

Minimum wage increases killing jobs is a ridiculous notion - prices can always raise as well

Not true. You can't just arbitrarily raise prices when there are substitute goods available. Fast food is labor intensive. If the price goes up, more people will cook at home or purchase low-labor pre-packaged food at grocery stores (using the self-checkout line).

California already has a much higher minimum wage than the rest of the nation. If you go in a McDonalds in California, you don't see teenagers working there. You see adults, since the pay is enough to attract them. Adults are more productive than teenagers, so you need fewer of them. So California has removed an important rung on the economic ladder, by turning entry level jobs into permanent no-skill "careers" flipping burgers. This effect is worst in minority neighborhoods which already have extremely high teenage unemployment.

Re:May spur automation

[cryptolemur]

On the other hand, some (a lot?) of people now have 50% more purchasing power, and money is moving around way more than before. Which, if I'm not mistaken, will generate demand, which will generate jobs...

Way too many people nowadays believe that jobs come from letting (financial) business have a lots of money, while in the real world the jobs come from tasks that need to be done -- a.k.a. demand.

Re:May spur automation

[twotacocombo]

Here in Ontario, Canada, we raised the minimum wage from $10.25 to $11.00

That's about a 7% increase. We're talking a 50% increase here. The company I work for relies heavily on minimum wage-ish laborers for the manufacturing jobs, which are basically screwing caps on bottles, putting them in boxes. Real unskilled stuff, diploma and English not required. We're in Los Angeles, and when they announced the minimum wage hike, eyes immediately pointed just over the border to Ventura County, where no such increase was proposed. Now that this is looking to be a state-wide thing, a 50% increase in labor costs for the bulk of our production workers is going to make the automated fillers and cappers pretty much sell themselves. Either way it goes, it's going to drive the price per unit up. Labor isn't the main cost for producing products here, but when we price out to the tenth of a cent per unit, and we roll off hundreds of thousands of units per run, it begins to add up. This cost will either be passed on to the customer, or more likely, will lose us business as clients take their filling operations to states with lower labor costs and less distance to their distribution houses. Most of our min-wage laborers are day workers, so if there's no work, they don't show up or get paid. If work starts disappearing, the $15/hr doesn't mean a damn thing to them, and ultimately the whole scheme will hurt the very people it's supposedly helping.

Re:May spur automation

[mrchaotica]

So California has removed an important rung on the economic ladder, by turning entry level jobs into permanent no-skill "careers" flipping burgers. This effect is worst in minority neighborhoods which already have extremely high teenage unemployment.

Okay, so why does it remove entry-level jobs for minorities but apparently not for white teenagers? Maybe whatever causes that disparity is where the problem really lies.

Re:May spur automation

[MikeMo]

I think way to many people forget where that extra $5 is going to come from: higher prices. This is the definition and cause of inflation. Someone gets more pay, the prices go up, everything nets out to be the same.

The other thing I'm concerned about is what happens to everyone else's pay. Will they guy that's now making $15/hour (like the EMTS, construction workers, etc.) now get $20? Wouldn't they expect that? What about the guy/gal that's now making $25? And so on. In the end you get nothing but smoke and steam.

I'm also concerned about the notion that every job should pay enough that anyone would be happy with that job. In such an environment, the motivation to strive to be better is significantly reduced. If you don't need a better job, why work harder to get one? What happens to society when that becomes the norm?

Re:May spur automation

[funwithBSD]

And if your employer lays you off, sends your job overseas, automates your job, or closes their doors, how much are you spending locally?

Why stop at 15? why not 30? or 300?

Re:May spur automation

[funwithBSD]

The statement was that it impacted minorities more, not that it did not impact white teenagers at all.

And the answer is that more affluent neighborhoods will better adsorb the cost of doing business because they can raise prices more than less affluent neighborhoods.

Re:May spur automation

[riverat1]

On the other hand, some (a lot?) of people now have 50% more purchasing power, and money is moving around way more than before. Which, if I'm not mistaken, will generate demand, which will generate jobs...

Way too many people nowadays believe that jobs come from letting (financial) business have a lots of money, while in the real world the jobs come from tasks that need to be done -- a.k.a. demand.

Exactly this. Where do businesses expect to sell their products if too few people make enough money to buy them?

Re:May spur automation

[Anonymous Coward]

Those are the type of jobs nobody is going to miss anyway. Those people probably will be better off going to work elsewhere, doesn't sound like they have a good deal there. Look, if it's cheaper to automate, then automate. If it's cheaper to produce stuff elsewhere, produce it somewhere else. Why are you trying to do such a menial task in a high rent area anyway? Don't know what else to tell you.

Re:May spur automation

[phantomfive]

I will never understand why minimum wage is not tied to inflation rates - this is a ridiculous argument to have Every Five Years.

Because it gives politicians something they can brag about to their constituents.

Re:May spur automation

[MitchDev]

"prices can always raise as well,"

Yeah, and those already making more than minimum wage see their wages effectively cut because the value/buying-power of their dollar has dropped but they got no such raise....

Race to the bottom

Re:May spur automation

[evilRhino]

This argument was addressed and debunked by Adam Smith when he invented economics. The argument that higher wages causes inflation isn't really true, because that cost is spread out over the production of the employee. Inflation is caused by more by companies taking excessive profits since the increased cost multiplies as their production goes down the supply chain.

Re:May spur automation

[Anonymous Coward]

Suppose the local businesses have a 10% profit margin, and that a large fraction of that is fixed costs (rent, power, loans, taxes, etc). Now, suppose that 10% of their customers just lost their job to automation and no longer patronize them. Now their profit goes to zero, and their employees also get canned. This causes cascading business failures are fewer and fewer people in the town can afford to pay for things like going out to eat and movies and new cars. Now your local businesses get trashed, and the pool of unemployed go up, pushing down the value of labor. This, in turn, causes over a longer term, wage depression as there is now much more competition for jobs, and people are now willing to work at the mill for minimum wage instead of being able to demand a higher salary. Now the millworkers have less disposable income, which feeds into this depressionary cycle.

But someone will take advantage of the depressed wages, you say. Sure, why? Are you going to move your Googleplex to Modesto? Your expensive white collar people are unwilling to move there; there aren't any restaurants and such; it's now a poor people town. If low wages are important, move the plant overseas, otherwise, put the new plant where the people you're moving want to live. But, you say, they can get lower cost white collar employees there. Maybe, but those individuals left to get higher paying jobs, and when the real estate value plummeted, so did school funding and the quality of teachers, as the better ones didn't want to live there.

This is the death spiral that bay area taxes and minimum wages have pushed on the central valley. $15/hr in SFO is a reasonable minimum wage. It's going to kill the last 5 full time jobs in Modesto where $15/hr is well over a living wage and, frankly, more than unskilled labor is worth there.

Re:May spur automation

[Anonymous Coward]

So there have to be jobs out that that:

1. Don't pay enough money to live on.

2. Need to be done.

Sounds like you've got a bright future ahead of you in the GOP!

Re:May spur automation

[mileshigh]

Long term, it's probably true that the effect will be a wash.

The typical cycle of automation is that there's some kind of crunch (bad economy, rising wages, etc.) which causes businesses to streamline, including adopting automation.

However, managers are lazy like everybody else, and continually keeping their operations lean & mean would take sustained effort, so head counts creep up again.

When the economy eventually expands (it will, sooner or later), businesses hire even more. They don't automate then because a) automation requires making an investment, yet they can't be sure that the good times will last so it's safer to hire someone who can be easily fired, and b) automating takes management time & effort, plus productivity typically takes a short-term hit, neither of which is acceptable during an expansion phase, i.e. "can't you see we're busy making money now?" In management-speak: staffing up is more flexible and less disruptive than automation.

Wash, rinse & repeat.

Re:May spur automation

[Penguinisto]

Just a few minutes on YouTube browsing videos showing various manufacturing machines and the processes they do suggests that making a machine to cook and build Hamburgers and other fast food orders would be child's play.

The only question is where the point between the capital costs of such a device and the higher wages cross.

Exactly, and a higher employee wage pushes the balance more towards the automation angle.

For instance, let's do a stupid exercise at a fast-food joint. $7.50/hr costs an employer (at full time) roughly $15600/yr *before* counting SS/Unemployment Ins./Healthcare/etc contributions. Call it maybe $19k/yr (we slapped on 20% and rounded up). I suspect that you're going to have a damned hard time finding a burger-flipping machine that will amortize to less than $20k/yr (incl. maintenance contracts).

Now bump the employee's wages to $15/hr, or roughly $37000/yr (we slapped on 20% and then rounded down, just to be fair). $37k/yr is probably well within reach of buying that burger-flipping machine and amortizing it, including an on-site maintenance contract.

Now, as a business franchisee who has to deal with sick-days, high turnover (plus lost productivity caused by it), employee gripes, demands for raises, the usual human-human drama, and other bullshit? Oh, and if that machine can produce more product at a better, more consistent quality than any *two* employees on your payroll? Suddenly that machine looks damned attractive, especially once you realize that it'll be working in the back where no one can see it. For a nominal extra cost, you could probably get a self-cleaning one and save yet one more FTE... so even at $70k/yr to replace the 3 FTE units that you'd spend $110k/yr on? Shit, it's more than doable. As a bonus, if you're a dick about it, you can use the presence of those machines to (very) subtly remind the remaining employees that maybe they should up their game...

Re:May spur automation

[ShanghaiBill]

Okay, so why does it remove entry-level jobs for minorities but apparently not for white teenagers?

Because white kids have a lot more opportunities. Many of them don't want a job, because they are too busy studying for college. Or they work part-time at their daddy's business. Black and Hispanic kids are at the bottom, so when that last rung is taken away, they get hurt the most.

For a clear illustration of what happens when you push "white" solutions onto communities where they don't apply, look what happened in Puerto Rico. The economy was doing well, and it was a hub for low end manufacturing, mostly paying about $3 an hour. Then the courts ruled that federal minimum wage laws had to apply to PR. So overnight the wages went up to $7.25, and the jobs disappeared. So instead of making $3 an hour, the workers were making $0 an hour, debts piled up as people stopped paying taxes, and now PR is bankrupt, and seeking a federal bailout.

What happened to PR will likely not happen in California, because the change will happen more slowly, and California has a far more diverse economy. But the same principles apply, and the worst effects will be on the people that can least afford it.

Re:May spur automation

[del_diablo]

At the same time, those "stolen" jobs have to acquired somehow.
Which means that the jobs for those teenagers might never have existed in the first place.

Which further raises questions about how the economy works, and how social policy for things like education and craftmanship will further impact the economy.

Re:May spur automation

[Gr8Apes]

It's called inflation, and makes things "cheaper" if your inflation rises faster than others. See Zimbabwe for an awesome example: I'd like a slice of bread. That will be $23 trillion.

Re:May spur automation

[Gr8Apes]

Sounds like a case for looking at taxing imports appropriately more than anything else. In fact, I'd say PR is a great example of what will happen to any country whose cost of living is higher than a neighbors - "free trade" as it is practiced today is not about raising all boats, but letting the water leak out of the pool until all boats are more or less equal.

Re:May spur automation

[Penguinisto]

Dunno why you were modded as "Troll", because your post makes perfect sense, especially when asking at what point do we set this wage? What calculus is being used to set it?

"Living Wage" is not only vague, but it becomes a moving goalpost... so that can't be it. Setting it against a cost-of-living index might work, but that becomes a moving goalpost as well (and barring massive deflation, it always moves upwards).

So at what objective point does one set this wage without creating a self-feeding loop that pushes it upwards?

Re:May spur automation

[Daemonik]

This whole debate is useless, because it implies that automation wouldn't happen if wages stayed static. We all know most industries in the US are headed towards full automation at some point, regardless of anything labor has to say about it. They're just using this as a scare tactic to get people to stop agitating for higher wages before they can fire them all and replace them with cheap robots.

Re:May spur automation

[ThosLives]

Increasing the minimum wage is the best thing you can do for an economy, as long as it isn't taken to ridiculous lengths where wages exceed production.

I think you've answered your own question: in some industries, minimum wage is already at the cost of production, so artificially increasing wages past that cost is going to increase costs, reduce demand, and then eliminate those industries, at least in the short term until roughly the same demand comes back but at a higher price level.

Put another way: I would wager that in the long run minimum wage increases never result in an improved demand per capita of any product or service, and only improvements in productivity in competitive markets allow society to maintain "livable wage" price levels.

I would argue the problem with minimum wage being too low for a living wage now is not just a wage problem but also a supply problem - what is limiting the supply of things people need that is causing their prices to rise faster than the value of their (minimum) wage? You have to address those factors, or changing the minimum wage will have no meaningful long-term effect.

Re:May spur automation

[Anonymous Coward]

so many strawmen.

Fast food being labor intensive has nothing to do with people cooking at home.
unless labor is 100% of your operating costs, then a x% wage increase passed of too customers doesn't translate into X% higher prices.
besides which, your first statement was the only true statement you said: substitute goods are available. IE, competition. and because prices arent the only way to absorb an increase in wages, that competition will mean companies will split the cost increase between their margins and their prices, with most of it likely going to their margins because he who keeps his prices down best will get the most customers while the other bleeds business.

you don't see just teenagers in most places. already nationwide the majority of minimum and wage jobs are held by adults, not teenagers.
you don't see adults there because the wage is high enough to attract them, but because that's the kind of work that they can do. other kinds of work still pay higher, and if they were qualified for them they'd be there instead. Raising the minimum wage has a ripple effect that increases everyones wages.

adults are not necessarily more productive than teenagers.

California didn't remove a rung.
They increased how high the ladder reaches.

Re:May spur automation

[tranquilidad]

It's called cascading inflation. If you raise everyone's wages at the same time then you haven't increased the value of the unit of pay and haven't improved anyone's lives. On the other hand, you can't manipulate one part of the market, such as forcing an increase in one segment, without having an affect on another.

An employer needs to get a certain value from their employee. A minimum wage law essentially states that it is illegal to value the productivity of a given employee below a defined level.

Let's assume that a market values programmers at $100,000/year. Your employer needs 2 programmers and the market says the value of those programming positions is $200,000/year and that market value also represents the utility value to the employer. The employer will go and hire 2 programmers for a total of $200,000/year. Now the government decides to step in and say it's illegal to hire anyone for less than $200,000/year. The employer still needs 2 programmers but the market and utility value of those programmers doesn't justify $400,000/year. I'm guessing that the 2 programmers that are needed won't be hired. Perhaps the employer will hire 1 programmer and pay overtime to get their true cost closer to the utility value of the task. Perhaps they will go to a different market via outsourcing or automate the procedure. The incentive is for the employer to find another solution to their labor unit cost that allows them to stay competitive in the market.

Let's take that down to the minimum-wage hamburger flipper. The easiest way to eliminate that job is to do what some fast food chains have already done to improve food safety - pre-cook the burgers in a central factory and turn the three or four former hamburger flippers into 1 or 2 microwave button pushers.

You can't push one part of the market without expecting it to affect another area.

There's another reason it hurts the lowest-income people the hardest; it makes the lower-value jobs more attractive to the higher-value employees. Let's say that hamburger flipping carries a market value of $5/hour but minimum wage pushes the price in the market paid to $10/hour. There are $10/hour valued workers who perform more difficult or dangerous jobs for that $10/hour. If the employer is forced to hire someone for $10/hour why wouldn't they hire the $10/hour valued worker who provides more value per unit of cost. If the $10/hour worker can work an easier or safer job for the same pay then why wouldn't they take that job. What happens to the $5/hour valued employee?

Of course, you may argue that if the $5/hour worker is being paid $10/hour then that will cause the $10/hour valued employee to be paid $15/hour. I refer you to my first point that raising everyone's pay increases the value of no one's pay.

Re:May spur automation

[dywolf]

not how it works.
not at all.

the minimum wage sets a floor that every other job in the company is effectively linked to.
For Moderately Hard Job B to attract workers from Easy Job A, it has to pay more.
raising the minimum wage increases the value of everyone's labor.

and raising the minimum wage doesn't cause inflation.
inflation happens on its own in a growing economy as more and more value is added continually.
rather, its the other around: the minimum wage is raised in order to keep buying power on pace with inflation.
not raising it reduced everyones buying power.

therefore the race to the bottom is when you pay people starvation wages, which lowers the value and buying power of everyone else's labor too.

Re:May spur automation

[Anonymous Coward]

$11.00 CAN is $8.47 US. The jump you're talking about is barely more than half the total sum of California's minimum wage.

What do you hypothesize would happen if the Canadian minimum wage were raised to $20.65 CAN ($15.00 US)?

Re:May spur automation

[bluefoxlucid]

So Canada's economy is defunct and was completely stagnate, not growing at all while the minimum wage raise went into effect?

Does the Canadian economy control the US economy?

Re:May spur automation

[ArmoredDragon]

I will never understand why minimum wage is not tied to inflation rates - this is a ridiculous argument to have Every Five Years.

If minimum wage was tied to inflation since it first started, then today it would be at about $4.25 an hour.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

Re:May spur automation

[dj245]

Here in Ontario, Canada, we raised the minimum wage from $10.25 to $11.00

That's about a 7% increase. We're talking a 50% increase here. The company I work for relies heavily on minimum wage-ish laborers for the manufacturing jobs, which are basically screwing caps on bottles, putting them in boxes. Real unskilled stuff, diploma and English not required. We're in Los Angeles, and when they announced the minimum wage hike, eyes immediately pointed just over the border to Ventura County, where no such increase was proposed. Now that this is looking to be a state-wide thing, a 50% increase in labor costs for the bulk of our production workers is going to make the automated fillers and cappers pretty much sell themselves. Either way it goes, it's going to drive the price per unit up. Labor isn't the main cost for producing products here, but when we price out to the tenth of a cent per unit, and we roll off hundreds of thousands of units per run, it begins to add up. This cost will either be passed on to the customer, or more likely, will lose us business as clients take their filling operations to states with lower labor costs and less distance to their distribution houses. Most of our min-wage laborers are day workers, so if there's no work, they don't show up or get paid. If work starts disappearing, the $15/hr doesn't mean a damn thing to them, and ultimately the whole scheme will hurt the very people it's supposedly helping.

I'm surprised you aren't doing automated fillers and cappers already. In most parts of the country, there was a strong economic case a long time ago. I visited a mineral water bottling facility in North Korea and they had automated filling and capping. Obviously that factory is mainly "for show", but this kind of equipment isn't that expensive or difficult to acquire.

The USA is an advanced high tech country. If you are relying on unskilled, lowly paid, disposable peons to manufacture/assemble product, China, India, and other developing countries are going to eat your lunch anyway. It is only a matter of time. Mechanizing is your only hope.

Re:May spur automation

[ArmoredDragon]

Oh and notice how on that graph that none of those real wage rates were anywhere close to $15 an hour, which is an absurdly high number. It's impossible to tell what will happen to California's economy once that happens, (because we've never seen anything like it) but I'm leaning towards "not good".

Re:May spur automation

[Anonymous Coward]

A larger increase is necessary just to reach sustainable conditions for California.

Re:May spur automation

[kwbauer]

Yeah, those ones. Look at how awesome Detroit is compared to the rest of the US. To borrow a phrase, it is a worker's paradise.

Re:May spur automation

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, adults work those jobs not because the pay is awesome. The cost of living in California is much higher than anytown Ohio. The pay they receive still isn't able to sustain a household.

Let's just say California reduced the minimum wage. What are those people going to do? Do you think adults want to flip fast-food burgers? Our good middle-class jobs have been largely sent overseas (normally those would be in some kind of factory). There are very few middle-income jobs so people do what they can to survive.

As mentioned elsewhere, the world has excess human production capacity as it is - by a lot. What are people supposed to be doing? There simply are far too few household-sustaining jobs worldwide to accommodate the workforce, and it's trending towards more workers and fewer jobs (with automation and AI). You have to start looking at a 'basic income' and lots of community-benefit types of work as opposed to all for-profit. Also, reducing the work week but not reducing salary so more people can be employed, and more people have time to pursue education or artistic careers.

Re:May spur automation

[kwbauer]

Given the structure of the US welfare system? More than you were when working a minimum wage job.

Re:May spur automation

[CrimsonAvenger]

raising the minimum wage increases the value of everyone's labor.

No. It raises the PRICE of everyone's labour. There is a difference.

Re:May spur automation

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a case for looking at taxing imports appropriately more than anything else. In fact, I'd say PR is a great example of what will happen to any country whose cost of living is higher than a neighbors - "free trade" as it is practiced today is not about raising all boats, but letting the water leak out of the pool until all boats are more or less equal.

Damn that's a scary post.

"Sounds like a case for looking at taxing ..."?

Really? The solution to unemployment caused by raising the price of labor beyond what the market can bear is MORE government intervention to "fix" things?

How about simply not fucking it up in the first place by "solving problems"?

Re:May spur automation

[CrimsonAvenger]

The other thing I'm concerned about is what happens to everyone else's pay. Will they guy that's now making $15/hour (like the EMTS, construction workers, etc.) now get $20?

Good question. I should note that when I was a young man, I never saw a minimum wage hike that affected my (higher) pay. I was just closer to minimum as a result....

Re:May spur automation

[GLMDesigns]

If Minimum wage increases killing jobs is a ridiculous notion then why don't we raise minimum wages to $100.00? No jobs would be lost according to you and all other intelligent progressives and most of us (myself included) would get a huge raise.

Re:May spur automation

[CrimsonAvenger]

$7.50/hr costs an employer (at full time)

Hardly relevant. Full time, I mean. At least since the ACA, you don't hire minimum wage people full time, since that requires you to pay health insurance costs. You hire them for Which is an interesting change from many years ago. I remember working night shift in a C-Store during college, full time, minimum wage. Nowadays, C-stores don't hire full time people other than the manager....

Re:May spur automation

[twotacocombo]

I'm surprised you aren't doing automated fillers and cappers already. The USA is an advanced high tech country. If you are relying on unskilled, lowly paid, disposable peons to manufacture/assemble product, China, India, and other developing countries are going to eat your lunch anyway. It is only a matter of time. Mechanizing is your only hope.

The case against automation for us is that were a job shop, and fill a huge variety of containers on just ~10 different lines, from tubes to bottles to jars, all different heights,widths, and shapes. Our typical run is fairly small, so we may do 2-3 different products on a line in any given day. Setting up the line with machinery for the smaller jobs would cost more than just parking a $10/hr laborer on the head end to manually hold a container under the automatic meter/dispenser, and one further down to cap it. We do have some rotary fillers and automated induction sealers, wrap labelers, etc.. but a lot of it is more practical to just park a body there and get it done. If labor goes up and we wind up automating more, we'll have to adjust the type of products we'll fill, which means ditching items like .5oz bottles, units with straw pumps, things that don't lend themselves well to automation on our current setup. Even though we don't rely heavily on automation, we still produce units far cheaper than many other filling houses that probably do. We're the cheaper/faster option of the cheap, fast, good triad. If we can't remain cheap, major changes will have to occur. We've been doing well operating as such for the past 40 years, but this massive bump to labor costs is impossible to ignore.

We aren't too concerned to losing business to 3rd world countries. A lot of our materials are customer provided. It would be time and cost prohibitive for them to ship heavy cardboard and bulk chemicals across the world, get the product brewed up and packaged (properly), and ship it all back. The consumers of these products would also balk at a "MADE IN CHINA" stamp on it. These aren't white label shampoos, they're pretty high end products for retail outlets that charge you way too much for them.

Re:May spur automation

[painandgreed]

Minimum wage increases killing jobs is a ridiculous notion - prices can always raise as well

Not true. You can't just arbitrarily raise prices when there are substitute goods available.

Well, it doesn't really seem to be an arbitrary raise in prices as just adjusting them to what they should be with inflation over the years. Right now we are pretty much in a "eating out" bubble because of both historically cheap food and cheap labor. On the labor side of things, this is just a correction, which might cause some people caught in the bubble but will generally be better over all.

Re:May spur automation

[PRMan]

This was Henry Ford's answer when he volunteered to raise his wages so his employees made enough to buy his cars.

Re:May spur automation

[GLMDesigns]

Sorry. Some workers will have more money but others will have less. You will pay more for your meal and have less to spend elsewhere. So what you have done is redistribution (may be a good idea or a bad idea) but what you will not have done to a much less extent than you this is to create more wealth in the economy at large. And, as often happens, you may actually cause a contraction in the economy.

Re:May spur automation

[PRMan]

Carl's Jr already has a machine that correctly cooks the patty the same way every time.

Re:May spur automation

[DigiShaman]

I will never understand why minimum wage is not tied to inflation rates

Because you don't understand economics. What you just proposed would be EXACTLY how you crash a fiat currency. To peg the minimum wage to inflation would create recursion (a logical loop) that would instantly hyper-inflate currency! It would start inflating so quickly, you'd eventually need LED price signs just to watch the number roll up in real-time. At some point, the value of the dollar is meaningless.

Re:May spur automation

[MitchDev]

"No. It raises the PRICE of everyone's labour. There is a difference."

DING DING DING, we have a winner who gets reality rather than what some book tells him...

Re:May spur automation

[Striek]

Yes, that is fair. My point was that we heard the exact same arguments.

It actually wasn't too long ago that we raised the minimum wage from $7.45 to $10.25, either. We increased it by about 50% in the seven years prior to 2011 (source) with little noticeable effect on unemployment (no source for that, but it all gets a tad murky due to the 2008 recession at that point).

Re:May spur automation

[Anonymous Coward]

I had the opportunity to sit in the kitchen of a retired mechanical engineer. I recall he worked at Caterpillar for a while but also a couple other places. He had some stories about the unions.

One story I recall was that there was a system to start trains that someone was trying to sell him. Apparently starting a train is a lengthy process, or at least was, with many steps which with the right hardware could be automated to take less time and effort. Well someone did the math on this and they could not buy this system. Turns out that rail engineers tend to be unionized, and part of the contract is that they get paid so much for starting the train being as this is a relatively lengthy and complex process. By automating the process the rail companies would have to pay for the hardware AND still have to pay the engineers as if this device did not exist. Getting the union to agree to have the engineers get a pay cut is unlikely to happen. What this also means is that the trains tend to idle in the yards because it's cheaper to burn the diesel than it is to pay the engineers to turn off and then restart the engines if idled for even relatively lengthy periods.

So, unions are dicks to their employers and the environment.

That was just one of many stories I got to hear about how the unions cause troubles for their employers, increasing costs and inhibiting advancement. I have no doubt that someone else came along with a better product than the union car makers. They are very reluctant to change even if it can make their lives easier.

I blame the unions.

Re:May spur automation

[dasgoober]

What world are you living in?
I have yet to see any employers looking to give their other employees $1/hr/year raises to counter-act the hikes in minimum wage.

Re:May spur automation

[ComputerGeek01]

People who make the "Moving goal post" argument always ignore the huge wage discrepancy in the corporate world. Keep in mind that people are the most expensive part of running any business. At $10 an hour an employee is making just over $20K a year while the CEO is making $250K+ every year. Now you're thinking that the CEO isn't going to take a pay cut due to raising wages, he'll just raise the prices of his goods and services as he is free to do so. But now I come in and am willing to perform the same service at a competing company but I am only taking $100K a year salary. All other things being the same, this gives me a huge economic advantage over the established competition. Either I offer my services at a much lower rate, I hire more people and increase my capacity or I pay my employee's better and draw the competitions experienced talent away from them. Heck, I could to do all three with that much of a gap and I'd still win the market! The point is that the salary of the higher ups is also a component that drives the cost of doing business which drives up the costs of the goods and services that they provide but it does not drive up the value. Once the price of a good or service spills over a certain breaking point, competition moves in and corrects the discrepancy.

tl;dr: To answer your question, you temper inflation by encouraging competition and eliminating artificial barriers to entry in markets.

Re:May spur automation

[Maxo-Texas]

There are many studies showing minimum wage in the united states isn't tightly correlated to unemployment. Clearly, logically, it could be. $15 is probably about $3 higher than it should be adjusted for inflation but $8 was $4 lower than it should be adjusted for inflation.

The problem with using inflation indices is that causes everyone in both parties to start manipulating the inflation indicator. Our CPI has specifically had high inflation consumer items removed several times and replaced with lower inflation items to artificially understate inflation.

I know milk is up 33% in the last 3 years. A lot of food is up over 20% in the last 3 years. Yet, it's not showing up in CPI. So high inflation for poor people (who spend a lot on food) but low inflation indicator due to items which poor people don't buy often (like brand new cars).

Re:May spur automation

[Gr8Apes]

The solution to unemployment caused by raising the price of labor beyond what the market can bear is MORE government intervention to "fix" things?

How about simply not fucking it up in the first place by "solving problems"?

Sure, how are you going to get the average wage to match up to the average cost of living? Rather than stating you don't like an offered solution because it offends you in some way, provide an alternative. HOW are you going to fix the reason that the labor price needs to go up?

Re:May spur automation

[magarity]

I will never understand why minimum wage is not tied to inflation rates

What you seem to want here is an institutionalized price-wage spiral, an economic situation where wages rise to match prices and prices rise to match wages. It happens naturally already and is a prime cause of inflation. To institutionalize it would make it go faster, which is more bad.

Re:May spur automation

[Herkum01]

It is a 50% raise over the 6 next years! That would mean about a 8.2% increase per year. That is faster than inflation but considering the minimum wage has gone from,

• 
     
• 2002 : 6.75

•    

• 2007 : 7.50 (11.1 percent increase in 5 years)

•    

• 2008 : 8.00 (6.7 percent increase in 1 year)

•    

• 2014 : 9.00 (12.5 percent increase in 6 years)

•    

• 2016 : 10.00 (11.5 percent increase in 2 years)

California has been fairly good in increase the minimum wage but it most years barely kept pace with inflation. The proposed increases are not drastically higher.

Re:May spur automation

[dj245]

Minimum wage increases killing jobs is a ridiculous notion - prices can always raise as well

Not true. You can't just arbitrarily raise prices when there are substitute goods available. Fast food is labor intensive. If the price goes up, more people will cook at home or purchase low-labor pre-packaged food at grocery stores (using the self-checkout line).

California already has a much higher minimum wage than the rest of the nation. If you go in a McDonalds in California, you don't see teenagers working there. You see adults, since the pay is enough to attract them. Adults are more productive than teenagers, so you need fewer of them. So California has removed an important rung on the economic ladder, by turning entry level jobs into permanent no-skill "careers" flipping burgers. This effect is worst in minority neighborhoods which already have extremely high teenage unemployment.

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but the vast majority of my fast-food purchases are because I am away from home and under time pressure for one reason or another. Fast food is the option of last resort. The theory of substitute goods doesn't enter into that decision at all. If I had another option, I would have taken it already.

Re:May spur automation

[bondsbw]

Which is pretty much admitting that a huge, sudden increase would cause big issues (such as sudden increases of unemployment) and that an incremental and smoother process helps.

Re: May spur automation

[WarJolt]

I'm not moving up there. It's fucking cold. My buying power is shit in California, but that's not why I live here. I can walk to the beach and work on tech. It keeps me from losing my mind from paying $1700 in rent each month.

Re:May spur automation

[Striek]

While I agree that this is an undesirable side effect of raising the minimum wage in some (or many?) circumstances, I also at the same time disagree with the idea that wages should be kept low (and in some cases well below the poverty line) simply to provide employment. By your argument, the result of this minimum wage hike is that McDonald's now has more productive workers at the expense of lesser skilled workers being more often unemployed. I see that as a zero-gain, but also zero-loss, proposition.

Now while your point that it removes an important rung on the economic ladder is at least in some (or again, many?) cases true, I tend towards my more capitalistic opinions - that wages should not be kept low simply to provide employment to the unskilled. There should be a wage floor that allows unskilled workers to consume baskets of goods, not merely subsist on them. For the record, I am currently unemployed, have been for a year, and live on a shoestring budget. 90% of my expenses are tax-free, give or take. Things like groceries, diapers, medications, rent, all of it is tax-free in most modern societies. Raise the minimum wage for my wife, and we'll have more money for luxuries, or at least, for taxable consumer goods, returning nearly all of that to the economy rather than a savings account or investment fund, and also returning more of it to government coffers.

Without minimum wage legislation, the market will tend towards indentured servitude (I know, that's a rather poignant term to use). I would rather see poverty level wages eliminated entirely, and a corresponding rise in unemployment, than see subsistence level wages proliferated. If that means I pay more for my Big Macs, I'm all for it. There is a reason I don't shop at WalMart, and don't buy clothing made in Bangladesh. I want the people who manufacture and sell my consumer goods to be capable of supporting a family. It's why I buy my coffee from Starbucks - they pay well (decently, at least, at least in Canada). I for one am happy to see more productive, and hopefully better paid, workers at McDonalds, knowing that the people working there can afford to feed a family. If that means higher unemployment, that is a sacrifice I am willing to make.

I suppose it all boils down to this - I'd rather see fewer better paying jobs than more lesser paying jobs (grammar, ugh...).

Re:May spur automation

[sa1lnr]

$5.00 over 6 years doesn't sound like much of a hike to me.

Re:May spur automation

[operagost]

I don't know what the hell milk is actually worth on the market, because I live in Pennsylvania. This is one of the top dairy producing states, and the bureaucrats decided they have to protect the industry from its own internal competition. So while milk was $2.30 in most of New York state in December, it was from $3.40-3.80 here.

Nice racket, if you can get it.

Re:May spur automation

[Penguinisto]

While I do agree that everyone's wages drive the cost of doing business, there's a problem: Wage discrepancy itself has frig-all to do with determining a workable minimum wage, and for one reason: that metric is honestly based in class envy, and nothing more.

Why? Because there is no sane and objective way to prove the argument that said discrepancy is the cause of poverty. There are a few reasons why, but they're all based on bad assumptions:

First, aggregate monetary wealth is not a static quantity, but grows and shrinks with the economy (usually growing). You do not have everyone fighting for a slice of the same static-sized pie.

Second, there is no way that the average worker making $20,800/yr ($10/hr) has the same skills/education/experience as the average worker making $250k/yr.

The demand and talent pools for each job are radically different - hence the difference. If competent janitors suddenly became ultra-scarce, and the toilets still needed cleaning, you would see janitors making $250k/yr and getting golden parachutes. Conversely, if competent CEOs were everywhere and every company already had one, their wages would drop like a rock.

All that aside, you did leave something out - cumulative effect: 500 $7.50/hr employees in a large company getting a $7.50/hr raise would suddenly cost the company at least an additional $7.8 million/yr, not counting the commiserate rise in FICA and etc. The CEO of the same company literally quadrupling his $250k salary couldn't come near touching that.

Re:May spur automation

[Striek]

Exactly this. Where do businesses expect to sell their products if too few people make enough money to buy them?

They have no idea. They expect to pay very little to the very poor, and sell very much to the very rich. That's the whole problem.

Re:May spur automation

[fche]

"I will never understand why minimum wage is not tied to inflation rates"

Because minimum wage rises are themselves inflationary. If they are tied to inflation, you get a positive feedback. This might serve the desires of debt-crazy governments, but not savers.

Re:May spur automation

[CrimsonAvenger]

Of course, you may argue that if the $5/hour worker is being paid $10/hour then that will cause the $10/hour valued employee to be paid $15/hour. I refer you to my first point that raising everyone's pay increases the value of no one's pay.

Note that in the case you describe, the former $5/hr guy is getting his pay doubled, and the former $10/hr guy is getting a 50% increase....

Re:May spur automation

[Penguinisto]

Citation, please.

I ask because the increased costs can only be "spread out over the production of the employee" when said employees increase their aggregate productivity enough to cover said cost increase. Odds are that's not going to happen. Secondly, costs are not just going up for the end consumer - they'll go up on products sold by wholesalers, suppliers, vendors, call-them-what-you-will, so the business has to take that into account as well.

Meanwhile, product costs going up across the board, across all industries and product ranges, for *any reason at all*, is the classic hallmark of inflation. Smith never debunked that under any condition that I'm aware of, which is why there's now a demand for a citation. Oh, and raising a certain percentage of wages (especially by government edict) will definitely stand as a catalyst for rising costs across the board.

Now if you had said that the employers can just eat it and trim their profits without trying to call on Mr. Smith to justify it? Well that's a nice sentiment and all, but when that happens the shareholders (and if you have a 401k, this means you) would see lower dividends, and stock prices would become sluggish.

Of course, there is an argument you could have used, but chose not to: Only 3% of US workers make minimum wage.

However, that has a problem too. Let's make it simple: The pool secretary gets her raise, and suddenly the executive secretary (her manager, who previously made $15/hr before the hike) will start demanding a raise as well, and this demand will ripple upwards throughout the pay scale. Even simpler: The burger flipper got a raise, but what about the shift leader? Does he not deserve a raise too, since he has more experience and better relative skills? What about the store manager after that happens? The regional chain manager? I trust you can see where this is going...

Re:May spur automation

[NotDrWho]

If they could automate your job or send it overseas, they would do that no matter whether you raised the minimum wage or not. $7.25 or $15, the difference is trivial next to $1/hr for some third-world laborer or the free-minus-maintenance costs of automation. The jobs we're talking here are ones that can't be outsourced or automated practically. As long as you don't jack up the minimum wage to the point where no one could afford their product, then those jobs probably aren't going away any time soon.

Re:May spur automation

[Penguinisto]

One company raising its wagers != *all* companies raising their wages (and subsequent costs, etc).

Ford also had the advantage of being among the first to implement full nose-to-tail industrialization (with ultra-standardized parts and processes) in his factories, which cut his costs drastically enough to afford the increased overhead.

Re:May spur automation

[Cyberax]

That narrative is a trifle bit incorrect. Puerto Rico has always relied on pharma industry with its high-paying jobs. And it's actually _expanding_ now, not contracting.

Re:May spur automation

[Penguinisto]

I agree with the first part, but, as others have also pointed out, a jump in minimum wage will suddenly make automation a lot cheaper and a whole lot more attractive in the new ($15/hr) world order...

Re:May spur automation

[Cyberax]

I think way to many people forget where that extra $5 is going to come from: higher prices.

However, prices do NOT rise as fast as the salary.

This is the definition and cause of inflation. Someone gets more pay, the prices go up, everything nets out to be the same.

Nope. That would be true only if the cost of the goods was 100% composed of minimum-wage salary.

Re:May spur automation

[Penguinisto]

True, but healthcare is not the whole pie, and really doesn't diminish the result.

Re:May spur automation

[ComputerGeek01]

Oh I completely agree. But what I was pointing out is that the idea of a moving goal post is flawed because it assumes that the free market has any interest in allowing existing entities to survive. Competition prevents the positive feedback loop that you had mentioned which in turn actually does allow us to set the minimum wage based on a living standard, at least at a small scale. You're right in that companies with hundreds of employees would see a much larger increase in labor costs. But if their market can't absorb the increase in cost then maybe several smaller businesses, which are easier to manage, should supply that market instead. The now displaced CEO will move on and either find a job at another large company that can support his demands, or they will take a job at one of the smaller entities at a significant pay cut. Demand begets supply and anything that is too important to lose and yet too expensive to support should be nationalized.

There is no efficiency to be gained with these megalithic corporations running everything, and in fact the exact opposite is demonstrably true. Small to medium business with cut-throat competition is the only stable way to go.

Re:May spur automation

[__aaclcg7560]

That was just one of many stories I got to hear about how the unions cause troubles for their employers, increasing costs and inhibiting advancement.

My father and I were in construction. We down to the union hall to resolve a problem that my father had. The secretary told us that the union rep was out for the rest of the day. My father asked her which bar he could find the union rep in. She blurted out a name before realizing she shouldn't have told us. Long story short, we found the union rep and my father got his problem resolved.

Re:May spur automation

[shawn2772]

Here in Ontario, Canada, we raised the minimum wage from $10.25 to $11.00, and unemployment went down in the following months and year, from around 7.5 %to 6.75% (source [thestar.com]). While that doesn't prove that minimum wage increases never result in unemployment rises, it does disprove that they always result in unemployment rises.

No, it doesn't disprove that, actually. For all we know, without the minimum wage increase unemployment may have dropped to 6% over the same period. An isolated pair of data points like that can't prove anything.

Re:May spur automation

[delt0r]

What the fuck are you talking about. Much of the rest of the world has minimum wages far above California's wage. Yet we are not awash in slums. Child labor laws, liability problems and PR killed the teen jobs years ago and has little to do with minimum wage. Legally getting someone younger than 18 to sign a contract is problematic. But it is really not such a big deal. Adults that would get a job at MaDonalds are hardly engineers or anything.

Re:May spur automation

[delt0r]

In the EU minimum wages are tied to inflation rates. I don't think you understand economics or even what fiat currency is.

Re:May spur automation

[eam]

Ford raising its wages did put pressure on other companies to do the same. Otherwise Ford ends up luring away all your best employees & you're left with the mouth breathers that Ford didn't want. That was part of Ford's intent. He didn't just want his employees as customers, he wanted everyone's employees as costumers. For that to happen, he needed as many people as possible to make more money.

Ford is a great example of a heartless capitalist treating employees well not because it was the right thing to do, but because he was able to make more money by doing it. Unfortunately, that sort of wisdom seems rare today, but it isn't completely absent:

https://www.ted.com/talks/nick...

Re:May spur automation

[lorenlal]

Yes, indeed, inflation will probably increase.

If you notice, inflation for the last several years has been about 1%. Which is below the usual target rate of 2% in most world markets. This isn't a bad thing, because inflation allows central banks more flexibility in setting interest rates without going negative.

Re:May spur automation

[Areyoukiddingme]

The consumers of these products would also balk at a "MADE IN CHINA" stamp on it. These aren't white label shampoos, they're pretty high end products for retail outlets that charge you way too much for them.

There's your answer. The retail price of the products you package is already ridiculously inflated. Either it can be slightly more ridiculously inflated or those assholes can accept a slightly lower profit. Either way, your company can increase your prices to pay your workers better. If you're as cheap and fast as you believe, you'll still be competitive. It's not like new production lines can be put together overnight, or even in a few years, especially considering the massive risk-aversion of capital today. No one is going to open a new bottle filling and capping plant in the Midwest and steal your business.

Re:May spur automation

[CrimsonAvenger]

Inflation is caused by more by companies taking excessive profits since the increased cost multiplies as their production goes down the supply chain.

Umm, no.

Inflation is an increase in the money supply without a corresponding increase in the things money buys (a gold strike, back in the day of gold currencies, produced more or less automatic inflation). With modern fiat currencies, inflation is caused entirely by government action, since they control the money supply.

Re:May spur automation

[i41Overlord]

Except this simply did not happen. Ford offered a safety package in the 1950s but consumers weren't too interested in it. By the 1960s the NHTSA implemented laws that all cars sold in the US had to follow. The Japanese carmakers really entered the scene much later, in the mid/late 1970s. They gained popularity not because of their superior safety features but rather their lower price. This was made possible by the exchange rate of the Japanese Yen to the US dollar and currencies in Western Europe.

Re:May spur automation

[nytes]

By year 5? Well...

The Zombie Apocalypse occurs?

Re:May spur automation

[funwithBSD]

I don't understand how they are stolen.

It is like 3 ecosystems that suddenly lose 25% of their ability to support life. Say a drought kills off 25% of the food supply.

The one on the edge has a sudden deficit. Lots of animals die.

The one with a 15% surplus has some deaths, but not as many.

The abundent one has no deaths, because it was 30% under load anyway. Now it is 5%.

No animals were stolen, or food stolen, it is just that the resources needed for them to survive disappeared.

I am sure you can map those to poor, middle class and affluent neighborhoods and demand for money that just is not available.

Re:May spur automation

[Keith111]

You really shouldn't use California as a baseline for this though. Adults work at McDonalds here because they take part time jobs as secondary jobs.
The cost of living is so high that even if minimum wage was 15 here they'd be about as well off as someone working current minimum wage in most of the rest of the country.
Not only that, but we have a lot of ... migrant workers who are working up from nothing. They will take anything and if you're going to choose between a desperate worker that will do anything to keep their job vs a teenager, the choice is easy.

Re:May spur automation

[psmoot]

But then again, it may not...

Here in Ontario, Canada, we raised the minimum wage from $10.25 to $11.00, and unemployment went down in the following months and year, from around 7.5 %to 6.75% (source). While that doesn't prove that minimum wage increases never result in unemployment rises, it does disprove that they always result in unemployment rises.

As others have pointed out, Canada made a small change and saw small changes in unemployment. It would be quite hard to measure the effect because so many other things changed at the same time. As a counter-example, Seattle seems to be losing jobs as Washington state gains them. It's still early so we don't know if this trend will hold.

Finally, I don't know any economist who asserts raising the minimum wage will always raise unemployment. At most they'll say that holding all else equal, that's a likely outcome. Problem is, it's virtually impossible to hold all else equal. It's also entirely possible employers adjust in other ways, such as cutting overtime, reducing benefits, reducing staffing, or increasing automation. Or they may raise prices or cut their profit margins. As it turns out, those last two are very hard to do in highly competitive markets (and many low-wage markets are also highly competitive).

Re:May spur automation

[sumdumass]

Nah. A living wage is subjective anyways. You who live by yourself need a different amount than my wife and I who both work and need a different amount than my brother who has 3 roommates and splits costs.

Minimum wage was never supposed to be a career wage. The only reason they can get by with paying it is because unemployment is so high and the economy is shot. Because of that, people are trying to make careers out of being a whopper flopper and whatever other shit jobs they can find to get by.

Re:May spur automation

[AK Marc]

I think you've answered your own question: in some industries, minimum wage is already at the cost of production,

I've seen that stated many times, but never supported. Janitors and all that, but I've never seen a company fire the cleaning staff and hire Roomba. Roomba doesn't empty the trash bins, and dust the hand-rails.

For companies like Wal-Mart, it's true, but only because the "cost of production" is the wages. Raising the wages raises the cost of production such that the wages never exceed the cost of production, by definition.

But the implication that raising the wages of a low-value employee will result in job loss has never been shown to be true.

Re:May spur automation

[AK Marc]

I refer you to my first point that raising everyone's pay increases the value of no one's pay.

So you are saying that if you raise the wage of the lowest workers from $10 to $15, you automatically raise the wages of the CEO from $10M to $15M?

No, you don't. So the inflation isn't equal, so it works out to a tax on the CEO, paid directly to the poorest workers.

Re:May spur automation

[Maxo-Texas]

A gallon of milk costs $6 in Texas now.

A half gallon costs between $2.68 and $3.85.

You can get milk cheaper at $1.75 a half gallon but it goes bad in 7 days so you have to drink it quickly.

Re:May spur automation

[sociocapitalist]

So at what objective point does one set this wage without creating a self-feeding loop that pushes it upwards?

It's going to go up whether people are working or if they get their money from 'basic income' (including welfare) so I'd rather ask the question, does the source of that income to the lower class make any difference in the rate of inflation?

And my guess would be that it does not as the overall money supply does not need to change - only the distribution of what already exists that is currently being distributed mostly upwards.

Re:May spur automation

[sociocapitalist]

If you go in a McDonalds in California, you don't see teenagers working there. You see adults, since the pay is enough to attract them. Adults are more productive than teenagers, so you need fewer of them. So California has removed an important rung on the economic ladder, by turning entry level jobs into permanent no-skill "careers" flipping burgers. This effect is worst in minority neighborhoods which already have extremely high teenage unemployment.

And if you have a low enough minimum wage that adults can't make a living doing such jobs then yes you have less youth unemployment but at the same time more adults / families who would otherwise be working instead have to rely on welfare / social assistance.

How is that a win?

Re:May spur automation

[sociocapitalist]

Okay, so why does it remove entry-level jobs for minorities but apparently not for white teenagers?

Because white kids have a lot more opportunities. Many of them don't want a job, because they are too busy studying for college. Or they work part-time at their daddy's business. Black and Hispanic kids are at the bottom, so when that last rung is taken away, they get hurt the most.

For a clear illustration of what happens when you push "white" solutions onto communities where they don't apply, look what happened in Puerto Rico. The economy was doing well, and it was a hub for low end manufacturing, mostly paying about $3 an hour. Then the courts ruled that federal minimum wage laws had to apply to PR. So overnight the wages went up to $7.25, and the jobs disappeared. So instead of making $3 an hour, the workers were making $0 an hour, debts piled up as people stopped paying taxes, and now PR is bankrupt, and seeking a federal bailout.

What happened to PR will likely not happen in California, because the change will happen more slowly, and California has a far more diverse economy. But the same principles apply, and the worst effects will be on the people that can least afford it.

No. I'm white and I grew up in a home for children that had kids from all ethnic backgrounds and none of us had any money. Those of us who made good decisions have done well and those of us who made bad decisions have not done well. This had nothing to do with race at all. Same situation. Same opportunities. Same chances. Different decisions, different results.

What happened in PR had nothing to do with ethnicity. If they were white the exact same thing would have played out.

Re:May spur automation

[sociocapitalist]

Here in Ontario, Canada, we raised the minimum wage from $10.25 to $11.00

That's about a 7% increase. We're talking a 50% increase here. The company I work for relies heavily on minimum wage-ish laborers for the manufacturing jobs, which are basically screwing caps on bottles, putting them in boxes. Real unskilled stuff, diploma and English not required. We're in Los Angeles, and when they announced the minimum wage hike, eyes immediately pointed just over the border to Ventura County, where no such increase was proposed. Now that this is looking to be a state-wide thing, a 50% increase in labor costs for the bulk of our production workers is going to make the automated fillers and cappers pretty much sell themselves. Either way it goes, it's going to drive the price per unit up. Labor isn't the main cost for producing products here, but when we price out to the tenth of a cent per unit, and we roll off hundreds of thousands of units per run, it begins to add up. This cost will either be passed on to the customer, or more likely, will lose us business as clients take their filling operations to states with lower labor costs and less distance to their distribution houses. Most of our min-wage laborers are day workers, so if there's no work, they don't show up or get paid. If work starts disappearing, the $15/hr doesn't mean a damn thing to them, and ultimately the whole scheme will hurt the very people it's supposedly helping.

Would I be wrong in guessing that a percentage of your no diploma, no English day workers are working under the table for cash?

If so, legislation about minimum wage won't change much.

Re: May spur automation

[Salgak1]

I see a lot of empty storefronts out there. That would suggest either:

(1) A lot of people have already chosen to take their ball and go home (unlikely), or

(2) A lot of people had that choice made for them by failing to meet expenses. I suspect this is the overwhelming majority of the cases. . .

Re:May spur automation

[dublin]

Would someone please tell me what's wrong with a minimum wage of $99.00/hour, then? That would certainly solve our poverty problems, wouldn't it?

Do these people have ANY idea how economics works? (If they don't, perhaps they can start with the "Sixth Century Political Economics" chapter in Mark Twain's "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court"...)

Remember: The true minimum wage is ALWAYS ZERO! (i.e., the job goes away or is never created)

Re:May spur automation

[coinreturn]

...while the CEO is making $250K+ every year.

I think you better add a lot of +'s to that. A CEO making only $250K would be laughed at by all the others. The company I work for pays the CEO $20M+ per year - and that is standard in this industry!

Re: May spur automation

[dryeo]

(3) Small businesses are being pushed out of business by large businesses that benefit from the economics of scale.

This is what has happened where I live. Used to be lots of small thriving stores, then big box stores moved in, including a Walmart, all of which can operate cheaper then a small business regardless of what the minimum wage is.
Also years of a stagnant minimum wage here means that many people really have to be careful with their money.

Re:May spur automation

[twotacocombo]

Would I be wrong in guessing that a percentage of your no diploma, no English day workers are working under the table for cash?

If so, legislation about minimum wage won't change much.

Well, we aren't exactly a sweat shop in some seedy neighborhood down by the docks. A lot of this industry relies on a fluctuating workforce, so we rent them out from legit staffing agencies. We let them know the day before how many bodies we need, and they get them here. We pay the agency a set amount per head, which is min wage + fees, and they get to worry about the paperwork. Regardless of the legal status of these workers, we definitely will be required to pay the agency the legal wage for them.

Re: May spur automation

[Salgak1]

. . .which means FEWER full-time employees pushed harder, if you mandate FTE and Benefits.

Hint: your pay is what you get in trade for your labor. If the employer has to pay you more, he or she is going to try to get at least that much more labor out of you; And when it gets to the point, where the mandated wages and benefits outweigh the cost of automation over a reasonable period of time. . . . poof. . .the job goes away. Permanently. You don't have to be a nuclear rocket brain surgeon to figure this out. . .

Re:May spur automation

[djinn6]

In your scenario, the problem is caused by automation in the beginning, not a rise in minimum wage. Businesses can easily avoid higher labor costs incurred by minimum wage by transitioning full time workers to part time or decreasing the amount of hours worked.

The chain of events also seems to be very tenuous logic. Here's another cycle based on the same type of reasoning: The minimum wage will increase earnings in the time between the law changing and people getting laid off. A bunch of people with extra money is a boom to business, which leads them to hire more to handle demand, which in turn raises wages further, completely averting the recessionary cycle. A cursory glance suggests both cycles are possible. So how do we know which one makes sense? We look at experimental data. There's a number of studies done on the subject, but I think the Dept. of Labor is a good place to start.

Re:May spur automation

[david_thornley]

Way too many people think that costs are just rolled into prices, apparently not understanding what supply and demand curves have to do with prices. It's not nearly that simple. It will raise costs for industries that rely heavily on cheap labor, but it will barely affect other industries. For industries that use a lot of cheap workers, they will have a combination of raised prices and lowered profit. (You're also not particularly knowledgeable on inflation.)

The knock-on effect on people's pay will be pretty much limited to the lower pay scales. People now making $15/hour will get paid more, but people making $40/hour are unlikely to be affected. Exactly how much this will affect total labor costs I don't know, but it isn't nearly a 50% increase.

I have no idea why you think everyone would be happy with a $15/hour job. I really like making a lot more than that, and I think people making any reasonable minimum wage would like to earn more. $15/hour really isn't all that much. As a full-time job for one person, it's a lot less than median US household income.

Re:May spur automation

[bradrum]

This is pretty much what I would say as well. Employers threatening the end of the world is mostly propaganda. And then they also threaten automation in this case which is usually something that requires large amounts of investment and time to get correct.

So automation is not just something that you up and do on a reactionary basis. So I call this as bullshit.

Re:May spur automation

[bradrum]

You could say the same thing about hundreds of businesses in major cities, like NYC, where there almost always lower priced substitute options than higher priced, manual labor intensive options, but due to convenience and marketing they are very profitable. So you are totally neglecting convenience, which is pretty much what fast food operates upon.

Also you neglect that for convenience & marketing reasons people will pay can and will more for the same product & many times lower quality products as well. A perfect example of this would be how much more (as a percentage of their salaries and many times outright) poor people pay for food & transit in urban areas because that is what is offered to them. So while there will be a highly group of tight wads that scour the entire metro area for cheaper options, something like a minimum wage raise is not going to stop people from buying local junk food.

The second part of what you said is just on anecdotal fluff. Living wage tests in Canada have shown that paying people a basic wage doesn't lead to growth stagnation in adults. So the idea that all adults are going to give up on school or academics and flip burgers is just scare tactics as well.

Re:May spur automation

[siliconsmiley]

Will need some actual evidence to support your supposition. This argument is used every time a minimum adjustment debate begins. And then, nothing happens. The sky does not fall. Our economy does not collapse on itself. Life goes on. Costs get spread out to the consumer. The consumer deals with it.

Re:May spur automation

[kenwd0elq]

Bad analogy; it's not that difficult to ship manufacturing overseas and import cars and computers. Hamburgers don't travel well; for some reason, people seem to prefer fresh ones.

So I can certainly believe that a series of sharp jumps in the "minimum wage" will transfer a lot of high school kids' jobs to robots. Kids are unreliable employees; they take vacations and slack off or fail to show up for their shifts at all, and robots don't. Because the true MINIMUM wage is always ZERO.

By 2025, the only human employee at Burger King will be the technician who maintains the hamburger-making robot.

Re: May spur automation

[sumdumass]

And i see you are adding as much intelligent input to the conversation as always.

Tell me something. Why is it that when your arguments fall apart under the slightest cursory examination that you turn to attempted insulting? Do you actually think you are winning the argument or something?

Re:May spur automation

[ai4px]

Wish I had mod points.... wow the media told us about PR going belly up, never mentioned the min wage! Thanks for info!

Re:May spur automation

[ai4px]

Inflation is caused by inflating the money supply. Like when the federal government sells bonds to the federal reserve and they print more dollars. Cost increase will happen when the price of taxes, materials, labor or other overhead goes up. The cost simply must be passed along. Two very different things, although they result in the same thing... my hamburger costs more.

Re:May spur automation

[kwbauer]

I'm just using a phrase I have heard others use to describe countries where the workers are completely in charge like the USSR and Cuba, etc. And no, I don't believe the workers were any better off under those regimes either but some people do.

Re:May spur automation

[tihokibertron]

Wouldn't basic income be a more stable solution than min wage? Say, a percentage of the per capita GDP.

Re:May spur automation

[Cyberax]

Not 100%, not even close. You are forgetting that no business is an island, operating alone and unaffected by other businesses. There is a long supply chain to produce even the simplest goods. Small changes in the supply chain affect everybody downstream.

That's what I said. In reality, minimum wage increases do not cause significant price increases and little inflation at least until the wage is way up. It's an empirical result supported by the theory.

Re:May spur automation

[n3ond4x]

Okay, so why does it remove entry-level jobs for minorities but apparently not for white teenagers?

Because white kids have a lot more opportunities. Many of them don't want a job, because they are too busy studying for college. Or they work part-time at their daddy's business. Black and Hispanic kids are at the bottom, so when that last rung is taken away, they get hurt the most.

For a clear illustration of what happens when you push "white" solutions onto communities where they don't apply, look what happened in Puerto Rico. The economy was doing well, and it was a hub for low end manufacturing, mostly paying about $3 an hour. Then the courts ruled that federal minimum wage laws had to apply to PR. So overnight the wages went up to $7.25, and the jobs disappeared. So instead of making $3 an hour, the workers were making $0 an hour, debts piled up as people stopped paying taxes, and now PR is bankrupt, and seeking a federal bailout.

What happened to PR will likely not happen in California, because the change will happen more slowly, and California has a far more diverse economy. But the same principles apply, and the worst effects will be on the people that can least afford it.

This is complete bullshit. I'm white, came from lower middle class, and my "daddy" didn't have any business for me to work at. I worked at McDonald's at 17 to save for my first car and there were more minorities who could barely speak comprehensible English working than there were middle class white kids with all of these "opportunities". Also I had to take out STUDENT LOANS to pay for my college. If you're a minority odds are it was all paid for you. I HAD TO GET GOOD GRADES to get into my school. Thanks to affirmative action I had way more competition with far LESS COMPETENT people. People who would rather learn how to speak improperly in order to stay "real" than to actually try for success. How is that MY fault? I'm not their fucking parents. Minorities are the ones who have the upper hand in this society. The problem is that most of them chose the route of ignorance instead of knowledge and success. That's a parental problem. My parents were not rich, they did not get me any jobs, they did not buy my first car at 17, they did not buy my way into college, they did not pay for my college tuition, they did not cosign on ANY loan I have ever taken out, they did not pay the down payment on my first house at 26, and they did not cosign on my mortgage. I did all of this all on my own and it would have been easier if I were a minority, less competent, and if I would have not been as responsible. For example I didn't qualify for an $8000 subsidy on my down payment for my first home because I had "saved too much". That's how Obama rewards responsibility. Quit bitching about minorities not having the same opportunities, they're just as available, and they are even given a boost over whites. We are well past our grandparent's generation where that wasn't the case so quit your bitching, everyone is tired of it. The age of PC for obnoxious "minorities" is finally fucking over.

Re: May spur automation

[JoostT]

Yeah, but somehow nobody figures that a wage increase means more people with money to spend in these kinds of businesses.

Sounds good.

[Kenja]

The goal of any advanced civilization should be 100% unemployment and automation.

Re:Sounds good.

[religionofpeas]

Why would the machine owners want to keep the others alive ?

Re:Sounds good.

[Archangel Michael]

You're absolutely wrong. But not for the reasons you think.

People need a purpose in life, and that is "Work". Without purpose, you'll see the same things as what is happening in Ghettos today, people with no purpose, no meaning in life, trying to build meaning in harmful ways (gangs, drugs ...)

The amount of self worth is directly attributed to the work we do. Which is why, I tell people to find jobs they actually enjoy doing.

Re:Sounds good.

[Anonymous Coward]

What would 'income' even mean in such a world?

Re:Sounds good.

[guises]

Obviously, they don't. Why would the others want to allow the machine owners to continue owning those machines?

Re:Sounds good.

[fustakrakich]

That's right. Automation should mean lower prices, or free, price to be determined by human effort. A replicator in every garage.

Re:Sounds good.

[rubycodez]

taxes? funding? no I think you are confused on how such a society would be built

Re:Sounds good.

[kheldan]

..and you're absolutely right. People do need a purpose, and without something productive like work, they tend to do destructive things as often as not. There is an old saying: "Idle hands are the devils' playthings", and it's 100% correct. Bored people end up doing stupid and destructive things (not ALL people, but enough for it to be an issue). If we lived in some so-called 'utopia' where nobody had to work and machines did every needful thing, we'd have utter chaos, as the billions found themselves bored stiff and getting into trouble.

Re:Sounds good.

[Qzukk]

Until CEOs are automated, they're going to have to be paid somehow.

Re:Sounds good.

[Archangel Michael]

You are just emphasizing my point. Thank you.

You should have pointed to Paris Hilton as well.

Re:Sounds good.

[Archangel Michael]

Humans have a need to create and provide for their families. You take that away, and you'll have utter chaos and uncivil society. And there will be people, who will work because by working they will control the masses, for their own power/greed etc.

Re:Sounds good.

[cyber-vandal]

People would spend time doing what they wanted to do which could include art, literature, sport, playing video games, learning a language, studying science, travelling and many other things. Things that people can't do now due to financial restrictions. I'd love to spend my days playing soccer, lifting weights, learning Spanish, playing guitar, yoga and many other things. At the moment I have a full-time job so I can only devote a small amount of time relatively speaking to some of those things above. If I live long enough to retire I'm going to be doing at least the less strenuous of the abovementioned.

Re:Sounds good.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can assure everyone that the goal of any business is NOT, I repeat, NOT, to provide employment for someone. It is to make money for the business owner or the shareholders.

And no amount of legislation, no amount of left-wing feel-goodism, will change that. You can't legislate that away. Sorry.

Re:Sounds good.

[fluffernutter]

In case you didn't notice, most of the things you listed require an income, which requires work of some sort. At one time there was a concept of a 40 hour work week so that everyone had a stable balance between work and personal time and they could do those things you listed. It only took around 20 years for that concept to be abolished. Millions of people without work or money won't be having too many personal hobbies. It won't end well.

Re:Sounds good.

[ShanghaiBill]

Obviously, they don't. Why would the others want to allow the machine owners to continue owning those machines?

The greatest labor saving device in history is the washer/dryer. Would you allow your neighbor to own one?

Why do you think that only "the rich" will own labor saving machines? Most middle class people own some sort of computer, a washer/dryer, a microwave, etc. 3D printers are already under $500, and multiple families could share one. A food growing robot for you backyard shouldn't cost more than $1000 in parts (the rest is software and other NRE).

An automated fast food restaurant will not need workers, but it will also mean much lower costs, which in a competitive market will mean much lower prices for consumers.

Throughout history, rapid technological change has caused temporary disruption, but in the end, has resulted in broadly higher standards of living for nearly everyone.

Re:Sounds good.

[ArmoredDragon]

This is exactly the point that I think a lot of people miss about automation. There's a lot of menial jobs that suck, and a perfect example of such a job is flipping burgers. Wouldn't it be better if nobody had to do it at all, and you could spend your time doing better things? Yet it needs to get done somehow.

Also, it's a lofty goal and all to say that we should pay all of the burger flippers six figures, however, that's just not realistic because you're effectively asking somebody else to pay them a salary that you yourself wouldn't ever pay them, even if you had that kind of money to begin with. Another reason is because the people that can do that kind of job are a dime a dozen (and I almost want to use that expression literally, because it fits so well here.) The high paying jobs come from skills that are both in demand AND difficult to find, because the would be employers need to outbid other employers for your time.

But, imagine if all of the (menial) bare necessities in life were available to you if you just asked for it, and didn't have to give anything in return, (nor would you be expected to, as in communism) then as AC alluded to, what would you need an income for?

Re:Sounds good.

[silas_moeckel]

Simple they do not know how to use them themselves.

Re:Sounds good.

[Procrasti]

No... you don't need need to remove capitalism or the current system... the free market is the most optimal way of allocating resources (vis the first fundamental theorem of welfare economics)... however, a tweak is required to allow the benefits of automation to be shared amongst all while allowing the incentives capitalism generates to operate, and I believe that is a tax on wealth (tax on the ownership of that capital) to be redistributed as a basic income (vis the second fundamental theorem of welfare economics).

So... free market with wealth tax and basic income would give us an automated post scarcity utopia.

Re:Sounds good.

[RabidReindeer]

But can you build a flying car?

Re:Sounds good.

[RabidReindeer]

Wealth, as we have seen so thoroughly demonstrated over the past 30 years, does not trickle down.

But fortunately, most technology does.

For which we should be most grateful.

Re:Sounds good.

[Type44Q]

The goal of any advanced civilization should be 100% unemployment and automation.

Sounds like an idealistic notion from a brilliant individual who never looked up from a fucking book long enough to actually notice anything useful about the civilization around them...

Re:Sounds good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most CEOs can be automated with a Magic 8-ball.

Re:Sounds good.

[BronsCon]

Naw... Just remove the clause between the commas.

And there will be people ... for their own power/greed etc.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Wait...

How do people mess up such a simple rule?

Re:Sounds good.

[fluffernutter]

Perhaps my post didn't have to be so snarky but it is still a valid point.. If we're going to talk about moving to an economy where work is not required that's great but at lease make some productive recommendation on how that can be done. At some point 'income' has to be detached from 'work done'. It's an important conversation that has a happen eventually, because we're headed for a lot of starvation, violence, and general misery for 95% of the population unless it gets figured out soon.

Re:Sounds good.

[Opportunist]

Nearly every CEO can be replaced with a very small script, provided you have a good enough entropy source for the random number generator.

Re:Sounds good.

[Opportunist]

Advanced? I'd be happy if we could act like we were civilized people.

Re:Sounds good.

[Opportunist]

Self interest.

Those that have always have more to lose and less to gain than those that don't have. History has shown what happens when the latter get pushed past the breaking point. It's usually messy and ends the lives of some of those that really had a lot to lose.

Re:Sounds good.

[argStyopa]

It's not the point of a business to "care for" those who cannot contribute.

Businesses are (theoretically) about efficiency; they will seek the most efficient solution to the problem.

If some socialists are successfully able to sell the bread & circuses idea that the government should mandate they be paid more (despite their complete replaceability) don't expect business to put on their sympathy hat and decide "oh well".

If a person costs $15/hour ($30k/year, plus unpredictable sick days, plus harassment lawsuits, plus workman's comp, plus training) and a machine costs $25k/year (including installation, service, parts), that person is OUT OF A JOB.

Sad that you can only find shitty low-paying jobs? Start your own business, then you can pay yourself and your employees whatever you want - sorry, whatever you think is FAIR.
"The world still needs ditch diggers" is even becoming obsolescent.

Re: Sounds good.

[Joe_Dragon]

and what happens when people are better off living in jail / prison then out on street? and then who will pay for that? and who will pay when they go to the robo McDonalds to steal food / beat the shit out of the robot just to get in?

Re: Sounds good.

[Opportunist]

If the current problem of terrorism shows one thing, then that this is patently false.

If I have nothing and you have everything, I can not only win, I can actually not lose. You, on the other hand, can only lose. Because you have nothing to gain from fighting me. Fighting me accomplishes nothing for you. I have nothing you could want or use. You, on the other hand, do have a lot that I could want or use.

What have we gained in this war on terror so far? Well? Name it. I could not really think of a single thing that we won. But boy, did we lose. Liberty. Safety. Not to mention the waste of money and human lives. We have to fear the next attack.

Are we winning yet?

Re:Sounds good.

[Anonymous Coward]

But the real world shows that a large majority of people wouldn't do that. Let's just look at education. Education is free through high school. Yet many people (in some places the majority) waste this opportunity to spend every day 9 months a year learning for free. They would rather engage in non-productive activities. At the Community College level the prices are very low and in some states also free. Yet still there are many people who would rather sit at home drawing free money rather than take advantage of the free or low cost education they can get.
A large number of people would speed all their free time not creating art or literature or learning a new language, they would spend it just the same way they do now. Watching TV, play video games, using mid altering substances, getting laid and appearing on Jerry Springer or one of the many clone shows now on TV. Basically wasting their opportunity to have a useful life.

Re:Sounds good.

[orgelspieler]

There's more to it than that. You don't need burger flippers in a society where people can do what they love. There are so many people who like to cook, you could probably find somebody to do it for you in exchange for something you're good at. Installing Linux perhaps.

Re:Sounds good.

[mileshigh]

Sounds good in theory, but look around any retirement home for a strong counterexample. You'll see a lot more people watching TV than painting, writing books, studying, etc. Yes, they're old, but that's not why they're vegging out. It's because they're people. It's often been said that most people start dying the minute they retire.

Re:Sounds good.

[Opportunist]

So... the purpose in life for that burger flipper is flipping burgers. Y....eah. That makes sense.

No. Sorry. I can't even fake it. It makes no sense whatsoever. It is monotonous, idiotic and I think even the least intelligent sponge on the planet who doesn't happen to wear square pants could think of something more rewarding than doing this. Even if that's sitting at home in a pair of underpants that didn't get cleaned for a week and watching daytime TV. Even THAT is more rewarding and fulfilling than doing this shitload of a job.

Work may be meaningful if you do something that fulfills you and makes you feel accomplished and rewarded when you do it, or when you're done. I like my job and would not want to give it up for the world, don't tell my boss but even if they didn't pay me (that much at least) I'd gladly continue doing it. Because it's fun, interesting, exciting and at times it makes me feel awesome.

But that is not the case for every job. The more monotonous, menial and braindead a job is, the less the chance that it's going to give someone's life meaning. Yes, doing such a job can lower crime rates. But in the same way a badly run school with teachers that don't give a shit reduces juvenile delinquency: It keeps people from doing bad stuff for a certain amount of time. For no other reason.

Re:Sounds good.

[Opportunist]

Paris Hilton? Her singing could be considered harmful. At least if you're subjected to it.

But aside of that, there's plenty of people who live without purpose and not do anything "bad". Unless you consider sitting around at home and playing WoW 20 hours a day a bad thing.

They don't break the law, they don't sell drugs, they don't engage in gang warfare ... and yet their life has no sense, purpose, meaning, direction. goal or ... fuck, if they were dead few people outside their immediate acquaintances would notice.

IF they would in the first place.

Re:Sounds good.

[funwithBSD]

Things you probably can't, and won't fully automate:

doctors
nurses
policemen
firemen
clergy

Not exhaustive of course, but just going through the list it was easiest to find government controlled jobs (at least in most countries) as the ones you can't automate.

I find that very disturbing.

Besides, what are we going to do? Sit around and play D&D all day eating machine made pizzas?

Re: Sounds good.

[funwithBSD]

You are right.

Nuking from orbit is the only way to be sure.

Re:Sounds good.

[Opportunist]

I don't know about you, but if I'm bored "working" isn't the first thing that comes to my mind. Doing something that's fun is. And yes, the old saying goes that everything that's fun is illegal, immoral or fattening, but guess what, we've found things to do that are none thereof.

MMOs could hardly be considered "doing something productive", but they fit the bill. They keep people occupied and out of trouble.

And now please explain how they're any worse than "work" when it comes to keeping people from "doing bad things".

Re:Sounds good.

[kheldan]

Cyber-Vandal, you need to watch a movie called Idiocracy, it's the world we'd end up with if people didn't have any real purpose in life. Maybe a single-digit percentage would do as you suggest; the rest would fritter away their lives doing nothing of value to anyone, getting fat, weak, sickly, dumb in the head, and/or getting into one kind of trouble or another. Humans need something to fight for, and when there's nothing to fight for, we wither away and die.

Re:Sounds good.

[gtall]

Idle hands are the Devil's workshop. Don't believe me, go anywhere with high unemployment. It isn't that they are not making money, it is that they can make it through illegal means. And paying us for doing nothing won't work, we have a virtually limitless appetite for new stuff and experiences.

I like to think of it in terms of campaign financing. If you give candidates money, besides getting yet get more of them, they'll take the given money and still ask for more contributions from the public. The human mind won't be constrained by your pink unicorns.

Re:Sounds good.

[religionofpeas]

History has shown what happens when the latter get pushed past the breaking point. It's usually messy and ends the lives of some of those that really had a lot to lose.

So, history has shown that "self interest" doesn't actually stop this until it's too late.

Re:Sounds good.

[phantomfive]

People would spend time doing what they wanted to do which could include art, literature, sport, playing video games, learning a language, studying science, traveling and many other things.

But in practice would mostly spend their time on Facebook, Netflix, and trying to have sex

Re:Sounds good.

[GameboyRMH]

I think the hardest CEO to replace would be Steve Elop, because he's such a perfect machine of destruction. His work is an art form that would be difficult for AI to replicate.

Re:Sounds good.

[religionofpeas]

People would spend time doing what they wanted to do which could include art, literature, sport, playing video games, learning a language, studying science, travelling and many other things.

Most people don't want to those things. They want to sit on their butts, use drugs, eat, fuck and sleep.

Re:Sounds good.

[GameboyRMH]

That's technology trickling down again, which side are you arguing for? The modern computer-owning worker makes less than a less technologically-endowed worker would have 30-40 years ago, adjusted for inflation. At the same time, the number of people who collectively own half the world's wealth could now travel together in a double-decker bus, and nobody would have to stand.

Wealth sure as hell doesn't trickle down, it rushes up.

Re: Sounds good.

[GameboyRMH]

What happens is that we'll replicate the Terrafoam scenario from Manna:

http://marshallbrain.com/manna...

Re:Sounds good.

[Archangel Michael]

nless you consider sitting around at home and playing WoW 20 hours a day a bad thing.

if that is how you want to waste your life. They do that so they don't actually have to think about anything or anyone. I bet, if I told you 20 years ago, that I could get people to sit down and press buttons for 20 hours a day, and would be happy doing it, you'd say I lived in some dystopian society.

Re:Sounds good.

[dhalsim2]

Couldn't agree with you more. Have you read Laborem exercens? It perfectly conveys the argument that you're making.

Re:Sounds good.

[GameboyRMH]

Why would people who have no need to work and have everything provided for them act like your stereotypical ghetto inhabitants, when that doesn't match their situation at all? In the ghetto people have nothing provided for them and a desperate need to work (to meet basic necessities) but no opportunity to do so.

Instead maybe you should look at trust fund babies. They have everything provided for them and no need to work. They pursue creative and philanthropic pursuits and enjoy themselves with leisure activity, and mostly don't get into trouble.

Also I pity you, that you have no meaning in life other than to work. For most people (including myself) work reduces meaning in their life, which they derive from non-work interests. Very few are paid to do what they enjoy, and most do what they enjoy without being paid. But you wouldn't. That sounds like severe depression in fact.

Re:Sounds good.

[sinij]

People would spend time doing what they wanted to do

Turns out, most people want to vent outrage on twitter over perceived insults and imaginary injustices. Consequently, I don't see 100% automation leading to utopia.

Re:Sounds good.

[cfalcon]

> The goal of any advanced civilization should be 100% unemployment and automation.

Sure, but that goal needs a great deal of other societal changes. Its 100% unemployment if you have one guy operating the robots and everyone else dead, right? That's not what you meant, so you need a bunch of theoretical philosophy, legal, and economic advancements to keep up with your theoretical technological advancement.

Re:Sounds good.

[Penguinisto]

Well, to be fair we have come pretty close...

Re:Sounds good.

[ShanghaiBill]

Wealth, as we have seen so thoroughly demonstrated over the past 30 years, does not trickle down.

Take off your blinders. During the last 30 years TWO BILLION PEOPLE have been lifted out of extreme poverty. For the very poor, the last 30 years have been the best 30 years in all of human history.

Re:Sounds good.

[religionofpeas]

So... free market with wealth tax and basic income would give us an automated post scarcity utopia.

The rich people will consider your wealth tax and reject it.

Re:Sounds good.

[dywolf]

Bingo.

Re:Sounds good.

[religionofpeas]

One side can back up their needs with sticks and stones, and the other side can back it up with aimbots.

Re:Sounds good.

[MitchDev]

You are confusing poverty with evil with that utterly retarded "Idle hands are the devil's workshop" nonsense...

Most folks would rather do a lot of non-criminal, non-destructive things if they could afford to...

Re:Sounds good.

[Archangel Michael]

3) Culture is under assault. There are a shit ton of people out there who eschew culture as being some sort of "ist"

Re:Sounds good.

[kwbauer]

For at least 1/3 of every family in the United States, we have detached income for work done. Technically, the work done has been externalized to their neighbors but that is kind of like fight club.

Re:Sounds good.

[painandgreed]

Cyber-Vandal, you need to watch a movie called Idiocracy, it's the world we'd end up with if people didn't have any real purpose in life.

Number one, Idiocracy was just a movie, a work of fiction with no basis. Two, it wasn't about the result of people not having a real purpose, it was about humanity self selectively breeding for stupidity to the point they out perform the intelligent members of society at survival. This also is a work of fiction with no basis to believe there is any basis for it besides to fit the plot.

Re:Sounds good.

[cyber-vandal]

Some might. Are these people the majority of citizens? There will never be a perfect system because there will be humans in it, but offering more opportunities to people that don't currently have them could well improve things in the long-term. Education is an interesting example given that universal education has improved the lot of so many people and the economy as a whole, yet because some people don't take advantage of that opportunity for whatever reason, you think it's a waste of time.

Re:Sounds good.

[kwbauer]

And they are able to enjoy that because they have externalized such non-critical functions as protecting themselves from being overrun.

Re:Sounds good.

[cyber-vandal]

If we're citing fiction, you should read the Culture novels, or watch Star Trek. Our future could be Idiocracy or Wall-E or it could launch the greatest wave of creativity and development the human race has ever seen. I have a life my ancestors from 150 years could only dream of and most of that is due to opportunities they never had, such as education, health care and a peaceful, developed society. Who's to say what would happen if everyone, no matter what social class they come from, had exactly the same opportunities to excel.

Re:Sounds good.

[Procrasti]

You're arguing from ignorance... The theorems are mathematical proofs based on very reasonable axioms, as good as any proof I've seen in mathematics, physics and engineering (my usual domains).

If you'd actually read microeconomics you might have some reasonable point to make, but you don't.

The fact is, there's no good reason why a PhD physicist should make more than an NBA player. Clearly there's enough incentive already to produce PhD physicists... and it's really not clear that more money would create more physics geniuses, nor that that is the best allocation of resources.

The free market maximises free choice within resource constraints after all.

Rather, for some reason, there is a propaganda amongst the "hard" sciences to not study economics... it's actually quite a shame.

Re:Sounds good.

[cyber-vandal]

Most people don't have the money to do those things currently. How do you know what they might want given limitless opportunities. Everyone here sounds like eugenecists. All you have to do is look at the recent history of the developed world to see what happens when you give people more opportunities. Everyone benefits. We've seen unparalleled technological advancements in society in the last 100 years and that's because there are more people able to contribute. I wonder how many people would be like you describe if they didn't have to work shitty jobs to make ends meet.

Re:Sounds good.

[PRMan]

I think diagnosis machines would be FAR better than most doctors at diagnosing diseases. Surgeons would keep their jobs, but I would rather have an expert system with unlimited knowledge of all diseases on earth running tests to see what I have, rather than some guy who spent 4 years learning this stuff 20 years ago.

Re:Sounds good.

[cyber-vandal]

That's not most people. Most people don't even have a Twitter account.

Re:Sounds good.

[Procrasti]

> The rich people will consider your wealth tax and reject it.

This is quite correct, so you need to provide an economic incentive for them to accept it... unfortunately, the solution to that problem can get quite messy... if they're smart, they'd accept it voluntarily before the population gets out of control... history is full of examples

Re:Sounds good.

[werepants]

Besides, what are we going to do? Sit around and play D&D all day eating machine made pizzas?

Hmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Sounds good.

[cyber-vandal]

If your view of humanity was correct then Facebook, Netflix and even the Internet would not even exist because everyone wants to do as little as possible with their lives.

Re:Sounds good.

[phantomfive]

"Mostly." There are a few people who realize there's something more to life than feeling good.

Re:Sounds good.

[FlyHelicopters]

The goal of any advanced civilization should be 100% unemployment and automation.

Ok, so how does anyone afford to buy anything if no one has a job?

Or is Star Trek's future somehow fit into there with "no money"?

How do you decide who gets the beach homes?

Re:Sounds good.

[DigiShaman]

Welcome to the new aristocracy; where jobs and titles are given by those in power, to others will less power. As for the commoner, they will either be a serf or a peasant depending on if you owned the land or not. But regardless, most will be just extra mouths to feed and clothe lest you have a revolt on your hands. The other option is to go all Joseph Stalin on people and literally kill vast populations of people that aren't or won't need to contribute to society. So yes, you should be very worried!!

Re:Sounds good.

[FlyHelicopters]

doctors

I'll see your doctors and raise you Watson...

http://www.businessinsider.com...

To quote CGP Grey:

https://youtu.be/7Pq-S557XQU?t...

"Understanding every drug and every drugs interaction with every other drug is beyond human knowability".

Re: Sounds good.

[Opportunist]

To be the 1 percenter, you need the 99 percent. Or at least a sizable portion thereof.

Who would wipe your ass if they are gone? You'd have to do it yourself! And, worse, no competition for the position of ass wiper means you actually have to pay the few that would do it real wages!

That can't be! We need the 99%!

Re:Sounds good.

[magarity]

Paris Hilton's, whose "purposeless" existence - based on a multi-million dollar inheritance

Actually no, thanks to her shenannigans her would have been inheritance was turned into a charitable foundation. That's why she has to do slinky burger ads.

Re: Sounds good.

[Opportunist]

What do you win that way? Do you get safety back? No, you don't know whether you got them all. Do you get freedom back? No, why would that change anything? Do you get any money or humans back that were squandered? No, actually you have to spend more to do it. Is it going to improve any of these in the future? Also no, there is still the threat that some survive, you cannot regain your freedoms and the chances are good that all you accomplish is to radicalize the ones that aren't yet.

Sorry. That is not a winning move.

Re:Sounds good.

[Opportunist]

You are allowed to learn from the mistakes of the past.

If you refuse, you'll simply repeat it. Maybe whoever comes after you will learn. If not, rinse and repeat 'til someone does. History is not in any hurry to get it right.

Re:Sounds good.

[Opportunist]

Yes, but they are happy and enjoy it. It is by no means any less meaningful than watching burger patties fry and you may rest assured that they enjoy doing that a LOT more.

Re:Sounds good.

[EXrider]

Proof is that rich people's kids don't work and don't live in ghettos either.

No, rich people's kids find other creative ways to fuck with the common man, like: mowing over people while giving 0 fucks, or arbitrarily hiking prices on life saving drugs.

Re:Sounds good.

[Reapy]

Yeah, the problem is really that you still need lots of 'unfun' stuff for humans to be done in order to have the things that you want to do in your leisure time. Using computers are great, assembling the materials and manufacturing the devices and figuring out how to design them are hard and/or tedious depending where you sit in the supply line. Someone has to do it, but most likely, nobody really WANTS to do it, they'd rather use the end product.

Eh anyway, I really liked that post above with the story about new australia. You'd basically have to achieve that state where everybody gets the same amount, everything ever is available to everybody, to even begin to formulate the whole idea of 'no need to work'. In the story the foam wellfare buildings were supposed to be evil, but in truth it would be pretty sweet to have a fallback like that where there were actual opportunities to advance upward if you wanted to, that you weren't trapped there or discouraged with no way out, but that you could choose to live in the foam house and be 'okay' but could easily start working and achieve more, if you wanted.

Truthfully, the best way to live is clearly the world of the matrix. If you never knew that you were hooked up to a battery the whole time, it is a pretty good deal. The robots absolutely need you so they will maintain the human farms as a number one priority. The farms take little space and can grow vertically, allowing room for much more population on the surface. Further, I bet the robots could easily colonize many planets, plopping down a human battery stack on anything with a solid surface for the colony. Human's would spread throughout the universe quite easily. The whole time we are diligently protected and watched over by our robot keepers, because if we die, they die.

Though maybe that falls apart because once they clear the atmosphere they have solar. Hmmm :(

Re:Sounds good.

[fluffernutter]

I don't think there will ever be a society where there is no need to work. I just think we have been shafted out of all the benefits that technology has brought us. To pull a number out of the air. if we are twice as efficient now we technically should have gone to a 4 hour day, perhaps we could have split the difference and gone to a 6 hour day, but for us to still be working full days is pretty ridiculous. Corporations were allowed to take all those gains straight to the bank.

Re:Sounds good.

[kheldan]

Know what I see? I see SOME problems solved by technology.. but I see a whole bunch of problems CAUSED by our headlong breakneck rush forward into MORE technology, meanwhile our poor caveman brains aren't keeping up. I see people getting lazier and lazier, fatter and fatter, dumber and dumber, instead of the opposite. I see people not learning how to do basic things or learning basic knowledge of things because they don't have to anymore, because some machine or some piece of software does it for them. I see a possible future where people can't even take care of themselves in the most basic ways without a bunch of technology around them.

I don't want to live in a world that's filled with nothing but robots, and people avoiding each other. I don't want self-driving cars, I want to do it myself. I don't want some machine making my dinner for me and wheeling it out to my table, I want people who enjoy that sort of work, for whatever reasons they enjoy it, adding to the experience. I'm far from alone in this either.

Re:Sounds good.

[CrimsonAvenger]

The rich people will consider your wealth tax and reject it.

You seem to be assuming that if there were an effectively infinite amount of "stuff", that "rich people" would value "having more stuff". Won't happen that way.

Ultimately, "wealth" is about having an excess of something valuable. If "food/housing/cars/etc" ("stuff") were effectively unlimited, than it would no longer be "valuable", and therefore no longer a sign of "wealth".

Re:Sounds good.

[kheldan]

Oh and by the way? The 24th century Federation of Star Trek had essentially unlimited more-or-less-free power generation capability, and offshoots of transporter technology gave them replicator technology, which meant that more replicators could be created for essentially nothing, which meant that no human on Earth ever needed to be without food, water, or shelter; the basic necessities of life, and then some, were all provided for, for free, by the world government, to every single person on the planet. They even, for all intents and purposes, abolished the idea of money or even the need for money. Gee, ain't that a nice thought! But we're far, far away from anything like that, if it's even possible -- which it likely isn't. Nice dream though but that's all it is.

Re:Sounds good.

[delt0r]

Then fuck off. Go out into the forest an live without all the "bad" technology. No one is stopping you.

Re:Sounds good.

[delt0r]

And what is wrong with that?

Re:Sounds good.

[chihowa]

Maybe a single-digit percentage would do as you suggest; the rest would fritter away their lives doing nothing of value to anyone, getting fat, weak, sickly, dumb in the head, and/or getting into one kind of trouble or another.

But how is that any different from the current situation?

The only difference that I see is that many of those "single-digit percentage" are kept from doing things that could actually benefit humanity because their time is wasted filling out TPS reports AND "the rest" are stifling overall productivity by being forced into jobs that are either busywork or that they are entirely unfit for.

Letting them stay home and watch TV would mean that I could finish my work with less interference and then go learn another language or play music or whatever else. It's win-win.

Re:Sounds good.

[FlyHelicopters]

This is exactly the point that I think a lot of people miss about automation. There's a lot of menial jobs that suck, and a perfect example of such a job is flipping burgers. Wouldn't it be better if nobody had to do it at all, and you could spend your time doing better things?

Yes, it would be better if no one had to do them...

However, what do you now do with 10 million unemployed people?

Yes, I know, "basic income", except that as it goes further and further, you have to keep taxing those who actually earn money more and more to pay for it.

And as France recently showed, you raise that high enough and people will just leave. Then what?

Re:Sounds good.

[rubycodez]

Nothing cryptic about a society with fully automated production of everything and no one is employed, income is zero and so the taxes are zero. Such a society only decides on production and distribution, they decide what to build and the machines build it. it's communism minus work and wages.

Re:Sounds good.

[Procrasti]

No, you really are an idiot arguing about something you literally know nothing about.

The axioms are things like, choice making agents prefer some things over other things and there are limited number of things... concepts that can easily be expressed as formulae and manipulated mathematically to derive proofs in the forms of the fundamental theorems..

Do you really believe we would have more Einsteins if we just paid physicist more? Maybe they'd stop being NBA players and crack zero point energy or something? LOL... And you think monkeys are qualified to answer these questions?

Talking to you about economics has about as much utility as trying to talk to a monkey about quantum chromo dynamics... or trying to explain the halting problem to them.

I cannot compete with your ignorance... you win this argument.

Re:Sounds good.

[kheldan]

Letting them stay home and watch TV would mean that I could finish my work with less interference and then go learn another language or play music or whatever else. It's win-win.

That's a total and complete fantasy and you damned well know it is, it will NEVER HAPPEN. What will happen is a welfare state where you and I work to pay for fatass drunks to lay around and get fatter and more drunk. Nope, nope, nope.

Re:Sounds good.

[Procrasti]

> Only when you define "free market" as something that is literally impossible. Not impossible as in "we'll never get people to do that", but logically self-contradictory. Perfect information doesn't exist, transaction costs exist, markets are not necessarily easy to enter and exit, monopolists are not impossible.

That is correct, the free market rests on the four assumptions, perfect competition, perfect information, no externalities and rational actors... and when any of the assumptions fails, the market fails, because it is no longer a free market... but, rational actors can basically be assumed, and for each of the others there are fixes, or the market approaches perfection asymptotically (at n^2 for number of competitors, for example)... So, the fact that the real market is not a free market doesn't stop us approaching it or applying regulation, taxes and subsidies to make it arbitrarily free market like.

> A one-time tax? Because the second fundamental theorem works on the assumption of a single lump-sum redistribution of wealth. A standing redistribution distorts the market.

Also correct... but I believe a wealth tax and basic income are about as close to non-distortionary lump-sum transfer as you can get... and the ways in which it isn't probably don't matter, because despite the theory in which we can't compare utilities, we actually can tell (at least there is wide ranging agreement) that bill gates is better off than rambling street hobo guy.

Or rather, I defy you to find a redistribution solution that closer fits the 2nd welfare theory... after all, it does require the impossible task of the redistributors knowing everybody's utility functions... net wealth is about as close as you can practically get.

Re:Sounds good.

[funwithBSD]

As much as I wish that were true, I work for IBM after all and I like working there.

It is not true. Maybe it will be in 50 years, but who knows?

Right now it is a really handy tool to help screen patients and make sure they see the right type of doctor.

Re:Sounds good.

[funwithBSD]

We can do all those things now. I do some of them, like make my own pizza.
But I doubt I would do more of it if I had no where to work.
Humans appear to need differentials. No matter how much of a good thing you get, you need some dark to set off the light.

Re:Sounds good.

[LunaticTippy]

20 years ago I would have glanced up from my gameboy and said "only 20 hours? but you gotta catch em all!"

Re:Sounds good.

[FlyHelicopters]

As much as I wish that were true, I work for IBM after all and I like working there.

While it is nice that you work for IBM, they are a large company, what exactly do you do there that makes you a Watson expert?

It is not true. Maybe it will be in 50 years, but who knows?

It is already in trials. There will come a tipping point where the insurance companies demand it to save money.

Just yesterday Blue Cross/Blue Shield announced they had lost nearly a billion dollars on Obamacare exchange customers. They needed 22% more health care services than non-exchange customers. Almost $600 a month.

The ACA (Obamacare) was not designed to fix the cost of care, but rather to make insurance cheaper. But that was a short term fix. Lowering the cost of care is the real solution, and Watson is one tool for that.

It won't happen in 5 years, but I don't think it'll be 50 either.

Re: Sounds good.

[Hognoxious]

The tooth fairy, Santa Claus, and your English teacher will split the bill between them.

Re:Sounds good.

[Procrasti]

No, I think he's definitely correct... the wealthy hoard their wealth and try to extract as much as possible from everyone else, always has been and always will be that way. Some things are finite (or practically so), and will remain that way.

With automation comes the possibility that a few elite owners of capital (who will own all the worlds robots and AI) will come to rule the world with everyone else starving... ie, the robots will serve only the few who will lord it over the rest of us, as they no longer need us in any way.

A free market solutions cannot solve this problem, as the wealthy will not willingly give up their wealth in the form of a tax, so the solution must be by force... however, at this time, they also own the media, and therefore consensus, and so the government, who have the monopoly on force to demand this tax... so, it's unlikely that this solution can be passed "democratically" either...

I'll leave the solution to this problem as an exercise for the reader... however, history has many examples where the wealthy ignored this problem, and it doesn't usually end so well for them... unfortunately, it doesn't generally go all that great for anyone else either. So, there is hope that they might accept this type of solution before it gets to that point, out of self preservation... but they might have other solutions too that won't be so palatable (bread, circuses and FEMA camps).

Re:Sounds good.

[Procrasti]

It's unlikely that those physics students have any knowledge of economics or its theorems and so they are literally unqualified to answer that question... in fact, it would only demonstrate their collective cognitive bias against economics... it's a kind of (unwarranted) elitism... a bias you apparently suffer from.

You might find a similar bias from a bunch of economics students, who would consider esoteric physics theorems useful only in as much as it can generate wealth for society... no more or less, and of no particular practical importance.

Those with double majors in physics and economics however would be qualified to answer and would likely disagree... at least as far as the fundamental theorems were concerned... as an engineer who has studied economics I disagree with your assessment... the theorems follow mathematically from the axioms, and the axioms are reasonable... the proofs are as tight as the halting problem.

Re:Sounds good.

[Procrasti]

> And "hard" scientists don't really say that you shouldn't study economics, they just say that you should take it for what it is: something like literature or music, entirely subject to personal opinions, bias and political views, without any scientific value.

Actually the fundamental theorems are entirely mathematical in nature... there is no room for personal opinion, bias or political views... and in order to falsify a mathematical proof you must either find an error in the mathematical steps (unlikely because of the scrutiny applied to them) or reject one or more of the axioms (again, unlikely, because they are so very reasonable)... but without knowing either the axioms, the proofs or the theorems, you are no better than a chimp to judge them, and explains why your argument is bananas.

Re:Sounds good.

[chihowa]

Reread the sentence that you quoted. I want them to stay at home, lay around, and get fatter and more drunk. Having to interact with them and work around the negative value that they bring to any endeavor is a far greater cost to society than just paying for them to get the fuck out of the way.

Making idiots like that work is why we have HR departments and pointy haired bosses and little shits who spit in your food and... Do you see what I'm saying? All of these people would rather stay home and watch TV and the world is a worse place because they are forced to venture out into it. Trying to make them pull their weight only makes the load heavier for all of the rest of us.

Re:Sounds good.

[ArmoredDragon]

There's more to it than that. You don't need burger flippers in a society where people can do what they love. There are so many people who like to cook, you could probably find somebody to do it for you in exchange for something you're good at. Installing Linux perhaps.

I really doubt that. Personally, I know really how well to fix somebody's computer when there's something wrong with it, but hell no I'm not going to do it every time somebody asks. I know chefs who are the same way. This is exactly what's wrong with communism.

Re:Sounds good.

[ArmoredDragon]

However, what do you now do with 10 million unemployed people?

I don't know yet. We still don't have anything close to fully automating any given need that people have, so there's still not a clear picture of how the future would look to be able to make that call. Though hypothetically, suppose you had a personal robot butler that could do anything and everything you ask, including make a copy of itself. See where I'm going with this? If you had nothing at all, I'm sure you could bum a friend's robot just long enough to have it make a copy of itself for you. The problem at that point would arise from raw materials though, in which case we'd need star trek style replicators.

Yes, I know, "basic income", except that as it goes further and further, you have to keep taxing those who actually earn money more and more to pay for it.

No I don't think a basic income would be a good idea. At least, not while there's an actual need for an income.

Re:Sounds good.

[funwithBSD]

Sorry, Doxing issue.

  I work with it, and one of my mentors works ON Watson itself.

And I worked for Healthcare companies.

So I know quite a bit about both.

Re:Sounds good.

[guises]

Ha. Very true. He's also conveniently ignoring the fact that the person he's responding to was obviously talking about certain specific places, rather than global wealth.

It's not a refutation of anything.

Re: Sounds good.

[Opportunist]

The problem you're facing is that someone who has nothing is insignificant, while someone who has much is important. How can you win if you can only lose important people while your opponent's losses are insignificant?

Re: Sounds good.

[Opportunist]

Can you explain how? Because somehow I fail to see it.

Re:Sounds good.

[Procrasti]

> Sure, I read many of those axioms: "If market participants have all the same information..." (like, goldman sachs gangsters have no more info than my grandma) or:"If consumer utility functions are rational..." (that's why nobody wears designer clothing, ever). Very reasonable, that's why we just came out of the greatest recession since WWII. Very reasonable according to one guy who studied economics and has always been frustrated by being snubbed by those in scientific faculties.

See... none of these are axioms of the fundamental theorems of economics... You're speaking complete nonsense, and the worst part about it is that you don't even know it... and even worse, it sounds like a reasonable argument to any person as clueless as you... it's why I said I can't compete with your ignorance.

It's like claiming that physics is incorrect, because how can the speed of light be the maximum velocity when v=at? It might sound reasonable to someone with no knowledge of physics... and you think you're smart pointing it out, because you have no idea of how stupid you are being.

> And I don't really want to know what bizarre academic path might lead a (supposed) engineer to study economics.

The funny thing is, that learning another discipline removed none of my engineering knowledge... strange that, huh? That you can learn many things in this life, and learning one thing does not make you worse at the first thing... It's like you feel that if you studied economics you'd be less able to do physics... maybe that's true for you, with your limited abilities?

> "If consumer utility functions are rational..." (that's why nobody wears designer clothing, ever).

HINT: rational in a mathematical sense... there's nothing irrational about desiring designer clothing... only you.

Also, there's a deep link between AI and economics... economics studies choice making agents, AI is about creating choice making agents.

Re:Sounds good.

[Procrasti]

Actually, when I say that they aren't axioms, they are... it's just that your refutation of them is wrong... and your understanding of them is wrong.

A better analogy might be the spherical point mass moving in a frictionless vacuum on a frictionless plane and then claiming it's irrelevant because cars aren't spherical point masses moving on a frictionless plane... no shit... the market isn't a free market... the free market is the optimal market, and all markets that aren't free are necessarily worse (friction is real in physics)... and so, the majority of economics is studying the deviation from the free market, and what that costs society.

You're still an ignorant idiot unknowingly talking nonsense, but for slightly different reasons.

Problem with people like you, is that you think the solution is to create more friction, to make more barriers to entry and other such nonsense, because you reject the free market because the real world isn't a free market... and act like your knowledge in an unrelated domain makes you smarter instead of ignorant and dangerous.

Re:Sounds good.

[Procrasti]

There's always a way... you don't need armies... just a few bullets in the right hands.

But with bread, circuses and FEMA camps, you are right, they might be able to avoid this fate forever.

Re:Sounds good.

[sociocapitalist]

Sounds good in theory, but look around any retirement home for a strong counterexample. You'll see a lot more people watching TV than painting, writing books, studying, etc. Yes, they're old, but that's not why they're vegging out. It's because they're people. It's often been said that most people start dying the minute they retire.

I think it's more a matter of who you have around you. When you're old, your family has gone off to live their lives, your friends have mostly died or moved away and you don't have the physical capacity to go off adventuring or the desire to do so alone as younger people do. I think most people in retirement homes are there because they have nowhere else to be - and that is why they mostly veg out and basically give up on life.

Living across from me are a wonderful elderly couple who have been together for more than fifty years. They have a huge house with a lovely garden and they're both very active physically and mentally. Unfortunately, after having seen this happen with other elderly couples, I suspect that as soon as one or the other of them dies the other will not long survive.

In a future society where no one needs to work, will some people sit in front of the telly and eat until they explode? Yes, of course - but I believe that most people would rather, given the physical capacity to do so, adventure alone and or spend their time with their friends and families doing things together and will not veg out but will, rather learn, travel and explore, enjoy competition sports and develop themselves culturally and spiritually.

I know that if I had the choice between sitting at my desk here at work or going on a trip around the world (free as nothing costs anymore in this dream reality) or even just staying home with my family to be able to go running in the mornings with my wife, have lunch with them at noon, go swimming in the evenings with my son and work on my own projects during the day...I wouldn't hesitate even a moment to walk out this door.

Re:Sounds good.

[sociocapitalist]

Cyber-Vandal, you need to watch a movie called Idiocracy, it's the world we'd end up with if people didn't have any real purpose in life. Maybe a single-digit percentage would do as you suggest; the rest would fritter away their lives doing nothing of value to anyone, getting fat, weak, sickly, dumb in the head, and/or getting into one kind of trouble or another. Humans need something to fight for, and when there's nothing to fight for, we wither away and die.

Kheldan, I suggest rather that you read Ian M Banks culture series which shows the exact opposite. People work if they want to work and develop themselves in whatever ways interest them if they don't feel like working 'normal' jobs. Strip out the science fiction in the books and the ideas remain the same.

There are many purposes in life that involve personal or group challenges. We don't need to fight in order to have something to work for - and work can be learning to play piano instead of writing software code. We can 'fight' to explore space. We can 'fight' to colonize other planets.

I am by nature a very pessimistic person but in this I actually think that humans can move in the right direction should we choose to.

Re:Sounds good.

[Cederic]

The productivity gains have translated into an improvement in the standard of living.

You now have ubiquitous aircon, mobile phones, flatscreen TVs, high speed Internet access.

Those just weren't available a hundred years ago. They're new, they're expensive, they're required billions in research. Yet people haven't had to start working longer hours to pay for all that.

The problem is that unless you're Notch there's always an additional level of luxury to aspire to. I could easily afford to retire before I'm 45 if I was willing to live a subsistence lifestyle but I enjoy the things that make my life more comfortable and easier. Still trying to determine the right balance so that I don't keep working until I die..

But even now I could drop to 4 hour days, take the pay cut and enjoy a quality of life my grandparents would have envied.

Re:Sounds good.

[dywolf]

nope. still not flamebait.

Re:Sounds good.

[Procrasti]

Well, I have honours in Engineering, and studied economics afterwards for fun... I also play the guitar, and surprisingly that hasn't made me any less capable as an engineer.

Seriously, who educated you so stupid as to think that a person can only do one subject? You really got a problem, a cognitive bias that your field is the end all and be all of human knowledge... it's incredibly stupid... you are incredibly stupid... probably some autistic physics freak like sheldon and has trouble understanding the most basic aspects of human interaction... no wonder you can't understand economics.

Actually, the proof shows that you require those 'axioms' to achieve a (pareto) optimal outcome... and if any of these axioms are violated, the outcome is *not* optimal, and people could be better off without anyone else being worse off... so, your understanding of these 'axioms' and how it fits with the theory is what is wrong...

Economics then goes on to show how the real market violates these 'axioms' and how much dead weight loss those violations create...

An idiot like you thinks you could improve the world by banning designer clothes, because you have no fashion sense and assume that others should not be free to make those choices... so, you add limits to a free market that only cause social loss... You would somehow try and force physicists to get paid more than NBA players... and not realise that produces lower social utility... you are biased, because you think you are king shit because you studied physics... in reality, you are an autistic retard and don't even know it.

Re:Sounds good.

[fluffernutter]

Those things don't improve standard of living though. Living was just fine before celphones and flatscreen TVs. 'Having things' is not the same as living and do not contribute to quality time. Heck some of the best family time we have had has been over a board game. You know, the kind that doesn't even use electricity. Technology was supposed to give us additional leisure time, not less.

Re:Sounds good.

[Procrasti]

LOL... compare themselves to physists... what an elitist retard you are. This is your real problem, thinking you are special when you actually have very little value.

As for the last 8 years... wtf was free market about all that? The problems are all due exactly to the violations of the free market assumptions.

You're the type of guy that looks at say the failure of the soviet union and says that's proof that the free market doesn't work... and yet, in your arrogance and stupidity you think this is wisdom.

Look, until you can prove the fundamental theorems yourself, you are literally unable to meaningfully comment on this... My knowledge cannot compete with your ignorance, that you are so proud of.

Good luck with autism dude.

Re:Sounds good.

[coinreturn]

Things you probably can't, and won't fully automate:

... clergy

Clergy? Are you joking? Very ripe for automating. Hell, I bet there's already an app for that. I'm calling mine "Savior Machine" (hat tip to David Bowie).

Re:Sounds good.

[coinreturn]

A large number of people would speed all their free time not creating art or literature or learning a new language, they would spend it just the same way they do now. Watching TV, play video games, using mid [sic] altering substances, getting laid and appearing on Jerry Springer or one of the many clone shows now on TV. Basically wasting their opportunity to have a useful life.

Who cares? You don't need to be "productive" to feel fulfilled or happy.

Re:Sounds good.

[samwichse]

How many new people were born in the last 30 years?

Re:Sounds good.

[kheldan]

Your brain is fucked up. Or you're trolling. Either way please bugger off, you sound like a crazy person. Even if you're not, you'd like it if my tax dollars went to pay for dozens of millions of people laying around fucking off all day long and getting paid for it? I'd sooner push the Big Red Button and blow the planet to smithereens before I'll ever agree to that. Or shoot people like you in the head. Anything to stop it from happening.

Re:Sounds good.

[david_thornley]

I've noticed things about the civilization around me. One of these is that economic progress depends on eliminating the need for some jobs to free people up for other jobs. This means that one goal of an advanced civilization should be to make people more productive and eliminate jobs Actually attaining 100% unemployment through automation is never going to happen, but the things that happen when we work towards it are good.

Re:Sounds good.

[david_thornley]

If a job "needs to get done somehow", then it's valuable, and can pay well. If it isn't worth paying someone a good wage for, then obviously it doesn't need to get done. If we need some burger flippers, then they're generating or allowing a lot of economic activity, and cutting the flippers in on some of what they produce or enable isn't going to trash the economy.

And, yes, I can imagine having the bare necessities in life for free. I have the ability to earn a lot more than that, and I like doing so. I like having more money.

Now, suppose we provide the necessities for everyone, so nobody actually has to work. This means that people can do other things with their time, such as try to start businesses. I'd suspect a lot of people are deterred from being entrepeneurs because of the downside should they fail. Imagine someone getting good medical coverage through their job. Imagine that person having either a potentially serious medical condition or children. Now, imagine that person has a great idea for a startup, but knows that they're likely to go bankrupt if there's a medical problem while they're getting the business going. Doesn't sound so good, does it?

Re:Sounds good.

[chihowa]

Ha ha. I remember you now! You're that internet tough guy from a little while ago. How's that working out for you?

Re:Sounds good.

[kheldan]

How's that working out for you?

Just fine. How's being an ass working for you? Get beat up anywhere lately?

Re:Sounds good.

[kheldan]

Oh, and also, I was wondering: What's it like to be irrelevant? Never having been irrelevant, ever, I don't have any idea what it's like, and it's fairly obvious you'd know, so do you mind describing the feeling for me?

Re:Sounds good.

[chihowa]

Ha! Classic.

Nerd rage is the funniest kind of rage!

Re:Sounds good.

[kheldan]

Oh yeah also I just noticed it's Autism Awareness Day. How many presents did you get?

Nerd rage

In reference to that, here's an instructional image for you.
Have a nice day, newfriend! Be sure to enjoy your Autism Awareness Day cake!

Re:Sounds good.

[houghi]

When you ask people what they would do if they win sevral million, many will say that they will keep working, because they could not sit arround all day and do nothing.
If thta will happen or not over a longer period is something different.

What it shows is that many believe that ot working means not doing anything. I have been unemployed over a longer period and if it payed better I could easily do that all the time.

What happens now if there are 5 people; 1 owner, 1 manager and 3 workers who make a decent living. Everybody is happy. Worker earns 4 units; Manager 6 and the owner 10. See, no communism and everybody can make a living.
Now the owner buys a machine (assuming no cost for the machine) that replaces 1 worker. So he fires that worker (who happend to be married to worker 2). So instead of earning 10, they get 5. Mmm. Not enough to make a living. Who gets the extra 5? Most likely the owner who now gets 15 instead of 10.
And he also could ask 1 worker and 1 manager to work 60 hours and fire the extra worker. They will be happy to do so, so they do not become that person being fired.
Owner now gets 20, 2 get 5 and 2 get nothing. That means most likely 3 poor people, 1 rich one.

What would happen in an ideal situation is that the machine reduces the working hours of all. They now work 40x5 hours=200 hours. The machine replaces 40 hours (again at no cost as this is an example). That means that there is 160 hours left of human work. 160/5=32 hours. So instead of coming in 40 hours, they come in 32 hours.

Now they have still a job, are productive, have not only money to spend it, but time to do so as well. You could spend moretime with family, more time travelling, longer luchbreaks with your cow orkers or whatever. How you fill that time is up to you.

So it is not so much that nobody has work, it is about having a ballance between work and play that is important.

And how I filled my time when I was unemployed? I traveled, was busy with open source for free and spend more time with friends and family.

Yes, some will feel utterly useless for whaever reason. They will have time to work on that instead of feeling useless in a 9-17 job where they are forced to work from 5 till 21 or get fired.

I have realized a long time ago that money is only usefull if you spend it and for that you need time to spend it, as buying stuff is rather unfullfilling.

Oh, so the REAL minimum wage is always ZERO?

[Anonymous Coward]

No matter what "minimum" is dictated by statists? I'm shocked, shocked!

Re:Oh, so the REAL minimum wage is always ZERO?

[dywolf]

and maybe unicorns will fly out my bum.

at no time in the history of labor in industrialized nations has the minimum wage risen on its own.
(and considering many ancient ones had these laws too, it really goes back even further)
its always only been through force of law, because without force of government compulsion all power lies in the employers hands.
that's why a minimum wage needed to be enacted in law in the first place!

Re:Oh, so the REAL minimum wage is always ZERO?

[MerlynEmrys67]

Yes, and the goals of the little man should be to become the employer. To be honest my wages raise regularly without the need of the government compelling my employer to raise them... The idea is you have a useful skill that people are willing to pay for - if your current employer doesn't pay you what you are worth, then you go to the next employer, or even better become your own employer and sell directly to the customer without a middle-man taking a hit on the profits.

The idea that there is a wage that no one should be willing to work under simply means that if someone doesn't have the skills to be valuable at the minimum wage - they are unemployable... Making their minimum wage 0. You see this happen all the time. You used to have to stand in line at the grocery store to have your groceries rung up and pay. Now there is an automated system that allows customers to check out themselves and pay without any help from store employees (well, 1 per 4-6 checkout lines). Now those 2-3 people that used to checkout customers are unemployed, rather than making a little less money than minimum wage. I wonder how they feel about this?

Restaurants

[kheldan]

I don't know about anyone else, but if I go to a real sit-down restaurant, I want an actual human server, not a robot or some other form of 'automation', and I sure as heck don't want a robot or some automation preparing my food, either. If that was my only other choice then I'd just as soon stay home and cook my own food.

Re:Restaurants

[wkwilley2]

That's all fine and well. I don't think waiters are getting replaced by robots in the near future, too much dexterity and flexibility required. Although, be prepared to pay though the nose for the food you used to think was affordable due to the wage hike.

Re:Restaurants

[religionofpeas]

and I sure as heck don't want a robot or some automation preparing my food, either.

Will you be inspecting the kitchen area, then ?

Re:Restaurants

[LifesABeach]

You say that now, but most of the food you eat at a restaurant is already prepared by machines. And when a machine can serve, it will show up.

Re:Restaurants

[sjames]

Yes, each meal might have to cost an extra $0.30 to pay the waitstaff properly. Boo Hoo Hoo.

Re:Restaurants

[kheldan]

I don't go out to eat at a sit-down restaurant to save money, I do it because I don't feel like cooking, or don't feel like eating something fast and cheap (and lower quality), or just to treat myself to something I normally wouldn't eat. If I want to save money then I stay home and cook for myself.

Re:Restaurants

[acoustix]

Robots aren't needed.

Menus will be replaced with touchscreens. All orders will be automated. Replace a waitstaff of 15 will a serving staff of 3.

Re:Restaurants

[nospam007]

"I don't know about anyone else, but if I go to a real sit-down restaurant, I want an actual human server, not a robot or some other form of 'automation', and I sure as heck don't want a robot or some automation preparing my food, either."

Exactly! We want our undocumented aliens who never read anything about hygiene prepare our food, fresh from the bathroom and not some sterile machine.

Re:Restaurants

[barc0001]

What "through the nose" might look like at a US restaurant that pays their people $15 an hour right now:

https://www.ivars.com/locations/acres-of-clams

Funny, that's not crazy at all. And tipping is optional there.

Re:Restaurants

[kheldan]

Oh gee I'm sorry I didn't realize that they don't just have an open fire in the kitchen and are using sticks and rocks to prepare my food. There is a difference between 'a human using some kitchen machinery/gadgetry to prepare a meal' and 'a completely robotic kitchen preparing food without any human oversight/intervention', which is what I don't want. Again: If I go out to a sit-down restaurant, I want human chefs/cooks/servers, not robots or 'automation'. If that's all I'm going to get going out then I'll stay home and make my own food, otherwise it's not worth the money.

Re:Restaurants

[voss]

At "real sit down restaurants" they usually work for tips which are quite a bit better than $15 an hour.

The type of restaurants that would be effected are fast food places, the type of places that automation would help.

Also though I don't know about you but a mobile robotic drink refill-er would be pretty useful when you have to wait 20 minutes for a server to bring you a refill on your lemonade or coffee.

Re:Restaurants

[mikael]

Spaghetti and all types of pasta - manufactured by machines, pasta gets squeezed through various shaped nozzles and turned into shapes. Bolognaise - made from mince which in turn is made from meat that has been automatically sliced up. Other items are canned automatically. Ordering of cooking ingredients used by the kitchen is done through electronic systems. The payment of meals is done automatically through the banking system. Some restaurants have the wireless credit card readers. Ordering of meals can be done electronically or through a waiter/waitress.

But the sheer number of combinations of meals, ingredients, spices, proportions of ingredients, cooking times, placement on a plate is so large that no one chef can know them all. So they have job security.

Re:Restaurants

[Billly Gates]

I don't know about anyone else, but if I go to a real sit-down restaurant, I want an actual human server, not a robot or some other form of 'automation', and I sure as heck don't want a robot or some automation preparing my food, either. If that was my only other choice then I'd just as soon stay home and cook my own food.

I used to be a fan of Red Robbin. One day a manager told me how excited he was he was moving to a new location where he could cut staff by 50%. The burgers were dry I noticed.

It turns out they bought a toaster oven and just throw the patties in where they are under a heat lamp. No fry cook needed. Can I custom order a burger with medium or medium rare? Nope. Only 1 guy in the kitchen. Everything is now frozen or pre-made and the patties get thrown into a toaster every 5 minutes and are grabbed. Instant savings!

It is not just the wait staff that are automated. McDonalds would love to have robots do all the work in the bank. They will in California soon!

Re:Restaurants

[JoeMerchant]

One of the chain "sit down" restaurants around here has started putting tablet-like things on the tables. A waiter/waitress still comes around (and balloon artists circulate and make animals for the kids on weekends), but this tablet allows you to do things like enter orders for dessert, additional food, check your bill, and swipe and pay without waiting for the waitress to "come and serve you." All in all, I think it's an improvement - now, service times are maddeningly slow in most restaurants like this (5 minutes wait to ask for the check, 5 minutes wait for the check, 5 minutes wait to get the check picked up after you look it over, 5 minutes wait to get the credit card slip back to sign, replaced with 30 seconds of "self service" on the tablet) Certainly, it would be nice to have more wait staff, bigger spacing between tables, and faster human service instead, but that will come at a price - the automated option will get you the same food you get today for less money and less waiting on your part.

Re:Restaurants

[mattwarden]

Yes, if a robot serves your food, you have way too few incorrect orders, jackass attitudes, substandard sanitization. And not to mention you lose all chance that your server will spit in your food.

Re:Restaurants

[Archangel Michael]

What if fast and cheap was better than slow and expensive, because you can upgrade all the "food" by replacing the "people" (soylent Green comment here) that serves it? And you don't risk getting "Mel's" armpit hair in your burger as a bonus!

Re:Restaurants

[Archangel Michael]

Robots could do that too. duh

Re:Restaurants

[idji]

I'd be quite happy. When i go to a restaurant in California the waiter is usually fawning over me to get tips or simply begging for money, or spitting in my food when he knows no tip is coming. I go out to eat, not to get involved with his personal sob story.

Re:Restaurants

[fustakrakich]

See, that's the problem. You want a human to serve you. What is that? Some kind of supremacy thing? Me, I just want service and the humans for company and, you know, socializing. And food untouched by human hands is probably healthier anyway, especially in a public setting. If you want a servant, bring your own

Re:Restaurants

[JoeMerchant]

Wait staff works for tips, and I doubt a change in minimum wage will change this. If a restaurant turns $3K/night in income, an increase in back room labor costs from $60 to $170 shouldn't hit the cost of a $15 entree too hard, as you say: maybe $0.30.

However, in places that operate entirely on minimum wage workers, tripling the cost of labor is going to have a noticeable effect on the cost of served food - your $4 value meal might have to jump to $5.

Re:Restaurants

[thaylin]

I have had to pay workers and I support sjames's comment... Your appeal to authority argument is a fallacy.

Re:Restaurants

[thaylin]

You cannot upgrade the food though. The reason the food, atleast at this time, can be automate is because it is cheap prepackaged food.

Re:Restaurants

[gstoddart]

If you eat in garbage fast food restaurants, that may be true.

But for those of us who like our food to not be some mass-prepared crap, that's far from the case.

If your food is to easy to automate, it's probably not really worth eating.

Oh, and of course if nobody has any fucking jobs these companies will go out of business because nobody can afford to go out -- that is, except for the rich CEOs who cut all the jobs in the first place.

You show me a place in which the kitchen has been mostly automated, and I'll show you a place I refuse to eat at.

Re:Restaurants

[JoeMerchant]

Vendomats came out in the 1950s, with people behind the doors, but there are fewer and fewer people needed as time goes on.

Re:Restaurants

[thaylin]

The top median salary for tips is about $15 an hour.... (including hourly wages), so not sure where you get this "quite a bit better than" nonsense.

http://www.theatlantic.com/bus...

Re:Restaurants

[cyber-vandal]

Fast and cheap will never be better than slow and expensive because it doesn't have to be. Automation already creates the "food". Is it better than it was when humans made it 50 years ago? I'd be willing to put money on it being the same or worse. People go to real restaurants for a different experience than they'd get at a McDonald's "restaurant". That's not going anywhere for quite a while.

Re:Restaurants

[cyber-vandal]

The machines will still need to be cleaned and if you don't want someone to spit in your food don't be a dick.

Re:Restaurants

[Computershack]

The minimum wage rises every year in the UK, most of those working in restaurants are affected yet we don't pay through the nose for food and you don't see any massive price hikes. You're literally talking complete and utter shite.

Re:Restaurants

[silas_moeckel]

The median reported is $15 an hour so thats pretty much CC tips + a little to make it look ok. Plenty of unreported cash.

Re:Restaurants

[aardvarkjoe]

But for those of us who like our food to not be some mass-prepared crap, that's far from the case.

If your food is to easy to automate, it's probably not really worth eating.

Oh, good grief. Do you do any cooking of your own? Most tasks associated with cooking -- whether it's at home or in the kitchen of an expensive restaurant -- are relatively simple mechanical skills, and there's zero reason why machinery could not be designed to duplicate the majority of dishes served at your favorite restaurant with very little human intervention. If labor costs get high enough, it will become profitable to develop that machinery.

Re:Restaurants

[rajafarian]

While I agree with you, did you ever watch the movies Galaxina or Cherry 2000? What if you couldn't tell the difference?

Re:Restaurants

[Khyber]

Spoken like a true fool that has never managed a restaurant (I have.) James is correct.

Re:Restaurants

[kheldan]

What if fast and cheap was better than slow and expensive

LOL, that's not going to happen. Of just about any sort of regular business restaurants have the LOWEST profit margin. The owner isn't going to spend more on ingredients just because he has no human staff, he will spend the SAME or LESS to improve his profits.

Also so many of you aren't paying attention to the cost of the automation/robots. They won't be cheap, because there is money to be made! They'll more likely lease them and in the end the cost will likely be at least as much as paying a human to do the same work because they can get away with charging that much. Also they'll make the end-users pay maintenance costs, or roll it into the lease payments.

Seriously all you people who think that 'automated this' and 'robotic that' is going to solve all the world's problems make me laugh. None of that is going to solve any problems, it will just cause MORE problems because there will still be >=7,000,000,000 people in the world. You want fewer problems? Get rid of 90% of the humans on the planet. You'll get rid of 90% of the world's problems at the same time. LOL all we need is 7 billion bored-as-fuck people milling around the planet with nothing productive to occupy their too-smart-for-their-own-good brains, getting into trouble.

Re:Restaurants

[Khyber]

"You say that now, but most of the food you eat at a restaurant is already prepared by machines."

And I'm pretty sure a blind study would show that automation-produced food tastes like utter shit in comparison to human-prepared food.

Re:Restaurants

[Anonymous Coward]

No but expect toaster ovens for your burgers and premade frozen food made in China and shipped to your Olive Garden or Red Robbin where 1 guy is in the back instead of 4 actually cooking your meals fresh with custom cooking for your patties. Not whatever the toaster dumped out.

A large majority of the food at Olive Garden is shipped in prepackaged plastic bags and boiled in water that way. All that is left is to just have a robot drop it in the bowl.

You somehow thing these chain restaurants don't already do this...

Protip: if you want food that is actually cooked by hand, stay the fuck away from chains and find yourself a nice locally owned restaurant.

Re:Restaurants

[g01d4]

I want human chefs/cooks/servers

We all can't live in Downton Abbey. I vaguely recall as a kid reading that in India it was cheaper to hire a person to wash your dishes than to buy a dishwasher. Automation isn't the issue, overpopulation is.

robotic kitchen preparing food without any human oversight/intervention

We've had vending machines on the low end for quite some time. To be sure I still prefer talking to a server rather than the touch pads replacing/reducing them at some restaurants but I'm sure I'll get used to it. And I'm pretty sure there will always be an option to obtain the human, um, interface. Hopefully it'll be less common you'll have to pay more for it.

Re:Restaurants

[kheldan]

Menus will be replaced with touchscreens. All orders will be automated. Replace a waitstaff of 15 will a serving staff of 3.

I had the misfortune to eat at an Applebee's not too long ago (food sucks). They had this. I insisted on a human waiter to take my order. Why? I have questions. I often would like something prepared a certain way, that's well within their ability to do (well, so long as it's not Mister Roboto, who isn't programmed for it, LOL). Your touchscreen ordering won't do any of that for me. Your idea is more suited to shitty fast-food where you don't get options, you get what you get (which is why I don't eat fast-food). The closest I come to that is Chipotle, and that really can't be automated, because I definitely have a specific way I want them assembling things for me there. Nope, if I eat out I want humans dealing with it, not machines.

Re:Restaurants

[phantomfive]

It's having a lot of different effects. Some restaurants have given waiters raises, and others have increased wages in advance of the required deadline. Reports from Seattle are of restaurants raising prices 20%. Same in Los Angeles.

Re:Restaurants

[thaylin]

Typically reported tips go off receipt costs. They cracked down on that years ago when I was working for tips for the reason you just mentioned. There is probably some overage, but not as large, or any where as large, as you make out. There is a reason why wait staff tend to like restaurants that go to a 15 or even 10 minimum wage and no tips, because they generally make more.

Re:Restaurants

[sjames]

Even fast food shouldn't be hit that hard considering how many value meals they crank out in an 8 hour shift. It's only a 50% increase in labor costs, not 200%.

Re:Restaurants

[SecurityGuy]

As someone with kids entering the workforce, I agree. I mean, it's all well and good to say that we're going to eradicate this pool of low-skill jobs over here and create a smaller pool of high-skill jobs over there, but if we want today's kids to become tomorrow's productive members of society, we probably don't want to tear down the path from here to there.

Re:Restaurants

[sjames]

Actually, I have had to pay employees before. Have you?

Re:Restaurants

[AmiMoJo]

This happened decades ago in Japan. Many restaurants have a vending machine by the door. The select your food, pay the machine and it dispenses a ticket. You sit at a counter that is right in front of the kitchen, and the cook prepares and serves your food directly to you.

Re:Restaurants

[kheldan]

And food untouched by human hands is probably healthier anyway, especially in a public setting. If you want a servant, bring your own

Phweeeeeeee! Penalty on the play! Ten yards for flagrant trolling!

If not: Enjoy your contaminated food from some machine that wasn't ever properly cleaned for a month, because there's no PEOPLE around to check things for cleanliness. Also you must have no taste in food to start with.

Re:Restaurants

[BronsCon]

If that means an end to requesting medium rare and getting well-done, I'm all for it. The default would be middle-of-the-road in most cases, which means medium, much closer to what I ordered than what I typically get today. Perhaps, if people want to keep their jobs, they should take a little pride and do the job right in the first place? When a machine that doesn't give a flying fuck what the customer wants can do the job better than a human, it's the human's fault for actively ignoring the requests of their customer after asking for the input.

There are very few restaurants who manage to get my very common steak order correct. I would be sad if those humans lost their jobs; everywhere else, though? Automation would be an improvement. And that includes most steakhouses and quite a few expensive restaurants. I'm perfectly fine with accepting whatever you want to serve me, provided you didn't explicitly ask my preference and proceed to ignore it. In that sense, a machine that doesn't ask is better than a human who does, in most cases.

Re:Restaurants

[sjames]

Of course, some of those increases are to cover food cost and rent increases and some are opportunistic now that there is an excuse based on the narrative of higher wages.

Re:Restaurants

[phantomfive]

Yeap. It'll take a deeper investigation to figure out the true cost.

Re:Restaurants

[BronsCon]

I want a human serving me my food because I can often strike up a conversation with that human and make a connection that keeps me coming back to that place. A robot, not so much. With very few exceptions, the places I frequent are places where I have developed personal relationships with the wait staff or owners; the exceptions are places where the food was just so good that not much else matters, but those places are rare and not visited as often as the others. I can't speak for kheldan, but it's not a supremacy thing for me, it's very much a company and socializing thing.

Re:Restaurants

[fustakrakich]

Self cleaning/sterilizing is not out of the norm for a machine. And there is no reason not to expect it to deliver a very tasty dish. What don't you understand about recipe?

Re:Restaurants

[Archangel Michael]

I have. Labor Costs, on waited tables generally runs between 30/33% of sales (as a cost). Jacking the Min wage 50 % is going to raise the cost of that food by 16.5%. On a burger, fries, coke at a Sitdown burgerjoint ($10 meal for example) will mean the cost of increased from 3.33 to 3.89, an increase of $.55 per meal. Restaurants will pass that change in cost to the customer by raising the price of the burger.

$.30 number is a crock, and not based on any real data, by people who don't know shit. It is $.55, on a $10 meal (how Restaurants calculate food costs). And at $10, that is a CHEAP burger, fries and drink. Most fine dinning (real sitdown dining) is closer to $25 meal (or more), making that $.55 closer to $1.25 a meal.

And anyone who has been in the Business knows, it is a struggle to keep labor costs at 30-35 % How do I know? I've run businesses, including restaurants. Raising prices on meals by $1 is often deadly to traffic.

Re:Restaurants

[HornWumpus]

If you had, you would know that server is a well paid job. Tips add up fast, no competent server would accept a simple hourly wage. Granting at the bottom end they don't make shit, but at the bottom end server is entry level. The ones that can do it well move up to nicer restaurants quick.

Re:Restaurants

[gstoddart]

Oh, good grief. Do you do any cooking of your own?

Absolutely I do. I read books on the science and technique of cooking for fun. I know people who work in the food service industry. I read biographies of chefs.

You know, a food processor isn't "automation". It's a tool. Same for a blender, a stand mixer, a deep fryer, oven, or immersion blender.

While eating at a friend's place once, another friend commented on the fresh salsa and asked if she'd be able to do that in a food processor. I told her in no uncertain terms the quality of the salsa was entirely due to the knife skills of the person who prepared it, and a machine would not reproduce anything close. Because it really was down to a sharp knife wielded by someone who really knew how to use it, and a food processor would have produces mush.

The actual act of the food preparation, cooking, and making food taste good and look good? I don't believe for a minute that's something we'll just fire up a machine to do.

There a lot more to making good food than having some robot dump a pile of pasta on a plate, and heap some sauce on top of it.

Maybe the food you eat is something you could program into a computer. But Thai food, or Indian food, or Italian food ... or pretty much any good food is going to be far more nuanced than telling a robot to combine these 15 things in this exact combination and boil it for 38 minutes.

That kind of food? You really can buy in a microwavable box.

Re:Restaurants

[kheldan]

There is no reason to EXPECT a 'very tasty dish' from a machine. Do you not understand that the recipe is only a small part of the equation? I get the impression just from this that you don't know how to cook yourself and therefore don't understand that it's much more than just following a 'program'.

Re:Restaurants

[fustakrakich]

Yeah, well, wait on tables for a couple of years and see if you feel the same about it from the other side. I get my ambiance from the crowd. If you want to have "greeters" great, make it part of the show. Beer and a dinner at the push of a button is a plus.

Re:Restaurants

[Coren22]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.co...

Yeah, because it is hard to create a robot that cooks and serves better burgers and replaces 2 out of 3 of the people in a McDonald's.

Re:Restaurants

[TheSync]

The minimum wage rises every year in the UK

Current UK minimum wage for over 21 is $9.62/hour. California is talking about $15!

Also both UK and Australian minimum wages have lower wages for young people. For example, UK minimum wage for 18-21 year olds is $7.61/hour. For some reason, the US applies minimum wages to people of all ages, despite the fact that flipping burgers should probably not be a life-long career.

Re:Restaurants

[kheldan]

I sure as fuck hope I don't live long enough to have to endure your 'utopian' world where we're all little more than machines 'interfacing' with other machines instead of human beings interacting and socializing with other human beings, sounds too austere, isolating, depressing-as-fuck, and literally no fun at all to live in. If I want to be alone I'll stay home with the blinds drawn and the ringer on the phone turned off with my nose in a book. If I go outside the house to eat a meal I want to see and talk to and interact with living people, not more machines, and I maintain that your 'robotic chef' or whatever you want to call it is only ever going to be capable of making mediocre food that I could better prepare for myself at home for much less money and hassle so why would I even bother? You'd ruin the entire idea of eating out for 99% of everyone.

Re:Restaurants

[HornWumpus]

No two batches of tomato sauce (picking one example) are exactly the same. So good cooks taste and adjust their recipes based on today's ingredients.

This is basically why corporate chains (e.g. Crapelbees, Chilis, Outback etc etc) are completely, permanently stuck at mediocre.

They follow fixed recipes and hire food assemblers, not cooks much less chefs.

Great food is art, art is hard to automate.

Re:Restaurants

[aardvarkjoe]

Right. A robot can't do it because of ... nuance. In other words, you believe in magic. Oh, and the supercilious attitude of "well, your food is crap, but everything I eat is absolutely amazing." Apparently you not only believe in magic, you only eat at restaurants staffed by wizards.

A food processor isn't designed to cut things up the same way you do with your knife. Duh. But the notion that we can't make a machine to cut up vegetables however you need is beyond ridiculous.

Re:Restaurants

[BronsCon]

Yeah, well, wait on tables for a couple of years and see if you feel the same about it from the other side.

What makes you think I haven't? If your experience differs from mine, it could be that you worked in a shitty environment for a shitty employer that attracted shitty customers, while I did not. Ever stop to think about that? You worked in one of the places I mentioned elsewhere in the conversation, where I'd prefer automation, while I worked in one of the places where automation would ruin the atmosphere.

Think Applebee's (where the atmosphere is noisy and shitty and the waitstaff is kept too busy to socialize with the customers) vs. a family diner (where most frequent customers will know a large potion of the staff personally). The food isn't likely to be great at either place, but the atmosphere is more relaxed and peaceful at the diner; for anyone who enjoys a quiet conversation over a meal, that's a huge plus and the only other place you can get that is at home (where you may not have room for a large group of friends and you certainly won't find that familiar wait staff) or at an expensive restaurant (where it is increasingly less common lately, as more of those places start following the Applebee's strategy of cranking up the "atmosphere" to make it uncomfortable to socialize, so people leave soon after their meal is done).

Re:Restaurants

[HornWumpus]

That's one incompetently cooked steak!

I'd never go back to a place that served me the steak they show. Never.

That said 160F is way too cooked. The center of a steak should be at the body temperature of a cow and raw. The outside should be seared.

The steak they show is an incompetent medium well. No red at all.

Re:Restaurants

[HornWumpus]

Bullshit.

Wait staff like fancy expensive restaurants. Where they can _easily_ make six figures working just dinner.

Wait staff at Applebees etc are ether kids working starter jobs or are learning skills so they can work at a decent place.

Re:Restaurants

[jader3rd]

I had the misfortune to eat at an Applebee's not too long ago. They had this.

I haven't been to an Applebee's in a while. But now you've motivated me to go. If I can go to a restaurant and avoid the wait staff, that's the kind of restaurant I'm willing to go out of my way to patronize.

Re:Restaurants

[thaylin]

I take it you are just a troll, because you cannot really be that ignorant. I guess you have never seen those middle aged people serving at "applebees" or any of the other places..

And how many of these "fancy expensive restaurants" are there, I cannot even find one where they make six figures.

Re:Restaurants

[barc0001]

Ivars is a moderate to higher tier seafood restaurant, and Seattle isn't the cheapest place for restaurants to begin with. This isn't out of line with other places around the city in the same category.

Re:Restaurants

[gstoddart]

No, because if you go out and buy 5 batches of the same spices, from 5 different places, mix 5 different batches of the same recipe ... you will have 5 different tasting dishes.

I don't mean nuance in the sense of magic, I mean nuance in the real sense that the ingredients aren't digital and will have variations, and you will need to tweak your recipe to keep it tasting the same. One batch of peppers might burn your face off, and another might be fairly mild. Because nobody told the pepper they were expected to produce an exact amount of heat.

If you don't understand that about food, then you really do know nothing about food.

Places have been using machines to chop vegetables for a long time, and I personally own many such tools, as do restaurants ... but to make the meal from prep to cook by a machine? I'm highly skeptical that's going to produce food people want to eat in restaurants.

I'd love to eat in a restaurant staffed only by wizards. But if you don't think there's actual skill required to produce good tasting food, you probably are willing to eat crappy food. If your machine can produce the same food over and over and over and have it taste the same ... then it's probably some damned boring food.

But the difference between well prepared food and generic slop? Well, in that chasm is the automation people are claiming will revolutionize the food industry.

I just don't agree with the usual breathless futurists who are claiming we're going to have gleaming kitchens of robots cranking out our meals any time soon. Not by a long shot.

If that kid who is putting potatoes into your thing that makes fries is the difference between staying in business or not, you're probably already screwed. And if you're just going to give up and bring in food which is already prepared, well, then you can be McDonald's -- and obviously there's money to be made that way.

But when I see the word "restaurants", I think well beyond fast food places who specialize in producing food by rote.

Re:Restaurants

[MitchDev]

Considering most waitstaff get MUCH less than minimum wage under the legal excuse of "expected tips", you're meals are going up a lot more...

Re:Restaurants

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

If you had, you would know that server is a well paid job. Tips add up fast, no competent server would accept a simple hourly wage.

There's a particular burger joint/metal bar that I frequent at least weekly; I typically have a $15 burger with three $5 drinks. I'm a regular so the bartender comps. me one or two drinks which I give right back to them as gratuity. They're making close to $15 an hour just from my meal.

One of my friends worked in the restaurant industry for many years. It was not unusual for him to come home with $300 cash on a good night. Granted, you're not making that every hour of every day, but diners do take care of the staff.

Re:Restaurants

[roman_mir]

I have employees today and most of them make less than 15USD/hour (coding for me). There is a reason for outsourcing to other countries, of-course only part of it is price per hour, large part of it is all the regulations (which are taxes) and all other taxes that government imposes upon people who actually employ others.

Re:Restaurants

[HornWumpus]

I only go to such places for work related things. No I haven't seen many middle aged servers working at Crapplebees. 99% college aged.

Too bad you don't get out more.

Re:Restaurants

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I hate those damn tabled things that a lot of resturants now have. My last experience with them was a Red Robin and I wanted a malt and supposedly those can now only be ordered using those fucking things. Problem is it didn't work and the server and I spend 10 minutes dicking around with the fucking thing. Now when I see them I just move them around the dining room so they don't match the tables if I happen to go to a restaurant that has them.

Re:Restaurants

[Kjella]

And anyone who has been in the Business knows, it is a struggle to keep labor costs at 30-35 % How do I know? I've run businesses, including restaurants. Raising prices on meals by $1 is often deadly to traffic.

The question is how much of that is competition (they go to that other burger joint near-by) versus price elasticity (they go home to eat), if you raise the minimum wage in theory they should be raising everyone's prices. Like if I'm at the store and I'm thirsty I might easily buy what's on sale but I was always going to buy something to drink in some store.

Re:Restaurants

[FlyHelicopters]

While eating at a friend's place once, another friend commented on the fresh salsa and asked if she'd be able to do that in a food processor. I told her in no uncertain terms the quality of the salsa was entirely due to the knife skills of the person who prepared it, and a machine would not reproduce anything close. Because it really was down to a sharp knife wielded by someone who really knew how to use it, and a food processor would have produces mush.

Yes, but that is because you can't see past the food processor...

How about a robot that simply uses the same knife you do? The real solution to automating a kitchen is not to install more food processors, but to install a human sized robot with arms and fingers that can simply do what you do.

It isn't there yet, but it is getting close, fast...

Mix Baxter with Atlas and you're 50% done.

Baxter
https://youtu.be/7Pq-S557XQU?t...

Atlas: Next Gen Unteathered
https://youtu.be/rVlhMGQgDkY

Re:Restaurants

[dasgoober]

Machine oil is not the kind of grease I want in my burger!

Re:Restaurants

[sjames]

They also live somewhere where rent/mortgage is a fraction of what it is here. Try asking one of them to bring you a cup of coffee to your office and see what it costs.

Re:Restaurants

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Depends on who is preparing the food. If it is someone who is a cook at a fast food join or large chain restaurant then it is probably the same quality, if it is someone like the cooks at the Lebanese restaurant near me, or the non chain Italian one that makes the sausage fresh every day, or the Mexican one that makes the tortillas fresh each day it will be night and day difference.

Re:Restaurants

[roman_mir]

Correct, the real estate market as well as stock market and bond market (and other) bubbles that are created by the government manipulating the money supply (inflating) and by manipulating interest rates for various forms of debt cause the prices denominated in USD to go up without creating any actual productivity. All of this inflates the GDP (which is supposed to be adjusted with a deflater, this deflater is of-course a government number that makes 0 sense, the real inflation is in double digits). All of this causes prices to go up without any gains in productivity, in fact rather than gains we have losses in productivity due to investment capital outflow.

Nobody who works for me in other countries can bring me a coffee, which is why I still have a few people working for me locally but everything can change. A coffee machine will automate those jobs away just as well given enough incentive.

Re:Restaurants

[Forgefather]

This is true normally, but in some places the new minimum wage is being extended to waiters and other tipped staff as well. So far the businesses have adapted by paying the wages and compensating by adding the cost on to the meals with a notice that tips are no longer necessary. This has worked out pretty well for the vast majority of users, and that is to be expected as this was the model for paying waiters prior to the great depression.

Funny enough before the stock market crashed in the great depression tipping was considered an un American practice as every man was worth the full attention of their server regardless of their ability to pay. Is wasn't until restaurant profits fell after the crash that employers came up with the tipping scheme as a way to avoid paying their staff.

Re:Restaurants

[sjames]

You do realize that 33% each for wages, food, and profit are a rule of thumb, right? Unless you choose to up the quality of the food such that it also costs 50% more, your math is bogus.

What do you think it would do for traffic if your staff is homeless and stinking from not having a place to shower?

Re:Restaurants

[guruevi]

In a lot of chains your food has already been prepared by a robot in a factory somewhere. I know because I used to work for a company that used to make the machines that do so. Put raw meat and produce one end of the factory and packages comes out the other with the only human intervention being lab samples and mechanics. A lot of chains are also putting those annoying little tablets to order food/drinks but nobody wants to use them. Chains also continue to pay minimum wage while better restaurants don't. I don't see a lot of need for more technology in the kitchen/restaurant besides perhaps food safety stuff which is a net expense to most, not an investment.

Re:Restaurants

[sjames]

How so, are they changing the law about tips too?

Re:Restaurants

[sjames]

Since the discussion is about restaurant staff, we're not talking about jobs that can be offshored.

If you're talking about a coffee machine that can smile, engage in light pleasantries and bring the coffee to your table, it's gonna cost plenty.

If you mean it just makes coffee when someone puts in coffee beans and pushes a button, those already exist and are in use all over.

Re:Restaurants

[JoeMerchant]

The efficiency of fast food restaurants (basically: number of customers per hour) varies dramatically. I worked in one years ago that did so little business in the last 2 hours before closing (8-10) that you could do a head count, multiply by minimum wage, and see that the labor cost already exceeded the gross income - then you can add in the cost of electricity to run the A/C, lights and fryer, cost of food, etc. and they probably should have been closing that place around 7pm, if they were interested in operating at a profit.

Re:Restaurants

[FlyHelicopters]

They follow fixed recipes and hire food assemblers, not cooks much less chefs.

Yes, I think we all agree on that...

Which is why they'll, sooner or later, automate it with robots, and the people sitting at tables won't know the difference...

Re:Restaurants

[FlyHelicopters]

but to make the meal from prep to cook by a machine? I'm highly skeptical that's going to produce food people want to eat in restaurants.

100 years ago farmers would have been skeptical that less than 1% of the US population would be involved in growing food, yet that has happened.

It would not be possible to do it today, right now, in the next 5 minutes... but I think there is a good chance you'll see it in your lifetime...

Robots are finally getting good. Sensors, motors, batteries, low power CPUs, have all made large advances in the past 10 years. These will all be needed to make it work.

But when I see the word "restaurants", I think well beyond fast food places who specialize in producing food by rote.

Fair enough, but those places are already the fringe of the restaurant market. By FAR the majority of the places and the volume of food produced is of the bulk/mass variety.

Re:Restaurants

[Reapy]

Honestly, I like ordering via computer myself much better. Since online ordering it is much easier to take the menu in at a glance and go over all the options to customize your meal right there. Some places have pretty confusing menus or there isn't much time to sit and look over them if you are talking a fast food place. If you have an app in front of you the order is right there, goes into the database, and is printed all legibly. It can still go wrong on the kitchen end, but no chance of screw ups when things get busy or a waitress is new, or if you have a lot of alterations to the menu.

I guess right now some restaurants have kiosks that are probably the best blend, where you can ask for refills or pay the bill whenever you are done on them, but get a person still there taking care of running your food out and stuff.

Re:Restaurants

[roman_mir]

If you're talking about a coffee machine that can smile, engage in light pleasantries and bring the coffee to your table, it's gonna cost plenty.

- I don't think it will cost that much, there are already restaurants using robots today, not a big deal.

Re:Restaurants

[twistedcubic]

Yes, that all sounds nice, but does it impress your date?

Re:Restaurants

[sjames]

That sort of thing isn't a labor cost problem, it's a management problem. It's like grocery stores that insist on being open on Thanksgiving so they don't miss out on that super profitable sale of one pack of brown'n'serve rolls.

Re:Restaurants

[Zontar The Mindless]

... pretty much CC tips + a little to make it look ok. Plenty of unreported cash.

That hasn't been the case since the Reagan Administration.

It's amazing how many people posting opinions about restaurants in this thread have very obviously never worked in one.

Re:Restaurants

[sjames]

Yes, there are novelty restaurants doing that. Some have various anamatronic critters playing music as well.

Re:Restaurants

[roman_mir]

Of-course they are novelty today. Just like cars were a novelty back in 1769.

Re:Restaurants

[sjames]

Sure, and it may well become common one day. That is true no matter how low or high the minimum wage is set. It is also true that today is not that day.

Re:Restaurants

[roman_mir]

Not today, but maybe a few years from today, especially if I can help it. I am very interested in covering this segment of the market and working steadily towards that goal.

Re:Restaurants

[sjames]

And your customers will be able to afford more because they are paid more.

Re:Restaurants

[sjames]

That actually argues that the cost to restaurateurs from the wage hike will be even lower. If the waitstaff already makes more then the minimum, nothing changes.

Re:Restaurants

[Enter the Shoggoth]

Wait staff works for tips, and I doubt a change in minimum wage will change this. If a restaurant turns $3K/night in income, an increase in back room labor costs from $60 to $170 shouldn't hit the cost of a $15 entree too hard, as you say: maybe $0.30.

However, in places that operate entirely on minimum wage workers, tripling the cost of labor is going to have a noticeable effect on the cost of served food - your $4 value meal might have to jump to $5.

Tips used to be a (literal) foreign concept here in Australia until very recently.
Why? Because wait staff were paid a reasonable wage and didn't need to rely on tips to get by.
Unfortunately it's changing due to the wholesale importing of all things American into our culture.

What I don't understand is it only with wait staff? Surely if it's such a great idea then everyone should be working for tips?

Re:Restaurants

[JoeMerchant]

In that particular location, there were 7 fast food restaurants - though the present local market only supported about 5 profitably, so a couple of times a year one would go out of business, then another, then someone would come along and open a new restaurant in one of the empty buildings - snatch business from the 5 survivors because they were new, followed a few months later by another newbie in the other vacancy, then a couple of the older restaurants would go out of business within a few months - this cycle repeated for decades. My "open late" restaurant was trying to become one of the survivors with their "open to 10" in a town that rolled up the sidewalks at 8... they went down about a year later.

Re:Restaurants

[Enter the Shoggoth]

I don't know about anyone else, but if I go to a real sit-down restaurant, I want an actual human server, not a robot or some other form of 'automation', and I sure as heck don't want a robot or some automation preparing my food, either. If that was my only other choice then I'd just as soon stay home and cook my own food.

Given the direction in which these "trade" deals are going I suspect it won't be too long before cooking at home becomes prohibitive.
Just imagine vastly expanded "Intellectual property" laws integrated with micropayments and the internet-of-things:

You'll have to pay royalties to everyone from Monsanto (base food stuffs), through Samsung (gotta pay each time you use the microwave) to whoever wrote the recipe (recipe's aren't currently copyrightable but lets wait and see).

Of course you could get some recipe advice via a cooking show that you watch on your IOT fridge.
You'll have to watch all the ads now of course as adblockers are a way of helping the terrorists.

Think I'm trolling? This scenario isn't a big stretch from where we're at now.

Re:Restaurants

[Stinky Cheese Man]

I sure as heck don't want a robot or some automation preparing my food

Where do you think nearly every packaged product in the grocery store comes from?

Re:Restaurants

[twokay]

Exactly, from skimming TFA and reading some comments it seems no one (apart from this thread) has any idea what form this restaurant automation will take.

I have been to a number of "premium" fast food restaurants in the UK where wait staff are done away with and you are given a buzzer when you order and pay. You then find a seat and when the buzzer goes off you walk back to the counter and collect your food.

Guess what, this has been happening for at least 5 years (probably more), and only these fast food type places use it because it feels cheap when you have to serve yourself.

Re:Restaurants

[AbRASiON]

Not everyone eats at McDonalds.

Re:Restaurants

[FrozenGeek]

So do I. But a fast food joint is not a proper sit-down restaurant. And in a proper sit-down restaurant, between wages and tips, staff make more than minimum wage.

Minimum wage used to be for truly entry-level jobs - jobs for workers with no skills or experience to speak of. They would learn basic skills and gain experience in those jobs and use that to leverage themselves into better jobs. A great situation for teens with no expectation of going to college, but certainly not a career for anyone.

If you make those entry-level jobs high-priced enough that people consider them career options, you will severely reduce the entry-level options for those just starting out in life. Not saying that you haven't solved a problem. But you may have created, or exacerbated, other problems in the process. Sorry for the essay.

Re:Restaurants

[GodelEscherBlecch]

Seriously. The question that has been building as I read all these posts about the supposed replaceability of kitchen staff is 'where the fuck have you people been eating?!'.

Aardvarkjoe: Yes, your food is crap. And, apparently, yes I do eat at restaurants staffed by wizards. I wish you could see it. It's fucking amazing.

Re:Restaurants

[Mal-2]

I call bullshit. I've been to a fair number of trendy restaurants staffed by barely competent, hip young people who could burn water. In all of those cases, it was the competent, experienced, and utterly under-appreciated Mexican cooking staff that kept the place functional. When places like that go under, it's not the Mexicans that have a hard time finding the next job.

Re:Restaurants

[sjames]

I can see why it might have seemed like a good idea, and why it might be expected to lose money at first, but surely at some point it should have become clear that open late was not going to work there.

Re:Restaurants

[indygent]

Raising prices on meals by $1 is often deadly to traffic.

Not necessarily if all restaurants are forced to raise prices at the same time. And when low income people have more pocket money, they tend to spend it, potentially at all these restaurants, providing a stimulus of sorts. I would happily pay $0.55 more for a burger.

Re:Restaurants

[fustakrakich]

Well jeeze! You can always make it sing

Re:Restaurants

[JoeMerchant]

Tips are a funny thing, when I travel solo internationally tipping 20%+ on food/drink is such a trivial thing compared to the cost of the travel/room that I don't really think about it or mind - and it does seem to surprise and please the staff in places like Europe... when I'm eating out with the family (4) and we're ordering water to drink and getting the kids meals free combined with adult meals from the cheaper end of the menu, again 20%+ only seems fair for local wait staff who work for tips. On the other hand, when we go out as a family of 4 and order a couple of drinks and appetizers and a dessert and pay for all the entrees - 15% on that meal can be more than twice as much as 20% on the cheaper approach, and the wait staff isn't really working much more to bring the extra food.

All in all, I wish that the staff earned a decent living without tips and that a $5 or $10 tip would be presented only rarely, for exceptional service, rather than a $7 to $15 tip expected just for showing up and failing to insult you to your face.

Re:Restaurants

[JoeMerchant]

It was clear enough, they were just going for all or none, which seems to be a common business strategy among those who can afford to live with no income for a few years - better to try for the private island and jet and fail than to eek along and manage a stable, profitable enterprise in the community.

Re:Restaurants

[MitchDev]

The tips are how most restaraunts get away with paying their servers sub-minimum wage. Eliminate that crap and you've got a good first step to getting rid of the whole tipping nonsense.

Re:Restaurants

[david_thornley]

Back when I ate pizza a lot, I liked green olives and hated green peppers. When I ordered pizza by phone, no matter how much I emphasized what I wanted to the order-taker, there was at least a 20% chance that I'd get a pizza delivered that I didn't want to eat. I started checking them at delivery time.

After a while, one pizza chain had ordering on a web page. I could select which toppings I wanted on-screen. I never got a pizza with green peppers instead of green olives again.

Re:Restaurants

[david_thornley]

I'm not a good cook, but I've turned out some pretty good food in my time by following directions. (My wife is a good cook, and can whip up a delicious meal based on what we happen to have in the house. I can't do that.) If I can follow directions and come up with very tasty stuff, why can't a machine? I'm not expecting a machine to do as well as my wife any time soon, but most restaurants don't do as well as she does anyway, so I don't see why automation can't work there.

Improvisation and high-end quality are going to remain human for the foreseeable future, but machines can still get better and better.

Re:Restaurants

[Archangel Michael]

Because ... statistics.

And this is the reason why people go broke, because they think everything is flat, when it is linear (or worse, log).

It has already caused problems

[phantomfive]

It hit at least one bookseller pretty hard.

Re:It has already caused problems

[idji]

because his business model was based on exploiting his loyal employees.

Re:It has already caused problems

[Frosty Piss]

The National Review is not exactly an unbiased or labor-friendly publication.

Re:It has already caused problems

[phantomfive]

Letting each store set its own price would solve the problem.

With the internet, regional pricing doesn't work as well anymore.

Re:It has already caused problems

[alvinrod]

Why don't you hire them at $17 / hour so they can have an even better living? You've probably been around for a while and should have put away some money for something like this.

Most businesses aren't operating at the kind of obscene profit margins that would allow them to do that kind of thing. If they were, someone else would have opened shop and started undercutting prices to take the business. Not everyone who owns a business is some kind of millionaire that could give their employees more money, but chooses not to because they are so miserly.

Never mind that it's a comic shop, which now has to contend with online merchants, digital distribution, etc. The local shop here is probably only open because the owner is big into Warhammer and has a lot of people come in when he has tournaments who buy more miniatures from the store.

Re:It has already caused problems

[future assassin]

Actually I do have money put away for my shop. I always try to have at least $25,000 in the bank (shops business account) and my shop operates at 20-24% markup and that is a retail shop. If I knew my shop was going to be running at break even or deficit every month because I have an employee I would never hired one in the first place. Besides I set my shop up not to not have to work but so I can work for my self and no one else.

Re:It has already caused problems

[BronsCon]

So he's 2x as far as he needs to be for the first $1 increase that hasn't even happened yet. I think he'll be alright. Too bad you posted AC, you could be at +5 by now.

Re:It has already caused problems

[asavage]

The math in that article is screwy too. The article says he usually has one staff at the store, 10 hours a day, 365 days a week. $15/h x 10h x 365 = $54,750 in total salary paid. Even if half the time he has two staff that is less than $80K. The article says the increase is costing him an extra $80K/year.

Re:It has already caused problems

[thaylin]

Spoken like a true AC. The statement makes no sense. Removing the subsidies would not make more people work, it would mean those working at poverty levels would need to either work more, or get paid more, to live. You do realize that not many people who dont work get these subsidies. The vast majority are those working.

Re:It has already caused problems

[Drethon]

because his business model was based on exploiting his loyal employees.

Yeah, they would prefer to have no paying job over being exploited I'm sure.

Re:It has already caused problems

[alvinrod]

Then why are you asking someone else to do something that you wouldn't do yourself? Also, if you read the article the OP linked, the changes result in an additional $80,000 in yearly expenses. If you were in the same position with $25,000 you'd last about 4 months before exhausting that. It's not hard to do a small amount of critical thinking and realize that it made sense for that business owner to employee people at the previous minimum wage, but it doesn't make sense to do so at the new minimum wage. Are you expecting everyone running a business to by psychic and anticipate unforeseeable changes years in advance?

Re:It has already caused problems

[Cederic]

That's not how private businesses, at least, work. They get whatever's left of profits after costs. Do you dumb shits know anything about the real world?

Oh dear, irony overload.

In the real world have you seen the tax disadvantages to the model you're suggesting which discourage almost everybody from adopting it?

Yes, owners pay themselves. No, owners do not rely purely on dividend income.

Ya, Sure, So What's Slowing Owners Up?

[LifesABeach]

Talks cheap, till you have pay for it. If the machines existed today, they'd be purchased; regardless of the minimum wage. Those machines that do exist are being purchased, today. And it's OK for Papa Johns to get his panties in a twist.

Re:Ya, Sure, So What's Slowing Owners Up?

[religionofpeas]

If the machines existed today, they'd be purchased; regardless of the minimum wage.

Not if the machines cost more than minimum wage.

Re:Ya, Sure, So What's Slowing Owners Up?

[acoustix]

If the machines existed today, they'd be purchased; regardless of the minimum wage.

Not if the machines cost more than minimum wage.

Exactly. There's a breaking point. And California just passed it, apparently.

Re:Ya, Sure, So What's Slowing Owners Up?

[Foobar of Borg]

If the machines existed today, they'd be purchased; regardless of the minimum wage.

Not if the machines cost more than minimum wage.

Even if the minimum wage did not go up, the cost of technology generally decreases. If people can be replaced by machines, eventually they will be replaced.

Re:Ya, Sure, So What's Slowing Owners Up?

[deKernel]

Those machines do exist, and they are being phased into production for the sole purpose of keeping labor costs in-line with product prices. The issue is that with the forced increase in minimum wage, the adoption rate will be higher.

Regarding Papa John getting his panties in a twist, his company is actually good to work for. I spent a few years in college delivering pizza for them, and they were good to the people. I can't speak personally for him, but I believe he does see the value of having employees, but there is a price point where a decision has to be made: automation or personnel, and $15.00/hr is going to push for the former. Don't believe me...try opening your own food business and see where you end up because if you have to choose between making money to keep the doors open by adopting automation and eventually you will, or going bust...well, yeah.

Re:Ya, Sure, So What's Slowing Owners Up?

[Billly Gates]

Talks cheap, till you have pay for it. If the machines existed today, they'd be purchased; regardless of the minimum wage. Those machines that do exist are being purchased, today. And it's OK for Papa Johns to get his panties in a twist.

They already exist for Red Robbin. Unless it is an old location I won't go as their fries are now frozen and the patties are thrown into a toaster and no longer custom cooked on the grill the way you like it.

The reason is up front costs. Share holders love no variation in costs or profits. Just a smooth ride always going up 10% a year for infinity. So to spend $60,000 in robots to save $180,000 in 5 years is not feasible. Now it is to spend $60,000 to save $390,000 in 5 years! At that rate a 10 year 5% interest loan for $390,000 is cheaper than to pay the employees.

For quarterly results and monthly profits accountants always look at the monthly costs even if they can save more long term. Stupid, but hey automated computer programs determine the share price now :-)

Re:Ya, Sure, So What's Slowing Owners Up?

[NatasRevol]

*maybe.

$15/hr is about $30k per year. Robots are usually a lot more than that. And require capital, not cash flow.

Re:Ya, Sure, So What's Slowing Owners Up?

[quintessencesluglord]

I am always bemused that after call centers being moved to India, manufacturing jobs ending up in China, and even Fords being built in Mexico that people can't fathom that increasing labor costs at home might have an affect on the job market. Like the US labor market is somehow a product of American exceptionalism, free from other cost concerns.

While trying to increase the ranks of the middle class is laudable, it seems to be more ending jobs for entry-level workers.

The difference in yearly income between a burrito engineer and a degreed and licensed professional is about $10k under the new scheme. Why bother with the school debit, the professional associations, and yearly certifications when you could just work fast-food?

Except once that pandora's box of automation is opened, even those professional careers are fair game.

Re:Ya, Sure, So What's Slowing Owners Up?

[Joe_Dragon]

but even at $15/hr and $0 per run sucks as Papa Johns needs to pay you the full IRS rate per mile to use YOUR CAR.

Re:Ya, Sure, So What's Slowing Owners Up?

[FlyHelicopters]

http://www.rethinkrobotics.com...

Not really...

Starting at $25,000, Baxter is quite reasonable. He isn't nearly as fast as a human, but consider that he'll last for years, works 24/7, never shows up late, never calls in sick, and uses pennies of electricity while his meat based competition is now going to cost $15/hr.

So a $25,000 robot replacing 3x workers in a 24/7 McDonalds is $90K, except that employees cost more than you pay them, it is really closer to $120,000.

You can buy 5 Baxtors for that price.

A quote I like:

A tenth of the speed is a bargain when it is one hundredth the price...

Use Baxtor for 5 years and it is FAR cheaper than hiring 3 employees for 5 years. Also consider that if you're McDonalds, you likely will pay less than list price for him because you can use 100,000 of them.

You also have almost no training costs. Show Baxtor how to do it once, and all 100,000 of him now know how to do it. Perfectly, the same way, every single time.

Re:Ya, Sure, So What's Slowing Owners Up?

[HornWumpus]

Not that much more and they work every shift.

Re:Ya, Sure, So What's Slowing Owners Up?

[HornWumpus]

Anybody who ate at Red Robbin twice has no working taste buds. As bad a Crapplebees.

Are there no family run independent restaurants where you live? I can get an excellent Thai lunch and iced coffee for less than the price of a Carls Jr combo.

Re:Ya, Sure, So What's Slowing Owners Up?

[thaylin]

Except at that cost it is even better than buying at 7.25 hours, so we are just seeing hyperbole for something that they are already looking to do as an excuse. there is also the overhead associated with Baxtor, maintenance/repairs, constant re calibrating, that bun is off by a few inches will screw him up.

Re:Ya, Sure, So What's Slowing Owners Up?

[bluefoxlucid]

Still wrong.

If I expect the machine's TCO over its life to be much lower if I wait 5 years, I'll do some risk analysis and determine if my risk tolerance and risk appetite are compatible with waiting. I might pay you $10/hr when a machine costs $9.50/hr because I think the machine I can get in 7 years will cost $6.50/hr and save me an extra $210,000 dollars in its lifetime.

If we have lower wages, these various risk tolerances and appetites fail to line up. People lose their jobs, yes; but they lose them over a broad span of time. People become unemployed, some goods get cheaper, consumer buying power shifts over a few years, people buy more stuff, we need someone to make that stuff (even if it's just to man the machines), and the displaced workers get jobs.

If you push unemployment to 8%, that's fine; if you push it to 58%, your economy collapses.

Re:Ya, Sure, So What's Slowing Owners Up?

[suutar]

A degreed and licensed professional costs 40k?

Re:Ya, Sure, So What's Slowing Owners Up?

[FlyHelicopters]

that bun is off by a few inches will screw him up.

Why? Baxtor can see, he doesn't function by pre-programmed movements, he does tasks shown to him by people.

That is how you program him. Show him what to do, show him the starting point, show him the finished product, and he'll learn how to do it.

Need him to make a new thing? Just show him, you do it in front of him and he watches you and learns.

And this is just version 1, give it a few years, these will only get better.

Re:Ya, Sure, So What's Slowing Owners Up?

[NatasRevol]

No training costs? LOL. That's called programming a robot. But, yes, it could be scaled much better.

You do have maintenance costs. Which over 3-5 years may become more expensive than humans.

Re:Ya, Sure, So What's Slowing Owners Up?

[FlyHelicopters]

Yep...

http://www.rethinkrobotics.com...

Even if it costs $250,000 to replace each worker, consider that you're getting a 24/7 machine, so really it replaces 3 workers (for a 24/7 fast food joint).

It never calls in sick, never gets lazy or stupid, it won't spit in the burgers, and it only has to be trained once.

Oh by the way, install 4 of them in each location, times 10,000 locations, and now you have 40,000 of them, and once you train one, all 40,000 of them know how to do it.

Your training costs just went to nearly nothing.

Re:Ya, Sure, So What's Slowing Owners Up?

[fishthegeek]

On an individual level it may not make sense but business rarely runs at that level of granularity on a day-to-day basis. A manger should properly be looking at the overall sales... say 100000 hamburgers, and notes that the labor cost for cooking those might be $250,000 per month if the hamburgers are $5 each. If the restaurant owner can automate and reduce the cost to $200,000 by purchasing a $100,000 machine, and releasing two people. they will in a heartbeat. There are externalities like employee turn-over etc that dramatically increase the cost of labor to a restaurant that we haven't even considered.

Re:Ya, Sure, So What's Slowing Owners Up?

[FlyHelicopters]

I'll do some risk analysis and determine if my risk tolerance and risk appetite are compatible with waiting. I might pay you $10/hr when a machine costs $9.50/hr because I think the machine I can get in 7 years will cost $6.50/hr and save me an extra $210,000 dollars in its lifetime.

Maybe, but the machine never shows up late, never calls in sick, never quits without warning, requires no retraining every few months when you need a new hire.

It also works 24/7 without complaint, doesn't ask for overtime on holidays, and produces the same product every time in every location.

It also doesn't sue you for discrimination or overtime pay or workers compensation, it doesn't ask for unemployment and it doesn't create workplace drama.

I've had a lot of people work for me over the years. It could cost 20% MORE than employees, for the above reasons, I'll take the robot, thanks...

Re:Ya, Sure, So What's Slowing Owners Up?

[FlyHelicopters]

No training costs? LOL. That's called programming a robot.

Almost no training costs. You only have to train one robot once to do something, then all 40,000 of his friends instantly know how to do it.

Also, do you know how you program Baxter? You stand in front of him and show him how to do something.

You start with the finished product, you tell him "this is the end goal". Then you start with the parts at the beginning and tell him to watch. He watches you do it and learns. As he does it, if the finished product doesn't match what you did, he'll make adjustments to what he did and try again.

You can also show him several times and let him learn from each.

The average manager at a McDonalds can do this.

You do have maintenance costs. Which over 3-5 years may become more expensive than humans.

Maybe, but you might be surprised... Rethink Robotics offers a 3 year warranty as well as ongoing support for $7,000 per robot. I imagine that would cost even less if you're buying thousands of them.

It really isn't that expensive of a machine.

Re:Ya, Sure, So What's Slowing Owners Up?

[bluefoxlucid]

Those are all risks. Have you forgotten that fast food workers are underemployed? I have an army of 20-hr workers who are begging for more time. It gives me a lot of power over my employees to keep this overprovisioned, underutilized workforce around; it lets me call in more workers at busy times and dismiss workers early when labor costs go above 14%.

Your risk appetite and risk tolerance may be different than others. You sound like an early adopter: the technology is shiny, and you want it. Five years down the line, you'll take a net loss if you sell a hamburger for less than $4.58; while your competitors are able to sell the same burger for $3.25 and make a small profit. You're "that expensive burger place", and you go out of business because nobody buys from you.

All of the things you discuss are measurable risks. Risk thresholds might actually kick in if someone does sue for discrimination or something, because that's expensive and the cost has just exceeded what the business is willing to pay; or the business might operate under the same average costs it projected (because it does that always anyway--when you have 3 million employees, your overall operating costs and risk events are *highly* predictable), and just continue flying smoothly until it reaches a point where it believes the risks don't pan out anymore.

Re:Ya, Sure, So What's Slowing Owners Up?

[FlyHelicopters]

You sound like an early adopter: the technology is shiny, and you want it. Five years down the line, you'll take a net loss if you sell a hamburger for less than $4.58; while your competitors are able to sell the same burger for $3.25 and make a small profit. You're "that expensive burger place", and you go out of business because nobody buys from you.

Yes, except no... because I can afford to just lower my price and take a capital write off...

The cost is all front loaded for robots, they cost very little to actually use, but a whole lot to buy. My day-to-day running costs are not likely to be much, if any, higher than yours, I just paid more up front.

A write off of capital is a non-cash balance sheet transaction, it doesn't cost me money today, that money was already spent.

That changes a bit if I financed the robot and have to make payments, which is why large chains like McDonalds will likely take the safer route and setup another company to buy and lease the robots to the franchise owners to remove that risk from both the parent company and the franchise owners.

It is also worth noting that this all only works if wages rise to $15/hr nationally.

Re:Ya, Sure, So What's Slowing Owners Up?

[bluefoxlucid]

Yes, except no... because I can afford to just lower my price and take a capital write off...

Actually, you can't. If you lower your price below your cost, you only get to reduce your taxes on your loss. People have this idea that "write-off" means "the government gives the money back", as if you lose $20,000 and the Government sends you a $20,000 check. Doesn't work that way; you lose $20,000 and the government doesn't tax you on it.

If you run negative, you still have to fork over personal money (owner equity) to make up the difference, or file bankruptcy.

The cost is all front loaded for robots, they cost very little to actually use, but a whole lot to buy. My day-to-day running costs are not likely to be much, if any, higher than yours, I just paid more up front.

Most likely, the robot lasts ~30 years, costs $300,000 to buy, and costs $1.50/hr in maintenance and fuel (electricity) costs to operate, assuming negligible labor costs (i.e. your existing crew just stuffs a row of patties in the feed and pulls out cooked patties as-needed). You take a loan to buy these $300,000 machines, and now you have to pay that loan back; but loan + maintenance is less than worker.

In your case, you're assuming the machine might cost 50 cents more than a $7.25/hr worker, so a $375,000 machine that costs $1.50/hr to run.

If the machine costs a grand total of $1 less than a wage worker TCO, then replacing that wage worker will save you his labor in 7.25 years. If you think that machine is going to drop in price by $75,000, you're talking about roughly a 37.5 year return by waiting. That means if you think the machine is going to cost $1.25/year less in TCO in 5 years, you're securing yourself a better position for a good 30+ years by letting your competitor adopt now and waiting 5 years to catch up--even if the machine costs $1 less than a worker today. 10 years down the line, your hamburgers will be a dollar cheaper than your competitor's, and he'll have this expensive-ass machine he can't reasonably and profitably replace--and most of the TCO was the purchase anyway, so he made 30 years of mistakes up front.

A write off of capital is a non-cash balance sheet transaction, it doesn't cost me money today, that money was already spent.

Assuming you had the money to spend, and haven't leveraged. Microsoft, Shell, and Wal-Mart are highly leveraged; Apple and Google have billions of cash on hand.

It is also worth noting that this all only works if wages rise to $15/hr nationally

It works if machines require less wage-labor than their operating lifespan replaces. That is to say: we have to pay a few hundred people some total of ~15,000 hours of work to build one of these machines today; in the future, new technology will allow us to build the same machine with ~5,000 hours of work. Instead of paying $20/hr, 15,000 hours, $300,000 machine, we pay $20/hr, 5,000 hours, $100,000 machine. Even with inflation, your worker's wages are going up just like those machine maker's wages; but the number of hours of wages invested in making that machine has gone down, and so that machine costs less.

The difference you're looking for, and the one I describe, is time: do we wake up one day to find machines cost half as much as workers and we are all stupid for employing anyone; or do we go through a long cycle of technological growth, making strategic decisions as different machines become cheap enough to effectively replace workers, and making those replacements based on differing predictions of when is the most profitable time to do so?

As you observe: if wages jump to $15/hr, we fire everyone and get machines. Nothing gets cheaper--everything gets a bit more expensive--and unemployment goes up by 40%. We can't create new jobs very easily because while the average consumer isn't a whole hell of a lot poorer (an effective minimum wage doubling might

Re:Ya, Sure, So What's Slowing Owners Up?

[david_thornley]

There is not "a breaking point". There are numerous breaking points for numerous jobs. Moreover, crossing a breaking point is not necessarily a bad thing. If an employee isn't worth $15/hour, then we can get along without that guy, and automating that job will help the economy grow.

Re:Ya, Sure, So What's Slowing Owners Up?

[LifesABeach]

then we can get along without that guy, and automating that job will help the economy grow. How does this cause the economy to grow? Your customer is now out of a job, and sure as hell exists, won't buy from you or anybody else for that matter?

Re:Ya, Sure, So What's Slowing Owners Up?

[LifesABeach]

Consider, if your job is replaced by a machine or an H1B visa zombie at 10 cents on the dollar. How much will you be able to purchase in your economy?

Re:Ya, Sure, So What's Slowing Owners Up?

[david_thornley]

Economic growth is done by destroying jobs. If everybody needs to be employed where they are, there's no economic growth.

Re:Ya, Sure, So What's Slowing Owners Up?

[bluefoxlucid]

You're focusing on microeconomics. Consider: If 70% of our population still worked to make food, how much would you be able to purchase in our economy?

Every iteration of technology reduces the number of people required to produce some product. We reduce how many people we need in a job area and either we slow job growth there (minor reduction or simple scarcity uncapping), we remove some people from their jobs (retooling), or we remove a *lot* of people from their jobs (technological revolution). Technological revolutions can either replace direct 1:1 labor (technological revolution sans scarcity uncapping) or can move a limiting factor (scarcity uncapping).

The Industrial Revolution was a TR-sans-SU: if you wanted 10% more shirts, you hired 10% more workers; then we made it possible to produce shirts with 20% as many workers and fired damn near everyone. In that time period, shirts were a luxury: the middle-class and poor got hand-me-down shirts from rich people as the fashions trended (this is how charity works today, too, except it's not as critical for our society today--there are still VERY GOOD REASONS for such charity), and old shirts became rags because spending $900 on a dish towel is retarded. That means 80% of everyone lost their jobs, and the only consumer market feedback was in basic needs areas e.g. farmers.

The Information Age was a TR-SU: if you added more legal contracts, more complex transactions, or more of any information-driven service, you started creating more complexity in providing those services. American Express, for example, started out with some 10,000 accounts supported per 1 agent; eventually they were hiring 1 new agent per 3 accounts. As more people used credit cards and the fraud market developed, the amount of credit behavioral data available and *required* to pick out fraudulent transactions increased; agents even had to use large market trends to detect broad, hidden schemes across dozens or hundreds of accounts by recognizing a seemingly-benign but common new trend among them. That, plus the fact that people were using the cards more frequently, limited the growth of the credit card market.

Then, AmEx developed the Authorizer's Assistant.

The Authorizer's Assistant is a computerized expert system which presents the AmEx Agent with a listing of all information the AA examined, annotated with how it influenced the AA's decision, along with a final decision on whether the transaction is legitimate or fraudulent. It even includes information examined but not understood, with the annotation that the AA didn't factor said information in. Agents performed their jobs 78% faster and with an 80% lower incidence of failure (approving fraudulent transactions) the day it was released; and the AA scaled far better, allowing AmEx to continue flying along with only a few authorizers per thousands of accounts even as the complexity and scale of information relationships increased. AmEx basically got to eventually hire 30 programmers and 10,000 authorizers instead of 500,000,000 authorizers (which was never going to happen: the product would eventually become unviable).

The trend of a technical revolution such as the computer age is to eliminate some class of existing jobs and uncork a growth bottleneck. This creates an explosive growth in the job market, meaning you lose millions of jobs, create hundreds of some other kind of job to replace them, and as a result become immediately capable of creating millions of new jobs supplying thousands of new products and services. This is the ideal situation of "people will just get new jobs"; however, the usual ideal that we'll all just become higher-paid machine engineers is blatantly dysfunctional. We'll see lots of jobs for low-paid machine operators; the wealth of society will balance out into the same trending class structure as ever, and that class structure is highly variable. Scarcity uncapping tends to create a growing middle-class, which then shrinks as population growth catches

The submitter

[Hognoxious]

Is the submitter paid by the hour, or by the number of times he can fit "restaurant industry" into TFS?

Pay a premium for human service

[Notorious G]

If you want human service staff, be prepared to pay the premium for that. Some people, like you, will desire it and to get that kind of personal, custom service, won't be as cheap as what you can get from a machine.

Re:Pay a premium for human service

[gstoddart]

Well, yeah ... but I choose where I go out to eat usually based on the quality of the food, the service, and the overall dining experience.

If I wanted a stale sandwich out of a vending machine, I'd do that. Or, I'd simply buy some cheap meal in a box I could microwave.

Other than places like McDonald's, I don't think most restaurants are the kind of places where the food won't become institutional dreck ... pretty much because the food at McDonald's already is institutional dreck.

You likely serve some pretty terrible food if it's something you can have a machine produce for you.

Re:Pay a premium for human service

[HornWumpus]

Machines already produce just about all the mediocre-- corporate sit down food. Applebees, Chilis, Olive Garden etc etc are just boil in bag or microwavers.

Re:Pay a premium for human service

[Bob the Super Hamste]

You forgot about dropping into the deep fryer and setting the timer to automatically remove it.

Robobuns

[wkwilley2]

Robots make better BURGERS!!!!!!!

Republicans don't want to pay employees

[TroII]

This is the Republican agenda. Outsource, Offshore, Automate. Anything to avoid paying human beings a living wage to do the work. $15/hr, gosh, I could hire 10 Indians for that! The mantra of Republicans is "I Got Mine, So Fuck You!" Why should you have a job? Why should you have health care? Why should you even be alive if you haven't bootstrapped yourself to my status? I worked hard to inherit a million dollars and I can afford what I need, so you can go get fucked, you whining pleb!

Having changed the corporate outlook from 5 or 10 years to just the next 3 months, Republicans and their PROFIT UBER ALLES attitude are destroying America.

Re:Republicans don't want to pay employees

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the Republican agenda. .

Clearly you don't know that California is run by democrats.

I'm quitting

[110010001000]

I'm quitting my IT job and taking one of these $31,000 year dream jobs!

Re:I'm quitting

[bluegutang]

With unpaid overtime, your IT job may not end up paying you much more than $15/hour.

Re:I'm quitting

[fluffernutter]

Not to mention, unpaid time spent networking that now falls on your shoulders because you are a consultant on a month to month term and not a salaried employee.

Re:I'm quitting

[110010001000]

Anyone who is working in IT and isn't getting paid six figures isn't trying very hard.

Re:Call their bluff

[Notorious G]

Either pay up or shut up, business owners.

This is exactly wrong. It's either pay up or shut up, customers. If you artificially increase the cost of doing business, business owners will have to increase their revenues to cover that cost. That means that you, the customer, will be charged more to cover it.

I am not surprised..

[Anonymous Coward]

To be worth paying an outlay of $15 an hour, an employee must generate $150-$200/hr income for a business. This is above and beyond basic operating costs (rent, insurance, utilities, etc) - so, if a $15/hour cashier-jockey does $100 in sales/hr, the business is LOSING money on the deal.

Re:I am not surprised..

[Anonymous Coward]

must generate $150

As a small company owner in another state, I've got to say that California has to be pretty shit if payroll taxes plus UI plus the employer's half of medcare/ssi amounts to 9 times the person's wages.

Personally, though, I don't think it costs that much to hire a person, even in California. That means what you're saying smacks of entitlement to me. Feel free to demand 300% profit on your investments, we'll feel free to ignore your entitled whiny ass.

Labor going up while illegal immigration...

[Karmashock]

... clamping down... in a state that is the tech capital of the most advanced civilization in human history?

Yeah... automation might happen, champ.

Whelp, time to move to Japan.

[Anonymous Coward]

If $15/hr is good, then $100/hr minimum wage would be better, right?

That way everyone who works will be doing pretty well financially.

Too bad unemployment would skyrocket, so not many people would be working. Ah, and now you see the issue with the $15/hr wages?

"Muh, Migrant Labor!" Japan already does robotic farming. It is the future. "A day without a mexican" would make Silicon Valley start shitting robots and autonomous vehicles.

Re:Whelp, time to move to Japan.

[suutar]

If $15/hr is good, then $100/hr minimum wage would be better, right?

Nope, that's not a general truth. See also acetominophen, alcohol, oxygen, and indeed water. The goal is a livable wage, not an exorbitant one.

Ah, and now you see the issue with the $15/hr wages?

No, but I see a flawed argument.

Or maybe nothing will happen at all

[somenickname]

If people who normally live paycheck to paycheck now have some disposable income, maybe they will spend some of it at restaurants. Maybe they will even spend enough to more than make up for the increase in employee wages.

Re:Or maybe nothing will happen at all

[deKernel]

That theory sounds all well and good except for one thing: where do you think that "new" disposable income is coming from?

Re:Or maybe nothing will happen at all

[SecurityGuy]

It can, actually, because money doesn't actually get consumed when it's used. If I get $100 and take the family out to dinner, that $100 isn't used up. The restaurant has it now, and they'll spend it on other things. Wages, food, etc.

Money isn't a raw material like coal or lumber. Once you burn a lump of coal, it's gone forever. Once you spend money, though, it's just in someone else's hands.

Re:Or maybe nothing will happen at all

[mileshigh]

...or maybe they go to Walmart and buy some day-to-day Made in China stuff. $15/hr doesn't automatically translate into eating out and getting a maid.

Re:Or maybe nothing will happen at all

[fluffernutter]

Except every one of those companies has thousands of shareholders that want to know why their share value went down in that case.

Re:Or maybe nothing will happen at all

[fluffernutter]

Except corporations don't consider it part of their role to funnel new money to anything other than profits.

Re:Or maybe nothing will happen at all

[HornWumpus]

Leftest perpetual motion?

Re:Or maybe nothing will happen at all

[mrlibertarian]

The economy is not an iron mine. New disposable income does not come from some finite source. An economy is money moving in circulation. People stop spending as much, you get a recession. People spending more, economic boom. More money going to the working class, which spends 100% of their available funds, means more money out, more money flow and a better economy.

If that was true, hyperinflation would be the best thing for an economy, because hyperinflation causes a tremendous increase in "money flow" as people desperately try to spend their rapidly depreciating currency.

The truth is, disposable income does come from a finite source, because the supply of goods available in an economy is finite. The minimum wage is a price control, and like all price controls, it distorts the economy. A price ceiling causes a shortage, and a price floor causes a surplus. The minimum wage is a price floor, which means it causes a surplus. What does it cause a surplus of? It causes a surplus of labor, which is also known as "unemployment".

You may respond, "Can't employers simply raise their prices so that no one has to lose their job?" The problem is that employers have already set the price of the goods that they are selling to the level that clears the market. In other words, if the employer raises his prices, he will lose customers (if this weren't true, then he would have increased his prices long ago). In summary, to the extent that employers raise their prices, they are losing customers, which ultimately means less work for their employees, which ultimately increases unemployment among marginal workers (e.g. teenagers).

At worst it speeds things up

[wiredog]

Burger flipping is ripe for automation anyway. The rest of making an automated McDees is already done. Royal Farms uses touch screens for the customers to order, and the automated checkouts are in all the grocery stores now.

I worked in industrial automation 20 years ago, and I knew then that the day when people who were intellectually on the left side of the bell curve were unemployable was coming. No here quite yet, but in the next 10 years it will become a major political and social issue.

Re:At worst it speeds things up

[cyber-vandal]

It's already starting. Trump is popular in part because he's prepared to talk about the major loss of income of many Americans due to automation and outsourcing. All the establishment Republicans have been utterly destroyed leaving only the two loons. If Trump was a religious nutcase then he'd have already won. I can't see him winning but I wonder what President Clinton is going to do about the alienation of so many Americans. Probably nothing. I can see the same happening here in my country too. There's an awful lot of disaffected people in both our countries and dismissing them all as racists isn't going to solve the problem.

Re:At worst it speeds things up

[FlyHelicopters]

Burgers should not be flipped. It's far more efficient to cook both sides at once.

McDonalds already does that, has for a long time...

But you get a better tasting burger by cooking it on one side for awhile, flipping it, cooking it some more, flipping it again, and so on. It gives the heat time to move and makes for a nicer burger.

But McDonalds isn't in the "nicer burger business". :)

we are not helpless, just unwilling

[supernova87a]

It almost seems like government is helpless or has thrown up its hands in dealing with the root causes of the problem, which is the responsibility of government.

The problem is not that people aren't getting paid enough. That is what is called a symptom (for the layman). The problem is that too many people want to live and work in California, for fucks sake! This is the root of housing issues, unaffordability, income disparity, etc. in California. When will people realize that?

Increasing minimum wage just adds to the fundamental pressures here. People are being paid below this new minimum wage because.... There are people willing to work for less than the minimum wage! Do you really think increasing the wage will make the housing crunch better? Make it overall more affordable and possible to live here?

We need policies that make it less expensive to live here, not more. But of course those are the policies that are hard to come up with, and inconvenient -- so yeah, let's just ignore those.

Re:we are not helpless, just unwilling

[cthulhu11]

... not to mention the chronic water shortage. One thing for sure is that housing in California, at least the greater SF / Silly Vally, rises in cost to reflect what the market will bear. I predict this will see the low end of the housing market, shitty apartments, rise in cost disproportionately to the higher tiers. Without control of spiraling housing costs, isolated increase of the minimum wage does not improve standard of living, it just fuels inflation.

Bullshit

[frAme57]

The fact that labor wants compensation of any kind will spur automation, as soon as automation costs less than the minimum pay that labor will accept. The $15/hr min wage is just a convenient excuse. And using it as an excuse makes reasonable conversation about the ideas of minimum wage, living wage, corporations' roles in society, and automation in the workplace nearly impossible.

Re:Bullshit

[Ravaldy]

In my experience automation is often used to stream line processes, increase quality and increase output which all result in lower cost at some point. Humans aren't reliable in nature (generalizing). People get sick, they strike, have real life obligations that get in the way of work and lets be honest, most of us work as a mean to our life objectives (eating, sex and entertainment).

All that being said, if we didn't have to worry about competing with China (and friends) then increasing the minimum wage would see reduced crime and even reduced health cost. This was proven with before/after statistics coming out of Europe. There was a TED talk about this worth watching.

To me, any business that tells me their ability to stay in business hinges on $40 / day / employee is just FN crazy. Other than global exports, the local restaurants will all be impacted the same way so it's an even playing field.

This isn't a bad thing.

[Robotbeat]

I have been saying for years that an increase in the minimum wage can partly pay for itself by spurring automation. And that's a very good thing, for everyone.

Some business owners might prefer to pay a bunch of people $1/hour to dig a ditch using a shovel, but at $15/hour, you gotta use a backhoe.

I always find it funny when rightwingers complain that a minimum wage increase is simultaneously entirely inflationary AND that it will cause you to lose your job to automation.

I've often thought that we are using far too LITTLE automation, not too much. If burger flipping can be automated, why the heck aren't we automating it? Oh, right, because it's cheaper up-front (but not long-term) to just pay someone a poverty wage.

And it's also always funny to see rightwingers pull out the Luddite critique, i.e. that automation will put us out of jobs, when in fact we've had increasing automation for centuries, now, but not any lower voluntary unemployment. So the Luddite critique is ridiculous when OTHER people use it, but totally fine otherwise...

And then, realize that we had a real minimum wage of about $11/hour in the 1960s, when productivity was FAR lower, when we had far less economic productivity per person. If you adjusted the minimum wage for productivity growth, it'd be over $20/hour right now.

I actually think that by NOT raising the minimum wage, we've stymied technological progress. Yes, there's definitely a limit to how fast you can increase the minimum wage without hitting inflation (or possibly some unemployment), but we're not near that limit with $15/hour.

Re:This isn't a bad thing.

[ryanmc1]

I see this a little differently. These jobs, minimum wage, were never intended to be something you lived off of. They are stepping stones towards a much larger paycheck and a better job.

I am a father of a teenager, who will very soon be looking for a job, How are they suppose to get a job when the minimum wage is $15/hour and they have no previous skills? Or if all the menial jobs are automated? As a society we need menial jobs with low pay so that our young, who do not need to support themselves, can get experience working. Without this we are going to have a hard time getting kids ready to be productive members of society.

In the meantime the previous generation who held these jobs should be promoted up the chain to better pay, as they improve there skills. This is how it is suppose to work. But when we pay the menial laborers more than managers there is no incentive to improve yourself and work up the ladder. I see this as a bad thing because again those jobs are now no longer available for the new generation of workers, or they are out of reach because they are too expensive to hire non skilled workers.

Re:This isn't a bad thing.

[Qzukk]

"Well, employees are working harder so they should make more". Of course, this is absolutely 100% not true and in fact the opposite is true.

Thanks! Now I don't feel bad at all for surfing slashdot during work hours.

Re:This isn't a bad thing.

[fluffernutter]

The thing is, the opportunities to step to are drying up quickly. More and more people are finding that they are stuck on minimum wage. No corporation cares about getting kids prepared for work. They'll give your kid an unpaid internship with a possible chance of getting a job and act like they're doing us a favor.

I'm not too worried about incentive for people to get a promotion. If a person is cleaning toilets and they can get a job filing papers they will do so just for the job quality. The corporation might need to up their game a bit in terms of compensation but it is minimal. Really this is just business being worried about their profits and blowing smoke as usual.

Re:This isn't a bad thing.

[fluffernutter]

The problem is, the same since it has been since the 70's. These corporations consider automation to be an investment that they have made, so any savings will be considered a 100% profit for that investment. They don't want to take any of that extra money and funnel it back into employee's wages, they consider that a step back.

Re:This isn't a bad thing.

[Robotbeat]

...which is exactly why a minimum wage hike is a good idea.

Also, a higher minimum wage would encourage more people to reenter the workforce. It'd encourage people to move out of their parents' basements and get a job.

Re:This isn't a bad thing.

[roman_mir]

I have been saying for years that an increase in the minimum wage can partly pay for itself by spurring automation. And that's a very good thing, for everyone.

- is automation a goal in itself? If a business can have employees vs using machines, what is the difference to you, as a customer? The bookstore in TFA is a small niche player, it will not automate, it will shut down. The automation will be afforded by much larger companies, but small niche players will simply disappear.

You will not have 1000 small bookstores, all automated, you will have Amazon and maybe Walmart will all the automation and nobody else. In case of small niche players maybe their entire 'shtick' is a personal touch - people serving people as opposed to robots serving people.

Some business owners might prefer to pay a bunch of people $1/hour to dig a ditch using a shovel, but at $15/hour, you gotta use a backhoe.

- right, but it doesn't matter what a business owner wants if nobody will work for him, it takes 2 to tango. A business owner may want to hire a bunch of people to dig with shovels for $1/hour (nothing wrong with that at all, by the way). His business may or may not exist at $15 an hour, but certainly a large business, that can afford to buy and maintain and service a backhoe will exist. What will not exist will be these low paying jobs available to people who cannot find better jobs at all because their skill sets and/or circumstances do not let them have a better job at the time.

I always find it funny when rightwingers complain that a minimum wage increase is simultaneously entirely inflationary AND that it will cause you to lose your job to automation.

- I don't know what it has to do with 'rightwingers', but a minimum wage increase will cause reduction of choices and will cause more automation, why is that a difficult concept? Whether prices will go up... they very well might!

By the way, I suppose when you are talking about 'inflation' you really mean: higher prices. AFAIC inflation only means one thing: expansion of the money supply. Whether prices rise due to that expansion irrelevant, they may or may not (some will absorb the cost of lower value dollar, some will raise prices).

Now, if you have a small company serving somebody in a niche market at lower prices than a large competitor because you are able to hire cheap labour locally, you are competing against much larger players in the market. Those larger players satisfy the demand of their customers. Get rid of the small niche players and now you are stuck with much fewer choices, this may very well mean that for the choices that you used to get you will have to pay premium simply because they are no longer available.

I've often thought that we are using far too LITTLE automation, not too much

- we have as much automation at any moment in time as the market really dictates. It's not 'too much' or 'too little', it's what the market (but of-course also the government) determines.

If burger flipping can be automated, why the heck aren't we automating it? Oh, right, because it's cheaper up-front (but not long-term) to just pay someone a poverty wage.

- what the hell is a 'poverty wage'? Poverty wage is 0. 0 dollars a day is a poverty wage, everything above that is a job. You can take the job or invent your own job. Of-course with the government and theft through taxation, inflation and borrowing (which is future taxation) it's also possible to run a ponzi collectivist (socialist/fascist) scam until it crashes the economy.

And it's also always funny to see rightwingers pull out the Luddite critique, i.e. that automation will put us out of jobs, when in fact we've had increasing automation for centuries, now, but not any lower voluntary unemployment. So the Luddite critique is ridiculous when OTHER people us

Re:This isn't a bad thing.

[Robotbeat]

It's not about people working harder, I don't know how you got that from my comment. Rich people aren't working any harder, either. It's about the gains through that work being much greater due to amplification from technology.

Another thing: a higher minimum wage would likely bring more people into the workforce since it'd actually be worth it to work more instead of just rely on the social safety net you mentioned.

I did mention "rightwingers," but that does not mean this is purely a left vs right issue. I believe it's more complicated than some ideological axis.

Re:This isn't a bad thing.

[fluffernutter]

Well, some people are afraid of our corporate overloads and fear what will come if they get all snotty about it. But I say, whatever is coming is coming anyway eventually.. so I agree with you, raising minimum wage is the way to go. I think the important thing is to make it easier for people to come off welfare, not harder. Sadly, we appear to be going the other way; to make welfare almost necessary for raising a family.

Re:This isn't a bad thing.

[SlaveToTheGrind]

The thing is, the opportunities to step to are drying up quickly. More and more people are finding that they are stuck on minimum wage.

The actual statistics don't support that at all, to the extent you trust the Bureau of Labor Statistics as a data source. From the summary on the front page:

The percentage of hourly paid workers earning the prevailing federal minimum wage or less declined from 4.3 percent in 2013 to 3.9 percent in 2014.

That's about a 10% decrease in one year. The table on page 13 of the PDF shows historical rates back to 1979. In recent years, there has been a consistent decrease each year from 2010 through 2014 (the most recent year BLS has reported), with a cumulative decrease of 35% over the period. And save a period during the Bush years when the percentage hit the 2-3% range, the decline has been fairly constant since 1980. Back then, the percentage making minimum wage or less was a whopping 15.1%. Now it's about a quarter of that.

Re:This isn't a bad thing.

[fluffernutter]

Hard to make any judgments from those numbers. Are more people making higher than minimum wage. or are more people relying on welfare? It could have gone either way. There has been a massive increase in households receiving government payouts over the last while. It kind of makes sense, if minimum wage jobs are not enough to bring people out of dependency then people will become more dependent. Why bust your ass looking for a minimum wage job that will barely pay you enough to keep your family going when you can just apply for welfare instead? There are only two ways to go with this.. either reduce government handouts, which is going to have to happen anyway if the trend continues, or make it more profitable for people to come out of welfare.

Undesirable?

[king neckbeard]

Why is automation "undesirable"? Automation means that people don't have to work, and thus have more time to do something else.

Re:Undesirable?

[fluffernutter]

Because our corporate overlords have all the money and they won't give us money if we don't work. As the usefulness of minimum wage I'm beginning to understand being on welfare more and more.

You can't legislate prosperity

[JoeyRox]

But you can legislate wage-push inflation, which is exactly what happens when minimum wage increases. The result is rising prices for everything that has to touch domestic human hands. This will have a regressive effect on the economic class that the minimum wage is supposed to help, since a much larger portion of their salary is non-disposable. As Friedman said there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Re:You can't legislate prosperity

[jader3rd]

If legislature can create laws which interfere with prosperity, it makes sense that the correct laws do do a lot for prosperity.

Re:You can't legislate prosperity

[silas_moeckel]

But the SJW's said it it must be true.

Re:You can't legislate prosperity

[david_thornley]

Does not compute.

Take a minimum-wage worker with little purchasing power. Now, we increase the minimum wage by 50%. This will increase the cost of doing business for anyone using minimum-wage labor, but it's only going to be by 50% if everything in the business is done by minimum-wage workers. A company that depends primarily on machines and skilled employees making considerably more than minimum wage will find that costs don't go up by that much (there's probably some increase in cost in their supply chain). A look at supply-demand curves will show that the optimum price goes up slower than the costs involved.

Therefore, the worker now has 50% more money, and prices have gone up by much less. Assume 20% (which seems high to me), and the minimum-wage class has something like 30% increased purchasing power.

There's no such thing as a free lunch, but depending on how things change it may be possible to provide a better lunch less expensively.

Re:You can't legislate prosperity

[JoeyRox]

Businesses where minimum or near-minimum wages predominate typically have high labor costs as a percentage of total costs. For example the average labor cost for a fast food restaurant is 25-30% of total costs.

Re:You can't legislate prosperity

[david_thornley]

If a business spends 30% of its costs as wages for minimum-wage workers, and minimum wage goes up 50%, that business sees a 15% increase in costs, which will not translate to a 15% increase in prices. The minimum wage workers are much better off in this scenario.

Re:You can't legislate prosperity

[JoeyRox]

On what basis have you made the determination that a 15% increase in costs would not translate into a 15% increase in prices?

Re:You can't legislate prosperity

[david_thornley]

On what basis? Elementary microeconomics, my dear Watson. As long as the demand curve slopes in a way that increased price means less demand, and the supply curve slopes in a way that increased price means increased supply, a supply curve representing higher costs will create an optimum price lower than the increase in costs. Raising the price by the same amount as the costs will create too little demand to maximize profit.

Re:You can't legislate prosperity

[JoeyRox]

With rising wages companies will be able to raise prices without hurting demand. If that weren't the case then there would be no such thing as wage-push inflation.

Re:You can't legislate prosperity

[david_thornley]

No. They can't raise prices without hurting demand. This is basic. Even if an entire line of business raises their prices, consumers will tend to favor other lines of business. No demand is completely inflexible. What happens when marginal costs rise is that there's a new optimum price, higher than the old one but not as high as the marginal cost raise, and the business is less profitable. That's how wage-push inflation works.

Re:You can't legislate prosperity

[JoeyRox]

The entire decade of the 70's disagrees with you, even net of the oil-price shock.

Re:You can't legislate prosperity

[david_thornley]

And you're going to show me statistics that show that prices did go up without changing demand? That people consumed as much as before, despite higher prices? (And how did they do that?) The oil-price shock had precisely nothing to do with wage-push inflation; it was a big change in the cost of a very heavily used commodity.

Re:You can't legislate prosperity

[JoeyRox]

Actually yes, demand did go up when prices went up. That's one of the effects of high inflation - future purchases brought forward based on the expectation of higher prices tomorrow. You can't have a general increase in prices without demand holding or increasing otherwise you'd get the opposite, which is deflation.

Re:You can't legislate prosperity

[david_thornley]

Strange...I seem to remember people driving less after the oil shocks, because they couldn't afford to buy all the gas they wanted. That's a reduction in demand.

Re:You can't legislate prosperity

[JoeyRox]

Do a google search of "70's gas lines" and you'll see photos of cars stretching out into the street waiting to fill up their tanks.

Re:You can't legislate prosperity

[david_thornley]

Saw that myself. What does that have to do with the demand for gasoline? It shows that there still was some, but not that it was a high. The lines were a function of restricted supply.

Thinking of the bright side..

[fluffernutter]

At least I won't have to worry about sending my kids to college and have them come out to a job flipping burgers any more, because there WON'T BE jobs flipping burgers. Ah this economy gets better and better. When does the recession end?

Re:Thinking of the bright side..

[larkost]

The recession is long over. The bottom was in early 2009, and we surpassed the pre-recession point in 2010. The economy is doing just fine, and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you.

However, that has not helped many people because the increases have gone almost entirely to people at the top. Anyone who tells you that they are going to somehow cut taxes in a way that is going to magically fix this is clearly not a student of history for the last 40 years, where taxes have trended sharply down, while income disparity has trended sharp up.

Measuring the economy (i.e.: GPD or its relatives) is about as good a measure of the health of a nation as measuring average caloric intake. At some points it is a great measure: in sub-saharan Africa it is probably a great way of measuring progress. However, once you get to a certain point it is no longer a good measure.

Re:Thinking of the bright side..

[fluffernutter]

I know. Basically it is clear to me that the middle class in the US is fighting an uphill battle and paying for increases in India, or wherever else global trade takes us. The population is bleeding in these nations, and so opening global trade has made us bleed as well while those at the top benefit from it.

competitive equality

[swell]

The minimum wage causes no competitive disadvantage to local businesses.

If a single restaurant had to pay minimum wage and not its competitors, it could be hurt by the additional cost. If all restaurants have the same cost, then all are as competitive as they were be before. There is the slight problem that a dinner that used to cost $10 will now cost $11 - I doubt that will deter many customers. On the plus side, customers may feel less obliged to pay a large tip to the waiter.

Other industries will have the same competitive equality as long as their competitors are in California. If they compete with Mexican or Chinese businesses, they may have problems. That issue brings us to the TPP which may expedite solutions for those businesses (at the cost of California jobs).

Re:competitive equality

[fluffernutter]

The truth is, all businesses are itching to get rid of staff but no one wants to take the heat for being the first one. They're all just waiting for a convenient excuse. If it is going to happen it is going to happen for one reason or another. Might as well just keep as many people fed and sheltered and not out committing crimes as possible.

Re:competitive equality

[TheSync]

If all restaurants have the same cost, then all are as competitive as they were be before.

Except they lose competitiveness versus making your own food.

Spending on restaurants has just surpassed spending on groceries in the US for the first time. This could slide back into reverse now with rising minimum wages.

This is a typical build vs. buy decision. You save time eating at McDonalds, but if it costs more, you might make your own sandwich.

This also applies to nannies: a female computer programmer makes a decision to have a nanny care for her child instead of her so she can work. If the nanny's wages goes up, the programmer may chose to leave the workforce because she is no longer making enough to cover child care (especially after taxes). Note that the latter scenario is the loss of two jobs, the nanny and the computer programmer. The economy has a double loss.

Re:competitive equality

[tazan]

You are assuming all restaurants have the same cost. An independent restaurant that preps fresh food is going to have a much higher labor cost than a franchise restaurant that brings in everything on the freezer truck.

or use tpp investor-state dispute to make it $0.13

[Joe_Dragon]

or use the tpp investor-state dispute to make it $0.13 hr

yeah! cooties!

[Thud457]

Those tableside kiosks really drag down the ambiance of a joint with their blinking flash games.
I imagine those touchscreens are an absolute horrorshow during cold & flu season.

Chili's / Ziosk, I'm looking at you.

Re:yeah! cooties!

[silas_moeckel]

Go with the Japanese style order kiosk is outside or a phone app.

Re:yeah! cooties!

[Thud457]

Sorry to be confusing -- hygiene was actually a secondary concern for me.

Those damn things clutter up the table, which is a real problem when seated at a two-top and you've ordered appetizers along with your drinks and entree.

An even bigger peeve is those kiosks are flashing, dancing distracting light-source when you're trying to relax and enjoy a peaceful meal. I understand how the uncivilized, youngsters and the Japanese may see no problem with that.
I wonder if they increase alcohol sales.

Re:yeah! cooties!

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Just play musical device with those things. I shuffle them around the dining room because I hate them.

It's being phased in over 4 years

[rsilvergun]

Inflation is currently about 6.5% for the working poor (real inflation, e.g. the increased cost of food, shelter, transportation, etc, low gas prices don't count because they're not gonna last). Basically it's not that big an increase given the timeframe. Sounds good though. But it's not going to spur Automation. What's spurring automation is that it's cheaper than slave labor in China now. I don't care how shitty we make the lives of the working poor, you're not gonna make a dent in that...

Re:It's being phased in over 4 years

[TheSync]

Inflation is currently about 6.5% for the working poor (real inflation, e.g. the increased cost of food, shelter, transportation

Then eliminate NIMBY regulations on housing. My block has 30 single-family homes in an urban setting. You could allow two 60-story apartment buildings to be built here, house four times as many people with the same living space, and have plenty of green park land, playgrounds, and bike paths between them.

NIMBY regulations that price workers out of cities takes 0.25% off of US GDP growth every year.

This is great!

[jd.schmidt]

Yes, please have robots do crap jobs! The Ancient Egyptians had 100% employment, pulling sandstone blocks in the desert. Jobs that don't/can't pay a living wage aren't worth having. Robots will change the economy and we have to help people transition and get real work, but our current situation sound like something out of Oliver Twist were people have the choice of slow starvation working at a McJob or quick starvation on the street.

Re:Who could have seen this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, we should just pool all world output, and divide it evenly.

Of course, that means the basic income for each person is $10,215 dollars per year, given the current world population of 7.4 billion, and the global production of ~75.59 trillion in 2013.

So, to your point: if you're sitting here posting self-righteously about how "the people" will rise up and take what's theirs, guess what, friend? YOU will be one of the ones losing YOUR shirt, too.

Minimum incomes are the juvenile fantasy, friend. They are only promulgated by those who are willing to say, "FUCK anybody not in my country, I got mine." Which is, really, a simple extension of the attitude you proclaim such hatred for - that of "FUCK everybody, I got mine."

Sadly, when the "people" drive that point home, they will be killing the golden goose, and will learn it to their chagrin after the fact.

Re:Call their bluff

[thaylin]

And historically that has not exactly been the case. Min wage increases have typically been paid for by increase in prices, but also by cuts in profits.

We need to face the facts of modern society

[netsavior]

It doesn't take 7 billion people to feed, clothe, entertain, and educate 7 billion people. So, now what?

Death penalty for those that can't contribute? Pointless wars as boredom/under-utilization mitigation? Boldly go where no man has gone before? Meaningless limitations on how you can grow food("organic", "non-gmo," etc)

We have to stop thinking like a "work or starve" society, because we haven't been one for a very long time.

with unlimited student loans you can learn what ev

[Joe_Dragon]

with unlimited student loans you can learn what ever you want.

Re:The "duh" heard 'round the world

[thaylin]

This is not about "unskilled labor" This is about the minimum cost to do business. Business owners like to talk about the "market" but the market does not, and cannot fix this issue, because the government subsidizes "the market", which is really what this is about. We need to get this subsidy out of the market and put the proper minimum wage in place, such that if an employee is working 40 hours a week he can make a minimum living. If your company cannot pay for someone to live at that then your company is not viable.

Re:The "duh" heard 'round the world

[thaylin]

Because a BS pays, on average, considerably higher than $15 an hour.

Re:The "duh" heard 'round the world

[cyber-vandal]

Exactly. Why would someone want a nice office job that pays two or three times more when they could ask fat idiots if they want fries with that or clean toilets for 10 hours a day. The jobs don't stop being crap just because you no longer need government assistance to pay your bills.

Why?

[jd.schmidt]

I mean, are you talking to the waiter or the guests? Is it to make you feel important? Just force of habit? There was a SciFi book where a tyrant had human servants, to show he could, and everyone was scandalized because they knew full well robots could do it just as well. OK, sure at a super fancy place where the whole experience is a little bit show, but over all, I would be happier to not make a human serve me.

Re:Why?

[kheldan]

I would be happier to not make a human serve me

Make? They're getting paid, and I usually tip well. And yes I talk to them, that's part of the whole point. If I want to be isolated then, again, I stay home and make my own food and save money. Eating out is a social experience. With just machines? Shit-quality food, and you're isolated. May as well stay home, then. You're welcome to be a shut-in if you like but I pity you. Do you have real friends, you see in person? Or are all your 'friends' on Facebook and the rest o the Internet, and you shun all human contact? On Slashdot I wouldn't be surprised.

I don't want a world where all there is, is 'automation' and 'driverless-this' and 'robotic-that'. That's a sad, depressing world, and I feel sorry for anyone who thinks that's some sort of utopia. The more isolated people are from each other, the less they're able to relate to each other, the less well they can communicate with each other, the more problems we'll actually have in the world. Human brains are not wired to be isolated, we're social animals by nature, and going out of your way to be anti-social just causes problems.

Re:Why?

[jd.schmidt]

I go out to dinner, and when I do I talk to the family and friends I go out to dinner with, not the Waite staff, they are very secondary to the experience. Don't pity me, if you have to go to a restaurant to have social interactions, I ought pity you! I have no problem with people working at very up scale restaurants making a living wage, but lots of them are barely getting by and the constant threats that these poor paying jobs might be "taken away by robots" if the poor saps working them won't accept even less money disgusts me. Frankly, you are getting the spillover from my irritation about that attitude, but all in all better to call this bluff and say "hell yes" to robot servers.

Re:Why?

[kheldan]

Waite staff

The 'Wait staff' are people, too; why wouldn't I talk to them instead of treating them like machines, regardless of who else I might be with? Do you disregard some people because they're 'beneath' you or something? Just because someone is taking your food order and bringing it to you doesn't mean that they're dumb or not worthwhile, many of them are just making ends meet until they're done with school or until they get their 'big break' in life, so why should I or anyone else treat them with any less regard or respect than anyone else? I'd have sharp words for anyone I was out with who treated the waitstaff at any restaurant with anything other than respect. All in all I don't think your problems life need to be solved by the rest of us having to endure 'robot' service in restaurants (or in the kitchens for that matter), I think your 'problems' could be solved by learning some manners and a proper level of respect for other human beings, regardless of whether they're waiting tables, the guy you work for, or President of the United States.

"Drive for 15"

[mrsam]

... or whatever it's actually called. I know that the left-wing movement to drive the minimum wage up to $15/hr has a catchy name of some kind, but I fail to recall it at the moment.

The only thing this movement demonstrates is the abject failure of the US public scrool system to teach young skulls full of mesh some basic economics. Instead, they come out believing that every filthy, greedy, business owner has a money printing press in the basement. Either that, or that the only way to force the bourgeoisie fatcat to pay the proletariat a fair share, is through minimum wage legislation.

Only a complete lack of understanding of basic principles of economics could result in anyone thinking that the only thing that will happen after raising the minimum wage to $15, is that everyone will be paid $15/hr. And that nothing else, whatsoever, will change. Everything will remain exactly as they are today, except that everyone will be making $15/hr, at least. Socialist utopia.

They'll be in for a shock once they figure out that business owners are not hiding a money printing press in the basement, that they could use to pay their entry-level workers $15/hr. They simply don't have the money, and no amount of radical, left-wing socialist propaganda is going to change that. No amount of protests will have any effect on that. The only thing that the Mr. Store Owner could possibly do, at that point, is either fire their workers, or raise their prices. There are no other options. A lot of good will the $15/hr minimum wage will do for them, when they're not the ones being employed, or when a loaf bread costs $11, and a gallon of milk costs $8. But, hey, they're making a living wage now!

Re:"Drive for 15"

[ErichTheRed]

"They'll be in for a shock once they figure out that business owners are not hiding a money printing press in the basement, that they could use to pay their entry-level workers $15/hr. They simply don't have the money, and no amount of radical, left-wing socialist propaganda is going to change that. "

Let's say minimum wage is $8 an hour now and rises to $15. Are there seriously businesses out there that don't make enough profit per employee per hour to absorb a $7 increase? Pizza places around my area charge around $20 for a large pizza. At 50% margin (a very conservative number for pizza given the cost of ingredients) one pizza per hour per employee will cover the increase and still leave $3 in profit, not to mention full margin on all the other pizzas sold that hour.

I'm just saying that this, coupled with the fact that business owners get huge advantages in terms of taxes, is a good counterargument. $15 an hour is not going to kill a business owner, and if it does, then they shouldn't be in business.

Re:"Drive for 15"

[mrsam]

According to http://smallbusiness.chron.com/profit-margin-supermarket-22467.html, your run of the mill grocery store has a profit margin of a whopping 1%. Can you explain to me how that's supposed to pay for increasing the wages of the majority of their workforce by 100%. Labor is the biggest cost of doing business, pretty much across the board.

All similar business in the same geographical area pay generally the same wages, and so have the same general costs of doing business. As such, any business that attempts to inflate their profit margins have really only one way to do so: by increasing the price of their products. But if they were to do so, they will be immediately underpriced by their area competitors. As such, profit margins of general businesses, not just grocery stores, but all general businesses, tend to be razor thin. They can only charge a bare minimum above the cost of their products, in order to stay in business.

And we're not talking about just your cashiers in the grocery store. The companies that run the trucks that deliver the goods to the store also have to raise their minimum wage too, and will also have to increase their costs to deliver goods, which gets passed down to the grocery stores, which will also have to increase their own prices on account of that too.

The janitorial services, that send their workers to the local businesses, to clean their toilets, will also have to increase their own minimum wages too. This also translates to their direct costs, which they have no choice but to pass down to the grocery store, as their customer, who will also have to increase their product prices on account of that too.

You can come up with a myriad of examples. Do you know who really ends up paying for the $15 minimum wage? You, the helpless consumer. Always.

There's an old term for all of this. It's called "trickle-down economics". Perhaps you've heard of it. Much derided by the radical left; perhaps the term was originally poorly chosen. A better name would've been "real life".

Labor base rate

[Bruinwar]

Suppressing the minimum wage suppresses all wages. The base rate for all wage slaves is the minimum wage. Raise it to $15 (by 2022?!) , the guy making $15 wants a raise to $18, the guy making $18 wants $20 & so on.

A new Subway can't make it paying people $15 an hour? There is something wrong somewhere in the franchise's business model.

Re:Labor base rate

[TheSync]

A new Subway can't make it paying people $15 an hour? There is something wrong somewhere in the franchise's business model.

Without $15 minimum wage: "A worker can't command $15/hour on the market? There is something wrong somewhere with that worker's business model, and they will have to take a lower wage."

With $15 minimum wage: "A worker isn't worth $15/hour minimum wage? Then there is something wrong somewhere with that worker's business model, and they have to go jobless."

Re:Labor base rate

[fluffernutter]

It's not the business models, it is capitalization has a whole. The system was never sustainable. We can look around at all the communist regimes that have failed but we're not far behind them. In terms of human civilizations, America is still very young and it is failing already. 500 years from now it will just be a tick on the timeline.

Re:Who could have seen this?

[RabidReindeer]

Atlas Shrugged fails on 2 important deviations from observable reality.

1. The idea that only Conservative types are creative (if anything, it would appear that creative types are overwhelmingly inclined to be Liberal).

2. The idea that John Galt's "30 minute speech" could have actually been delivered in 30 minutes.

Come on, already, I've been reading for like 800 pages. If I haven't got the point by now, do you really think a Castro-length polemic is going to get it through?

Or they can get some J1 Visa workers to take the j

[Joe_Dragon]

Or they can get some J1 Visa workers to take the jobs.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB...

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/18/...

Only if the unemplyoed can eat

[aepervius]

At the moment it does not look to be going this way. Rather, the holder of wealth are content to let the unemployed die in a guter or die starving. After all, they would rather invest in robotic than a messy few dollar pay rise per hours.

Re:with unlimited student loans you can learn what

[cyber-vandal]

Are student loans that generous in the US? Don't they have to be paid back at some point? The student loans here in the UK are pretty shit. I'd much rather have the income I have now than try to make it on that and any part-time work I can get.

$15/hr in CA by 2020 actually a little low

[Anonymous Coward]

In 1976, the California minimum wage was $2.50/hr. If you adjust for inflation using bls.gov's CPI inflation calculator, that comes out to $10.46/hr in 2016 dollars. The current minimum wage in CA is $10/hr, so that means they haven't even caught up to inflation yet (maybe next year). The cost of living in CA is about 1.51x the national average, so that means the current minimum wage there is effectively $6.67/hr, and will rise to effectively $10/hr by 2020. For comparison, the national minimum is $7.25/hr, so in order to have the same buying power as the rest of the nation does right now, CA's minimum wage should currently be $10.95/hr.

Businesses will automate anyway

[presidenteloco]

Because the performance / cost of automated technology is steadily increasing.

This wage change only has the potential to bring very slightly sooner what seems an inevitable trend toward significant job losses to automation.

Minimum wage rise or no, society is going to have to deal with one of:
A) Guaranteed annual income (for existing as a human in the country).
B) Building really tall barbed wire walls (with automated machine guns/frickin' lasers?) to divide the still-employed and automation owners/shareholders from the increasing hordes.

Re:Businesses will automate anyway

[psm321]

This exact choice is contemplated and explored in a short story I really enjoy: Manna by Marshall Brain. You can read it on his website: http://marshallbrain.com/manna...

Re:Businesses will automate anyway

[Nothing2Chere]

Your proposal to build really tall barbed wire walls around California is interesting. I'm interested in learning more.

Re:Businesses will automate anyway

[samwichse]

Much better: read Player Piano by Vonnegut.

Reeks and Wrecks, here we come.

Sam

Re:Businesses will automate anyway

[sims 2]

*spoilers*

I still don't feel that it was necessary to completely discard the right to privacy. Or even so your own autonomy.

And while I know its not possible nor was it intended to take into account all variables It reads like a section in the second part was removed after it was written on how they handled the expanding population.

Still a good read tho.

Re:Businesses will automate anyway

[psm321]

That's an interesting perspective. I have to say I personally disagree with you. Not sure if you're referring to the privacy aspect or something else -- but the privacy aspect I found dystopian at first but grew to be ok with it given the other implications and conditions of the story.

Re:Businesses will automate anyway

[psm321]

Yeah the privacy thing bothered me at first but I grew comfortable with it the more I thought about it, given the other aspects of the society (trying to avoid putting too much in terms of spoilers here but basically I feel within the framework constructed in the story it doesn't actually hurt anything to lose your privacy).

Re:Businesses will automate anyway

[sims 2]

I think privacy is one of those things that you wouldn't really notice how much you needed it until you no longer had it.

*spoilers*

I'm discussing the second part even though both parts involve a large amount of loss.

In the framework of the story it is implied that they trust their government. Nice idea just as long as your certain that your management will never change.

While not explicitly stated in the story I feel that it is implied that with the increased openness a lot of the things considered taboo today would be accepted as there is a lot more variety to people than most are willing to admit.

At least id like to think so otherwise it would be some kind of nightmare something like the kino no tabi episode the land of visible pain. (kino no tabi (aka Kino's Journey) is a rather interesting philosophical anime a bit dark and tends to lean towards the extremes but well worth the watch)
I suppose the beginning of the episode Three Men Along the Rails would be most similar with 100% automation.

After reading it I'm surprised it wasn't made into an episode of black mirror...well partly it was I suppose "The Entire History of You" seems rather appropriate as well as the movie final cut.

The system introduced in the second part has the capability to incapacitate its user by design automatically while this does nearly guarantee safety at least around other users of the same system it pretty much eliminates any possibility of revolution in the event that the government ends up being managed badly in the future.

In the first part it is pointed out that the unemployed citizens have a large (and in the circumstances very understandable) distrust of the gov't Its noted that they are constantly lied to for their own benefit such as the unusual method of confinement. It is even suggested that they are being given contraceptives in their water. Although no evidence of this is given in the story but given what else has been done on the basis of the corporate bottom line it does sound plausible that they would want to prevent having more unemployed to feed. Then again it wasn't addressed in the second part of the story either but from the foreshadowing it really does look to me like the explanation was taken out shortly before publication.

move full time down to 30-32 hours and then lower

[Joe_Dragon]

move full time down to 30-32 hours and then lower as more and more Automaton takes over. What if we get to a point where we just truck drivers to do local stuff only? What is better 1 guy working 60 hours or 3 working 20?

Re:move full time down to 30-32 hours and then low

[fluffernutter]

I'll move to a 30 hour work week provided my salary and compensation stays the same. With all my production gains through technology and experience that should be doable. I'm easily outputting more than 25% more than when I first started.

Two Words

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

Butlerian Jihad.

Re:Minimum wage is a farce

[mark-t]

If those people are paid $10/hour now and their wage goes up to $15 then that 1.5 hours for my lunch and coffee will result in that coffee and lunch being $22.50 before long.

This is a commonly misquoted fallacy that is not substantiated by historical evidence.... please note that it is called *MINIMUM* wage... and as a consequence of that, it's overall impact on the economy is quite low, even though the number of workers that are affected by it is quite large. Typically, also, increases in minimum wage are responses to continual rises in the cost of living that have already occurred, and at best such increases are playing catch-up with the costs of living... the additional boost that such a wage increase might cause for the cost of living is invariably relatively minor compared with the size of increase. Bearing in mind, of course, that this is still only true because the amounts typically involved represent such a small portion of the total consumer spending power when you include wealthy individuals. If there weren't such an enormous gap between how much buying power the lowest paid workers have compared with much higher salaried individuals, then increases in minimum wage would be more likely to produce the effects you describe.

Re:with unlimited student loans you can learn what

[Opportunist]

There are countries where you can do it even without. Provided you have some form of sustenance, but from experience I can tell you, you can get by in central Europe on about 400 a month.

Provided you like the taste of noodles and E621.

It's going to happen anyway

[fluffernutter]

If automation is going to happen, then it will happen. No sense letting them dangle this sword over our heads.

Re:It's going to happen anyway

[GameboyRMH]

Exactly. Let the employers either pay people a livable wage, or replace them with robots and hasten whatever correction is coming.

Tea, Earl Grey, hot

[Thud457]

But those Nutrimatic drink dispensers can never manage to produce a proper cup of tea.

Humans need not apply

[rbrandis]

For people that think automating people out of work creates jobs, I strongly suggest watching this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:of course it will....

[fluffernutter]

Where do you propose the employees of fast food restaurants live precisely? I'm getting very tired of comments like yours that appear to say something but really just lock us back into the inevitable anyway. If minimum wage cannot support living costs then there are no employees and they must all move away so we have automation anyway. Something needs to actually change if this is not to happen.

Fast Food Robots

[buddha379]

I wrote a sci-fi story about the rise of labor robotics a decade ago, starting with the automation of fast food restaurants. When I wrote it nobody was talking about this at all, so it is crazy to see it start to come into reality. Blatant plug, you can read it here for free: http://meuploads.com/in-the-cr... I got the idea for this piece, one of my most popular, because I felt SF authors got robots all wrong, at least the early phases of robotics. The first robots wouldn’t look and act like intelligent humans at all. They’d be designed to replace repetitive labor. As I considered this more and more, I thought the first place we’d see this would be the food service industry. Then I realized that’s a lot of jobs lost. What would happen to all those folks trying to feed their families? Every day this story becomes more and more prescient. A Tech Dirt story pointed out recently that we’ve already developed robots that can ask “do you want fries with that?” something that did not exist when I conceived of this story. It might take only a few more years before we see wholesale adoption of fast-food bots which will displace a lot of people, especially if we try to solve this with ham fisted and arbitrary minimum wage hikes. That’s not the only sector facing competition from machines. Robotic cars could destroy 10 million jobs. In fact, the more I consider it, very few jobs are safe from automation. What will that mean for society? In all fairness, I am not as pessimistic as the short story might suggest or as some of the other doomsayers out there. If we could space roughly seven thousand cars around NYC, we could have a car to anyone in 30 seconds or less. That frees up a lot of capital to buy other things if we don’t need to buy a big old vehicle that sits around in our driveway for 97% of the time. It could also cut down on a lot of pollution. If we did the same for ambulances and firetrucks that could revolutionize how we help people and fight fires. Technology always ends up somewhere in between, doing both good and evil. Nevertheless, I stand by this story as one vision of how this can go for society, one where jobs are destroyed too quickly, with no alternatives created. Eventually societies will adjust, but sometimes that takes awhile and that won’t give much comfort to the people living through it before we adjust. When society breaks down, it brings out the worst in people, from ethnic tension to racism and classism, something we are seeing right now on the rise everywhere in the world.

Re:Fast Food Robots

[GameboyRMH]

Thanks, saved to my phone for later!

Re:Call their bluff

[BronsCon]

And also by the workers now being able to afford to buy the product they are making or selling.

Re:Who could have seen this?

[HornWumpus]

Self described 'creative' types are mostly liberal. They are also fucking useless and not very creative.

With automation, a new work force will be needed

[Ngarrang]

Yes, it is a very real possibility that a trip to McDonald's may mean pushing a few buttons and a machine delivered your food to the counter. That kind of automation will mean the loss of less educated workers, but it will create an opportunity for a new class of workers that will be trained in the installation, operation, and maintenance of such systems.

In other words, those that can succeed, will succeed. Those that will succeed will be further filtered out from the society.

Re:Will be? Like now?

[HornWumpus]

Olive Garden is unfortunately an example of what's to come.

It's not so much a restaurant in the traditional sense as it is a dining room with an attached 'microwave center'.

I don't understand why anybody would eat there. Seriously, why?

They always overlook half of the equation

[khelms]

Your employees are everybody's customers. How many people who make minimum wage can afford to eat out very often? If your wage cost goes up, but your number of customer visits also goes up, you may not necessarily come out ahead, but you won't be as far behind as predicted.

Re:of course it will....

[BronsCon]

$15 minimum wage is ridiculous and unrealistic. A more realistic minimum wage would've been $10

The $15 figure is after 5 annual $1 increases. I'll leave you to do the math on that.

Tie it to inflation

[Cimexus]

Why on earth isn't minimum wage tied to CPI (inflation) like it is in most other countries? Set it to some agreed amount, then index it each year based on official inflation figures. The way it is now, the minimum wage even AFTER being increased to $15 still won't be as high as it was in the 1960s, in terms of actual buying power.

This whole "setting it to a fixed, static amount" is a weird, high-maintenance way to legislate. It just means you have to go through the same process another decade down the track.

Re:Tie it to inflation

[cmdr_klarg]

Why on earth isn't minimum wage tied to CPI (inflation) like it is in most other countries? Set it to some agreed amount, then index it each year based on official inflation figures. The way it is now, the minimum wage even AFTER being increased to $15 still won't be as high as it was in the 1960s, in terms of actual buying power.

This whole "setting it to a fixed, static amount" is a weird, high-maintenance way to legislate. It just means you have to go through the same process another decade down the track.

How dare you suggest automating politician's jobs!

Re:The "duh" heard 'round the world

[fluffernutter]

You think any of these businesses are barely scraping by just keeping up with running costs and salaries?

There's no "may" about it

[fyngyrz]

Here's the actual sitiuation.

On the one hand, cost of employing people in jobs that can be automated is rising. Picture this as a graphed ramp up on a plot.

On the other hand, cost of ever-higher quality automation is dropping rapidly. Picture this as a graphed ramp down on the same plot.

When those two lines cross each other, businesses will automate as soon as possible. Not may; will. Any of them that might be inclined not to, for whatever reason, will be out-competed in very short order and subsequently fail.

This can't be fixed by raising the minimum wage; it can only be accelerated, because it doesn't change the rate of the dropping automation line, but it only steepens the rate of the rising employment costs line.

So the solution cannot lie in "just raise minimum wages" approach. There has to be some way to either add costs to automation (most typically taxation is the cost suggested... which businesses generally arrange to be taken from the income of the remaining workers) or change the entire economic model to something along the lines of Basic Income. Something along the lines of that is inevitable due to inevitable technological change, but there's a lot of pain and screaming that will be done between where we are and that point. The former is right where we are already:

Walmart, for instance, is one example of severely low wage workers that are subsidized by the social safety net, which in turn is paid for by the middle class. This is what enables Walmart to keep prices low; they only pay part of the worker's survival needs. Same thing for waitresses, burger flippers and so on. Your hamburger isn't cheap if you're middle class; it's just that you pay for part of it at McDonald's, and then you pay for the rest when you pay your taxes. Very handy for McDonalds. They get to maintain the illusion that they sell cheap(er) food. Most taxpayers fail to make the connection, and continue to support McDonalds' business model by buying those burgers.

The question is how long that will be sustainable in the face of a mandated wage increase -- will people still buy a burger if, instead of $1.00 at the window and $x at tax time, it's $1.++ at the window? And what, do you imagine, will McDonald's do about it if they see this as less likely?

Pretty obviously, they will automate. People will lose their jobs. But now instead of paying for part of the burger flipper's wages at tax time, the ex-flippers are unemployed, so the social safety net must cover their entire cost of living using the income of those who remain employed. Business will continue to see to it via legislative control that they are not the ones who do the paying.

Isn't it clear that severe pain is on the way no matter what under the current economic model? I can't see a way out of it. At all.

This is why I support a change to a formal basic income. Looking at the stats and polls, though, I don't think it's likely in the near term.

Re:There's no "may" about it

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you know Walmart typically (although not this time) fights to increase minimum wage? That is because it generally pays above minimum wage and it causes competitors to close up shop around them, as competitors do not.

Go ahead, look it up.

Re:There's no "may" about it

[roman_mir]

This is why I support a change to a formal basic income. Looking at the stats and polls, though, I don't think it's likely in the near term.

- you are talking about increasing taxes on people who are still productive in the economy populated by more and more unproductive people. For me, as an employer and a person whose views on economics will not change the direction of a country at all the answer is also extremely obvious: outsourcing, which is what I do. 2/3 of my workforce is outsourced already, higher taxes and regulations will cause more outsourcing.

Isn't it clear that severe pain is on the way no matter what under the current economic model? I can't see a way out of it. At all.

- I do. But I understand the root problem, which is absolutely necessary to understand if you are interested in actual solution, not just kicking the proverbial can down the ever shortening road.

Individual freedom, removal of the central planning collectivism, dismantling 99% of the government, thus reducing taxes, regulation, money and interest rate manipulation, returning to a sound money system that promotes actual savings and productivity.

That is the actual way out of it, the Chinese understood it a few decades back, maybe it's time for the Western world to get it.

Re:There's no "may" about it

[fyngyrz]

you are talking about increasing taxes on people who are still productive in the economy populated by more and more unproductive people

That's precisely correct. That's exactly what I'm talking about.

I'm just inclined to do it honestly, openly, and at the expense of military adventurism and foreign aid as well as as a tax burden on productivity above the zero level. If everyone has an adequate basic income, no tax on income above that is such a serious burden that they can't live as well as the basic income allows. It doesn't bother me in the least if my taxes support others as they do now; I'm extremely productive, and I enjoy that for its own sake, as do many others. There's nothing about that enjoyment that says to me that only I should benefit from my productivity (and that's why I write software and don't charge for that.) It's also why I, and my SO, are charitable givers. Nothing about basic income will slow my productivity even a little bit, nor retard my inclination towards charitable action.

I see no significant value in forcing unproductive people to take unwilling part in the economy; when someone sees the task as too hard or too unrewarding, let them go, and give the task to someone who wants to do it well for the sake of doing it well and the personal rewards that brings. I no more insist on people who don't like being productive attempt productive tasks than I would insist that a fingerless person make finger paintings.

The thing is, we're a very rich country in terms of both consumable / renewable resources and physical space. The idea that we can't support a large segment of our population based on the idea that sharing is somehow antithetical is not something I can get behind. And the fact is, many already don't participate. We've not been ruined by it. It's a known functional operating model. The fact that some people whine about it notwithstanding.

As for eliminating government, there are some tasks that are just too big for the states, never mind private enterprise. Roads, national defense, (not implying any support for international offense, mind you), distributing the cost of dealing events of injury and disease evenly enough that US residents never go without adequate high quality care, ensuring that the states conform to some sort of explicit formal mechanism supporting individual liberty, those sorts of things. Consequently I am highly confident that we need an entity at that level. I agree in principle that today it is too big and has its hand into far too many pies, and that it is presently in a highly anti-liberty mode of operation in its current form of an oligarchy driven by 545 opinions ungoverned by any higher authority.

But I see no change coming in that model. Not even a hint of it. Whatever chance we ever had at reaching the goal of becoming a constitutional republic, I see no sign of such a thing any longer. That ship has sailed.

Back to basic income; the ideal, as I see it, is that it is instantiated at a low but reasonable level; then as technology increases our leverage, and as the idea becomes embedded in the national mindset, the basic income is increased, raising everyone's standard of living, while the available ceiling for what is presently unlimited acquisition of wealth drops. For example, the ceiling might be that you can have up to 500 times the basic income yourself, but above that, everything goes in the pot. A little further along, that ceiling drops to 400, then 300, and so on, all the time the basic income is rising.

In the end, everyone could live very well. The idea that no productivity will exist under that scenario is not something I can take seriously. Nor are the ideas that there might no longer be any billionaires, or that no one might own a yacht, anything that upset me at all.

Re:There's no "may" about it

[fyngyrz]

You are very confused.

Re:There's no "may" about it

[roman_mir]

Obviously I disagree completely. When I was just creating free source software (like you mentioned you are doing today) that was one thing. I actually employ people and I have to make payroll every month, it takes a different kind of effort to start and run a company that employs people while serving the needs of the market than just creating free source software, where no profit is actually required for that to be done. I don't see any purpose at all in paying a large group of people to exist where they are not being productive to the society since they are not producing anything that I or others can actually consume.

Of-course you are welcome to work for others without expecting them to produce something back for your enjoyment, I don't do charity in the world where I am already taxed to the point that I have to figure out ways to reduce that tax load rather than just using my maximum potential to be as productive as I can without spending time and effort simply to keep what I earn.

It doesn't matter one bit how 'rich' you think the 'country' is if there are no businesses that use those natural resources to produce actual products and services that people desire to consume (which is the entire point of an economy). The ever multiplying army of do-nothing, create-nothing crowd, that still will continue with the rallying cries of class warfare regardless of how much they actually depend on the productive segment of the society, I don't have any use for that type of a setup.

Roads are nothing at all for private enterprise, many roads are built and maintained and ran privately (all should be built and maintained and ran privately, except that the government monopolised this market segment and diverted a gigantic amount of resources that should have not been wasted like that to that).

I don't see any purpose for government involvement with defence either. Private enterprise is more than capable of handling military contracts should the need arise, and these military contracts should be paid for upfront with people interested in running a war purchasing bonds from those private companies.

Everything else that you are talking about is insurance. There is 0 reason for government interfering with insurance. AFAIC insurance is corrupted and destroyed by government interference.

But I see no change coming in that model. Not even a hint of it.

- I can't read the future as clearly as that, I say there is a chance, but for this chance to exist the current system must crash and it will.

then as technology increases our leverage, and as the idea becomes embedded in the national mindset, the basic income is increased, raising everyone's standard of living, while the available ceiling for what is presently unlimited acquisition of wealth drops.

- personally I am 100% against every bit of this idea, given that you are requiring that the State controls our lives, productivity, earnings, etc. Not a chance that myself (or somebody like myself) would ever comply or support any of it. So we will keep being on the opposite sides of this issue forever and we will obviously do what we see as necessary to work towards our own goals.

Nor are the ideas that there might no longer be any billionaires, or that no one might own a yacht, anything that upset me at all.

- I think you are not really looking at this situation in its totality. I was born in the USSR, nobody had yachts (except that the government officials pretty much owned the entire country, so in principle they commanded the war fleet, if you can counts such things as 'yachts'). The point is that a system like that requires an authoritarian regime that many try to escape.

It requires a very oppressive regime, extremely deadly in every way. People are thrown into crazy houses, jails, shot, their property is confiscated because they find ways around your utopian society's ideology and methods.

Then of-course there

Re:There's no "may" about it

[Your.Master]

The problem is that graph is oversimplified. There's reason to suspect that increasing the minimum wage may increase your revenues along with your employee expenses, because more people can afford your services. And yes, it's also not impossible that it decreases your revenues along with your wage expenses. Depends partly on your target demographic, and the exact dollar amounts, and economic climate, etc..

This combines with possibilities like this: before the minimum wage hike, you're paying two people $7.50 / hour apiece, $15 / hour total right now, but if the minimum wage was raised to $15, you could replace both with one guy who won't work for less than $15 / hour and does the work of 1.9 of those other two guys. So per unit wages you have become 5% less efficient, not 100% less efficient. If your revenue can increase more than 5% of wages, because more people can afford your stuff, that's significant.

I am not opposed in principle to the idea of basic income, in fact I really hope it works, and it does elegantly resolve the minimum-wage problem (though it shares a problem -- what is a living wage / living basic income?). But a third option is that humans change jobs from ones which are being automated to ones which are not (yet). Where do those jobs come from? Maybe we create new jobs, or maybe we just change the standard work week to be 30 hours instead of 40.

Re:There's no "may" about it

[jimmifett]

This used to be mitigated by requiring Workfare instead of welfare (thanks obama, literally, for getting rid of workfare /sarcasm). You had to Try and find work, or get cut off from my tax money. This needs to be re-instated. There is no reason an able bodied and capabale indiviudal should be leeching of my hard earned money for more than a short timeframe to get back on feet. After that, they are on their own.

Basic Income is completely idiotic. Why should I subsidize the non workers/non producers, of which they will greatly increase under such a system, simply because they exist. I paid attention in shitty schools, I made mostly wise decisions, I made something for myself, I have a strong work ethic. They can do the same or enjoy the poverty I raised myself out from.

Re:There's no "may" about it

[Areyoukiddingme]

Most minimum wage jobs are part time or 'first job' positions.

Many are. Not most. As of 2014, the latest year for which BLS data is available, 57% of people making less than minimum wage (999,000 people) are over age 25. An additional 550,000 people over age 25 are making precisely minimum wage, 43% of that group. So 1.5 million people over age 25 are making at or below minimum wage, and that is a majority.

The BLS suffers from the same misapprehension you do, and doesn't collect more detailed age brackets. The economy has changed, substantially, and it happened years ago. There are so few jobs available that older workers are crowding out younger ones for what were once starter positions. The Millennials get a bad rap for being the least employed generation in US history, but it isn't entirely their fault. Jobs they should be working have been occupied by Boomers and GenXers, desperate for any income at all.

Re:There's no "may" about it

[Whorhay]

I think the absolute capping of income is probably something we should avoid. However an infinitely scaling income tax curve is something I could support. Perhaps every time you double your income earned above the basic income you get to keep 10% less of it, in increments of the basic income.

So if Basic income started at $10K it would look like this:
Basic Income:
$10,000 No Tax
Income over basic:
$0.00 - $10,000 10% Tax
$10,000.01 - $30,000 19% Tax
$30,000.01 - $70,000 27.1% Tax
$70,000.01 - $150,000 34.39% Tax
$150,000.01 - $310,000 40.951% Tax
$310,000.01 - $630,000 46.8559% Tax
$630,000.01 - $1,270,000 52.17031% Tax
$1,270,000.01 - $2,550,000 56.953279% Tax

I don't know if 10% reduction would work well or not but I like the idea that as your income increases you always get to keep some of it, but that portion gets a bit smaller at each step, but you never actually reach a point were earning another dollar becomes impossible. Looking at the numbers though 10% might be a bit steep to start with and then not scale up quickly enough as income starts to rocket up, maybe a variable starting at 7% or something and scaling up a percent or two per step would work better.

And of course I'd want this whole thing tied to various budget reforms like ending the military adventures and taxing essential goods like unprepared food. I also think it'd be good, once the debt is paid off, to refund surpluses by increasing the basic income. That would have the knock on affect of increasing the size of the tax brackets. In which case everyone would get a little more cash in hand, and everyone working to earn above that would pay a bit less taxes. I would also establish basic income as a per person thing, with Children perhaps getting a fractional portion unless emancipated.

Re:There's no "may" about it

[roman_mir]

I disagree completely. You are taxing work and incentivising idleness. I would go the other way around altogether:

>=1,000,000: 0% tax.
>=900,000: 1% tax.
>=800,000: 2% tax.
>=700,000: 3% tax.
>=600,000: 4% tax.
>=500,000: 5% tax.
>=400,000: 6% tax.
>=300,000: 7% tax.
>=200,000: 8% tax.
>=100,000: 9% tax.
>=90,000: 10% tax.
>=80,000: 11% tax.
>=70,000: 12% tax.
>=60,000: 13% tax.
>=50,000: 14% tax.
>=40,000: 15% tax.
>=30,000: 16% tax.
>=20,000: 17% tax.
>=10,000: 18% tax.

Do you know why I would always support this? Because I am not at all amused by people always trying to increase taxes upon somebody who makes more than themselves, while they are always finding reasons why they personally shouldn't be taxed.

Let me tell you what I think, I think people who make more money are more productive individuals (specifically if they are making money that is not tied to government in any way). They do more for society than society does for them AFAIC. Those who make less money are not contributing to society much, they are contributing on a much lower scale and they should be the ones forced (not 'asked', as the facetious collectivists like to propose, people are forced to pay taxes, not asked to pay taxes) to do more.

Re:There's no "may" about it

[Dutchy Wutchy]

Dude, no one is cheering for the installment of a despot in the US.

"It requires a very oppressive regime, extremely deadly in every way. People are thrown into crazy houses, jails, shot, their property is confiscated because they find ways around your utopian society's ideology and methods."

Your libertarian worldview falls to pieces when there exist corrupt individuals. All the things you fear in your quote can and will happen in your libertarian society's ideology and methods. The only difference being they are perpetrated by oligarchs and corporations.

Re:There's no "may" about it

[Muros]

I do agree with everything you said. However, you are looking at the long term future of employment, which does not address the immediate needs of poor people. Raising the minimum wage does address immediate poverty, as nobody is going to automate everything overnight. Obviously it will have negative effects on some businesses, but the market will correct itself eventually, if guided properly (I would describe myself as a free-market socialist, not a capitalist. Systems can have multiple equilibrium points, and we should expend the effort to push them into the most desirable ones)

Re:There's no "may" about it

[roman_mir]

Your libertarian worldview falls to pieces when there exist corrupt individuals.

- what is a 'corrupt individual' exactly and how does that affect me on the scale of a government exactly?

Given the right circumstances anybody can be as 'corrupt' as it can get, I am not a libertarian, I am an anarcho capitalist just to have the nomenclature right, by the way. I don't need individual people to be good, I count on them being greedy, selfish, self centred. What I do need is ensuring that government cannot be captured by any specific type of people who I expect to be greedy, selfish and self centred.

I don't have a problem with businesses trying their best to make money, I have a problem with society using oppression at the level of government for its 'social' goals.

Re:There's no "may" about it

[kheldan]

This is why I support a change to a formal basic income.

Know what I believe about your 'basic income'? That it will find a way to exclude ME, and make ME work, and raise MY taxes so other people can be on the dole. I'm sure the rich will make sure it works that way, the way they always do: protect their money, and SCREW ME.

Unless I get a signed, witnessed document, iron-clad, enforceable by the U.S. Government, and irrevocable, that says I can quit my job, maintain my current standard of living (which is NOT HIGH at all), and be able to go ride my bike every day and never worry about rent, food, or bike parts ever again? You can forget it, I'll never vote for it, I'll write letters against it.

As you already observed it'll never happen anyway so I have nothing to fear from this.

Re:There's no "may" about it

[presidenteloco]

I would like to have you comment on likely outcomes in the following scenario:
1) Libertarianism rules: personal freedom has increased, taxation decreased or nonexistent, government virtually powerless (in other words, as you hope for).
2) Increasingly cost-effective automation replaces 50 % of current jobs (this number already takes into account that a few new types of jobs are created, like "automated-system alarm-watcher"., So around half the formerly gainfully employable/self-employable adult people are unemployed, and given your preferred government system, are not supported enough to survive.

Please tell me your story of what happens in such a scenario. You are not allowed to negate either of the premises of the scenario.
Also, saying: "They will move to somewhere else" is not a valid response, since the scenario assumes this happens in all countries.

Re:There's no "may" about it

[roman_mir]

I am not a libertarian, I am an anarcho-capitalist, but that's just a nitpick.

Cost effective automation replacing 50% of current jobs due to market pressure hopefully (I say hopefully but of-course we both know that in reality it is not the free market that is only at play here unfortunately, minimum wage and other labour laws, various business regulations is what drives a large portion of the automation).

Given 2 parts of your scenario: maximum liberty and maximum automation of current jobs it stands to reason that the automation happens mostly due to market pressures, can we assert that?

1. If the automation is the result of market manipulation by the government then we cannot assert that 'it happens in all countries'.
2. If the automation is result of market pressure absent government manipulation it stands to reason that in fact individual freedom is largely winning on the world stage, because productivity follows the path of least resistance, which is why jobs leave for countries with fewer regulations and taxes.

So in your scenario we have global market pressure in a mostly free market capitalist system that is mostly free from government oppression.

Under those conditions the wages are not manipulated by any number of government agencies, so individual humans are fully employable other than their current position is automated away.

I hire more people than some other companies because my per person costs are lower, I can hire more people if prices go down because by hiring more people I can in fact increase my own productivity.

My productivity (my output) is based on the capital investment that I apply and on the amount of labour that I can afford. The more labour I can afford the higher my output is. My clients would be only happy to see me do more for them at lower prices, my prices can (and DO!) go down as I find ways to lower my costs.

My costs are largely payroll, taxes, rent, hardware, utilities (in that order). Should my largest portion of the cost go down in price (payroll) I should be able to lower my prices and gain more business by providing more customers with my services, those customers who are priced out of my services currently.

What I am telling you that in a free market environment (and I try to set up a system for myself to maximise my own freedom regardless of what the oppressive governments around me are trying to do) any people automated away in some companies should be able to find employment because they will agree to lower wages.

Simultaneously lower wages lead to lower prices for customers.

In your scenario I expect prices for wages (salaries) and prices for products and services to fall, while I also expect more and more companies to be created specifically because people who start companies are mostly put off by high business costs they have to handle especially when a business is new.

I expect an enormous economic boom under your scenario, not any type of a catastrophe. I expect standard of living for everybody to go up at a much higher rate than before at lower costs of achieving it as well. I expect the working hours to shorten as well, while the productive output to increase.

Re:There's no "may" about it

[Bonobo_Unknown]

>Any of them that might be inclined not to, for whatever reason, will be out-competed in very short order and subsequently fail.
Unless it gives them a competitive advantage, like come here to experience service from an actual human, rather than pulling your food off a robot tray.

Re:There's no "may" about it

[Bonobo_Unknown]

Why should I subsidize the non workers/non producers,

Well because for the first time in the history of mankind we're looking at a possible future where paid work itself is a scarce resource. To put it another way, if aliens came down from the sky tomorrow and gave us machines that provided us with everything we could ever need would it make sense to exclude people that didn't work from benefiting? The truth is that work for most people would cease to be a meaningful endeavour, it simply won't be needed when we have machines that produce and distribute the commodities that make society work.

It's hard to imagine what we're going to do with all these idle people, but it's a complete paradigm shift in how society works. Obviously if all low skilled jobs are replaced by machines we're going to have to work out what to do with the people that used to rely on these positions otherwise our country will degrade either into a crime ridden dystopia that will make current violent third world countries look like paradises or there will be a violent uprising and revolution which will have either one of two outcomes - either:

a) The implementation of a basic living allowance so that everyone has access to the share property that our country produces or,
b) A revolution where those privileged enough to have a job and or capital are put to the sword, and all the machines are broken to ensure that there is a need for a workforce.

Now option b seems like a real disaster for me, I can't see the point in breaking the machines just because we aren't capable of sharing with our fellow man just because of some sense of entitlement we have because we feel superior just because we have the capacity to perform paid work after most other jobs have been replaced by the machines.

Re:There's no "may" about it

[fyngyrz]

I don't see any purpose at all in paying a large group of people to exist where they are not being productive to the society since they are not producing anything that I or others can actually consume.

Well, I see it as a matter of compassion. I'm not better than any of those people. They have feelings, needs, hopes, etc. I accept fully that you don't see any value in them. But I do. Even the ones who have outlooks that are not like mine, as you do.

Re:There's no "may" about it

[roman_mir]

Compassion is all great up to a point. So how much of your life output are you willing to give up for others before you say: enough?

10%? Probably more? 30%? 50%? 70%? 90%? 99%? 99.999%? 100%?

110%? Will you give up everything and go into debt out of compassion for others?

200%?

When will you say: can't do it anymore, they are multiplying faster than I find compassion and they want or even need more than it takes me to live comfortably or even to survive?

Will you be a slave to your own compassion?

I don't find it compassionate at all to breed dependency, I find it disgusting.

Re: There's no "may" about it

[Anonymous Coward]

I have looked it up and that's only a smokescreen. Those above minimum wages are only temporary until those local shops close up. Once that happens, Wal-Mart cuts hours drastically which is a much bigger pay cut than just knocking fifty cents an hour of their pay. Furthermore if the local market isn't in competition with anyone else, new hires are paid a different amount than the employees they've replaced. This is the situation currently in my shitty little redneck town.

Re:There's no "may" about it

[sociocapitalist]

"But I see no change coming in that model. Not even a hint of it. Whatever chance we ever had at reaching the goal of becoming a constitutional republic, I see no sign of such a thing any longer. That ship has sailed.

Back to basic income; the ideal, as I see it, is that it is instantiated at a low but reasonable level; then as technology increases our leverage, and as the idea becomes embedded in the national mindset, the basic income is increased, raising everyone's standard of living, while the available ceiling for what is presently unlimited acquisition of wealth drops. For example, the ceiling might be that you can have up to 500 times the basic income yourself, but above that, everything goes in the pot. A little further along, that ceiling drops to 400, then 300, and so on, all the time the basic income is rising."

And herein lies the real problem - you/we are never going to get those who control the country to buy in (pun intended) to any such plan that limits their own power and wealth. It just isn't going to happen.

Re:There's no "may" about it

[dublin]

And so, logically, the way to fix the structural problem is simple, and there's really only one way to do it: Slash the size of government down to where these subsidies for large corporations simply can't exist. The easiest way to do that is to repeal the 16th amendment and force equal apportionment of the states as the Founders intended.

This self-limits the size of government to what the smallest/weakest state has the capability and will to support. (Legislation to undo Wickard v. Philburn and a few other egregious big-government-favoring court decisions would help, too...)

(I say large corporations, because mostly, they are the only ones that benefit from this kind of big government/big business corruption and cronyism - the taxes and endless regulations substantially raise costs for both individuals and small businesses, usually with no corresponding benefit.)

Re: There's no "may" about it

[roman_mir]

Most of you are idiots, so...

Re:There's no "may" about it

[Whorhay]

Taxing wealth vs taxing income has been a pretty contentious topic when I've seen it come up before. I think the most succinct argument against it is that as a society we should be encouraging people to build their wealth as it builds the wealth and value of our nation. In the US the only notable wealth taxes I'm aware of are property and estate/inheritance taxes. The notable downside of this though is that the outliers at the top eventually wind up controlling extremely disproportionate amounts of wealth, which points back at a new form of aristocracy.

Re:There's no "may" about it

[Whorhay]

Except, that is exactly the point of a government. It is an organization of people who band together to see that their social interests are upheld. If a democratic government which you live under does not represent your social interests and ideals then you either are not in the majority or it is possible that the government has been corrupted and is representing the interests of a minority which possesses or wields more power.

What's funny is that until relatively recently, in the US, a company was not allowed to exist solely for the motive of making money. In order to obtain a business license the company had to be shown to have some purpose that would benefit society, and funneling wealth to an ever shrinking minority doesn't really accomplish that.

Re:There's no "may" about it

[david_thornley]

Man, talk about a slippery slope argument. I believe in helping the less fortunate*, but that is balanced against my needs and the needs of people who depend on me in some way. Like any other economic principle, there are tradeoffs.

they are multiplying faster than I find compassion

If you'd rather not outright kill people or let them starve to death, the only way we've found to limit population growth is to get people a good modern lifestyle, with security and education and all other such things.

*I'm a straight cisgender white male, highly intelligent, and in particular having talents that are valuable and uncommon. I was born in the US in an upper-middle-class more-or-less-Christian family that was highly literate and valued education. Take a look at those things and you will suspect, correctly, that I have a well above average income. Take another look at those things and you'll notice that absolutely none of them are to my credit as a human being, but are things I just got lucky in. My socio-economic position isn't entirely determined by chance, and I do have virtues and do put in work and do provide value for my employers, but there's a lot of people who have worked harder than I have and have a lot less money.

Re:There's no "may" about it

[roman_mir]

Man, talk about a slippery slope argument. I believe in helping the less fortunate*, but that is balanced against my needs and the needs of people who depend on me in some way. Like any other economic principle, there are tradeoffs.

- except it is not a slippery slope argument because it is actually the fact of what is happening collectively.

USA (and some other countries, but the USA is an extreme example of this) is in debt. It is in so much debt (hundreds of trillions of combined debt nationally, on State and municipal levels, personal, education, health care, all that stuff together) that the debt cannot and will not be repaid.

What is this debt used for? Well, huge portion of it is going towards the social programs, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, etc. Yes, large portion of it is going towards military (and USA should stop that). But my point is that it is not a slippery slope when in fact you are thousands of percent over your capacity to repay something and you are still getting into this debt so that you can have that lifestyle and all of those social programs as well as run a gigantic military all at the same time.

It's not a slippery slope, you are down in that ditch.

Re:There's no "may" about it

[fyngyrz]

My answer is not one of percentage, or debt.

My answer is it depends on the good that can be done according to my ability to do it.

We will not see eye to eye on this.

Re:There's no "may" about it

[fyngyrz]

Actual wealth is not money itself. Actual wealth is possession and control of resources, and an excellent argument can be made that it is also embodied in the health and welfare of the people.

While the gap between the richest and the poor continues to grow, what constitutes the lot of the majority of the poor (those not additionally sub-classed into the terminally disadvantaged because classed as a felon or formally listed as a social pariah) has continued to improve. Food, shelter, sanitation, communications, education, heat, power, entertainment -- the floor of these continues to rise at a respectable rate. They are the core facets of living well.

What this tells me is that the US is in no danger of losing possession or control of resources, or falling into a "ditch", much less sliding down a slippery slope. It is doing better on the health front technology-wise, and looks to be going in the correct direction socially with the ACA; hardly perfect, but definitely improving.

The US is coming up pretty fast on a change in how medium of exchange fits into its society as a proxy for those things. This is where basic income becomes likely to fit into the picture.

Re:There's no "may" about it

[david_thornley]

I found an estimate from less than two years ago that the total debt in the US was about $60 trillion. That's a lot higher than I'd expected, but it isn't hundreds.

Social Security and Medicare are not paid out of the debt. They're paid out of taxes levied specifically for them, and have invested money heavily. Other welfare spending is about $1 trillion a year, and that's over half Medicaid, which is money we wouldn't have to spend given a decent health care system. (US health care spending is about $3 trillion/year, and US per capita health spending is about 50% more than the next most expensive country. If we could reduce our costs to not much more than anyone else in the world pays, that would cover all that welfare spending.)

Re:There's no "may" about it

[FlyHelicopters]

You can't do that because people at that wealth level are mobile, they would just leave.

France recently tried this, raising the tax rate on the rich to 75%, thousands of super wealthy have left France.

Re:There's no "may" about it

[FlyHelicopters]

You can't cap wealth or income, unless you control the whole world.

Such people would just leave. France is dealing with this right now, having raised the top tax rate to 75%, over ten thousand wealthy people have left the country.

People in general will simply not turn over more than about a third of what they make. Even in the 50s when the tax rates were much higher, almost no one ever paid them due to endless deductions.

Re:The "duh" heard 'round the world

[HornWumpus]

The ones that a just 'job training' do.

The degrees that involve 'self actualization' end at the fast food counter anyhow.

Re:The "duh" heard 'round the world

[HornWumpus]

Nobody should make 'french fries' their lifetime job. If they do, tough shit for them. Their life's purpose becomes to exist as a warning to others.

Actually it should be $38 / hr

[Proudrooster]

If minimum wage kept place with college tuition since 1970, minimum wage would be $38/hr
http://imgur.com/gallery/L9gpY...

When student loans have increased access to college, they have also caused college and Universities to get extremely fat and top heavy.

https://www.higheredjobs.com/s...

Just like in the US economy, professors are replaced by adjuncts and the money flows to the top.

We are all feeding the top 1%.

Re:The "duh" heard 'round the world

[cyber-vandal]

Hence why I said twice or three times as much. I'm sorry you think that everyone who goes to university has no ambition. That's why no one bothers to get top score on their degree because they won't want to be promoted anyway.

Re:with unlimited student loans you can learn what

[kwbauer]

Not in this mythical world where resources are so unlimited that we no longer have money; this is either a Star Trek scenario or a Bernie Sanders scenario. The argument is whether mythology and reality can be the two worlds that collide.

Re:with unlimited student loans you can learn what

[cyber-vandal]

Oh I see. I thought you were referring to this world. In a world where automation does everything and nobody works there would be no need for student loans. Bernie Sanders is an evil man. Imagine wanting a better-educated, healthier populace. The horror.

Re:Minimum wage is a farce

[JeffOwl]

Wages are not the entire cost of doing business at a fast food restaurant. You have your fixed overhead (building, capital equipment, maintenance, utilities, etc.). Then you have your cost of materials, not just the raw food, but the cooking oil (which is generally more time based than use based), cleaning supplies, etc... So the cost to the consumer isn't as sensitive to the hourly wage as you state.

Let the future happen

[OrangeTide]

Automation is going to happen. We only delay the inevitable when we tolerate under the table payments to migrant workers instead of investing in farm automation. And when we take insane positions like acting like we're doing people a favor by refusing to pay them a living wage.

If your job can be replaced by a machine, why wouldn't we do it? We've already replaced oxen and large farm families (child labor) with tractors. We've replaced manual labor in mine with steam engines that operated shovels, lifts and pumps. This is progress that we readily accept as part of the industrial revolution.

But the industrialization hasn't stopped just because we're in the Information age. It's hard to say where the trend will stop, perhaps it will stop when there is only one person who controls the robot that controls all the other robots in the world. And everyone, except for one person, will be effectively unemployed.

This could lead to a post-scarcity society, with huge social and cultural changes throughout the world. Perhaps a Star Trek like utopia where people can pursue their interests and passions instead of taking a job to pay the bills. It could also lead to a horrific dystopia where a tiny fraction of society own all the robots and control all the resources and most of us have to scrounge at the many land fills to find materials valuable enough to trade, or sell organs to the rich to feed our families.

Wages of $390 a month spurred automation

[Maxo-Texas]

Thousands of chinese noodle chefs making well below poverty wages spurred automation.

Of course $15 an hour is going to spur automation. Hopefully it will make what's happening come to a boil quickly instead of slowly so people will actually admit that hundreds of millions of (and likely 1 to 2 billion) humans will be put out of work by automation over the next 30 years.

And then we can get on to actually dealing a society which shares the wealth with those unable to work or do what we've always done (including with the luddites) and allow them to die homeless, starving, of exposure and the population will drop rapidly like it did with horses in america (52 million to under 3 million in 1 human generation).

It's likely to be violent. The luddites were put down by the army. But there were less than 20,000 of them. This is going to affect close to 40% of the population.

And we'll have plenty of resources, building housing will be dirt cheap (esp with large 3d printing machines)... so it really will be about greed on the part of those who do have jobs. Countries like Norway will have less civil unrest at first but may be flooded with refugees and collapse under the pressure.

I'm not advocating this-- I'm saying open your eyes. Either we go to a post capitalist society, provide free automated college level and free skills (electrician, painting, plumbgin, etc.) education at all times, food, housing, or it's going to be a miserable bloody mess.

Robots and automated systems costing UNDER $20,000 are already replacing large numbers human employees and generally all the saved money doesn't yet go to lower prices or higher return on capital (i.e. stock returns*) but instead goes to increased executive pay, massive political donations, and plush marble and granite corporate headquarters.

$15 minimum wage will speed penetration up slightly (in most cases the jobs are paying $10 to $12 anyway) but the penetration is going to happen regardless unless you got wages down below $390 per month.

100 thousand years ago,...

[gurps_npc]

people had four specific jobs.

1) Protect the tribe.

2) Physically gather plants.

3) Hunt animals.

4) Make essential clothing the few minor tools for use in jobs 1-4.

EVERYONE did those things. Today, each of those jobs is done by less than 1% of our population. Each of those jobs, is for all effective purposes, made obsolete by automation and efficiency gains.

Are we all unemployed? No. Work is dependent not on things that need to be done, but instead on things we want to be done..

As long as mankind has dreams and desires, there will be work. And Humans are greedy S.O.B.s Give each of us a sex-bot and we will demand a second so we can have a three-way.

Mankind won't run out of dreams and desires until we flood the universe - which I don't see as being a problem for the forseeable future. We haven't even left Earth yet.

Re:Will be? Like now?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Because it was my sister's birthday and she wanted to go because she thinks they have great food. That was the last time I went there and unfortunately my sister is in her 30s and still hasn't developed a sense of taste.

Re:Minimum wage is a farce

[mark-t]

Tell me something, won't you think that the low level manager that was managing those minimum wage people will be happy working for the same wage?

Truthfully, that depends on just how close his wage was to whatever the new minimum wage is. While making closer to minimum wage one year than one was the previous year might feel like a demotion, the take-home dollar value has not actually gone down, and the only thing that will lower a person's buying power is actually the rising cost of living.... which continues to rise anyways, even in the years when minimum wage remains stable. Ideally, of course, the manager's salary is increased at least by a modest amount at the same time... perhaps enough to account for the cost of living increase that is liable to be incurred for that year, at which point the only reason that the low level manager would have to complain about the people under him getting larger salary increases than he did would be class envy. If a company cannot afford to do this, then their profit margins are too thin for them to run any kind of long-term sustainable business in the first place. Again, most of the money in a business will not generally be going to the lowest paid workers, even if they may comprise a majority of that company's workforce. Think Pareto Principle here.

I won't dispute that there is a minor bump in the cost of living when minimum wage is increased, but this increase is so minor relative to the rate at which the cost of living already goes up as to be barely distinguishable from noise... much larger increases in the cost of living can occur in a single year due to numerous other factors that can affect global or national economy.

This does not improve things. Economically speaking the workforce will adjust for this increase. One means to adjust is that prices go up. Another is more unemployment.

People keep saying this, but historically, those solutions do not happen at any scale large enough to impact a large segment of workers. It is worth noting that even though minimum wage increases happen in fairly sudden spikes, those spikes don't tend to really put those workers any further ahead than they were before the last increase. In general, it is always just playing catch-up with the cost of living (indeed, that is actually the entire point behind minimum wage... it is not to provide people with some sort of means of avoiding poverty, as some people see it). At best, any given minimum wage increase might improve one's standard of living only because they may have acclimated to earning a certain amount and a sudden increase may allow them to briefly get further ahead. Long before the next minimum wage increase, however, they will be approximately where they were before, barring the possibility that they may have obtained more gainful employment in the interim.

Restaurant industry, automation, and logic fail?

[jedidiah]

Why would the restaurant industry care about an increase in the minimum wage? Aren't they pretty much exempt from the minimum wage to begin with?

Now due to entirely different reasons, I won't even touch restaurant food that's being handled by low pay employees. I don't trust someone that's being abused like that to handle my food safely. Fast food is definitely out and probably anything else too. I just can't take the chance.

Robots would be a step up in some places.

Re:Typical small business owner FUD

[__aaclcg7560]

[...] something is seriously wrong if paying a kid to deliver pizzas $7 more an hour is the one thing that's going to tank your business.

The "kids" who deliver my pizzas are senior citizens. I always tip 20% because I know they need the money more than I do.

Robot food is a good thing

[RubberDogBone]

Robot-made food is a good thing, for a whole host of reasons. Reduced hands on it means reduced germs, and every restaurant would love to have their food made exactly to the same standard every time, even if it looks nothing like the menu picture.

I'm sick of going in to order and getting an evil eye from somebody in the back and then I have to wonder what will be in the food I am buying. Will I get an extra horked up glob with my burger? Robots won't care who I am, what I wear, how I look. They'll just make the damn food.

No "may" about it.

[Chas]

A $15 an hour minimum wage means that solutions that job-replacement solutions that were too expensive to justify at a lower wage have now moved into the "sensibly affordable" range.

They have it backwards

[bigsexyjoe]

For a long time, labor was scared to ask for higher minimum wages because of the specters of automation and offshoring. Guess what happened? We reached a point at which automation and offshoring started happening at a break-neck pace anyway.

It makes sense that people are now demanding higher wages. Even if automation happens faster, it's already happening pretty fast, so it's only a matter of a few years anyway.

Also, John Maynard Keynes taught us that higher wages lead to higher spending and spurs the economy on.

By the time 2022 gets here -

[aklinux]

We will see fully automated McDonald's, Burger King, others.

Re:Ignorance is bliss

[mark-t]

No it does not. People keep saying it like it is true, but historically, time and again, each time minimum wage is raised, that is shown to not be the case. The people who bitch about it the loudest generally are suffering more from class envy than they are actually being economically impacted by the wage increase.

Of course it's going to spur automation, but..

[atticus9]

It's been happening for a long time, a hundred years ago employers could offer $1/hour jobs (in 2016 dollars) people did all kinds of stuff that would be considered a waste today - like opening a door for a mining cart when it passed through used to be a full time job, employees would be idle otherwise. Today $10/hour jobs will be replaced with something better, that makes sense to pay $15/hour.

OH! YES!

[Stubbyfingers]

Hungry, homeless workers are always the best kind.

Slashdot got Bought and Sold for The Worse

[previewlounge]

Okay Slashdot the general tone of the leading stories since this joint got bought are ten percent disingenuous. It's a pity to see a giant fall, but this is the beginning of the end of Slashdot. Goodbye Slashdot, your new overlords are a bunch of scammers. Stick it up your self satisfied ass.

That Walmart Bit...

[tjstork]

I would say that Walmart is subsidizing the welfare system more than the other way around. People that are on welfare and work at Walmart wouldn't have any job, most likely, if Walmart didn't exist. After all, who actually has the scale that allows the formation of a job of a greeter that waves when you walk in. Only a big store can do that and carry a profit. Speaking of which, Walmart actually doesn't make a great profit margin. It just has lots of big stores.

Get an ex wife then...

[tjstork]

"I don't mind if my taxes support others".... get an ex-wife, that will fix that for you.

Re:Get an ex wife then...

[fyngyrz]

What you're saying is that mismanagement by choice of one's personal life has consequences (something I am well aware of), and further that suffering those consequences is adequate excuse for abandoning compassion for the unfortunate.

Consequent to experiencing severe legal and social downsides of exiting the state of marriage, I determined that marriage wasn't for me, and decline to enter into it again. I accept that I will continue to suffer those consequences; it was my mistake. I won't repeat it.

However, this in no way inclines me towards abandoning compassion for the unfortunate.

How to stop poor people from eating junk food

[tanstaaf1]

(1) Put them out of a job unless they can become an engineer, medical professional, lawyer, or government employee. (2) Double or triple the price of a big mac (unless someone can figure out how to make the fast food in another state and import it. Do the politicians think fewer unskilled jobs will somehow cause the remaining poor to grow bigger brains/ higher IQs? Or do the politicians figure the poor can always eat cake? Making plans to move my factory out of state. I can always sell my products back into the state, of course, as that is protected by Federal law. At least for now.

Re:How to stop poor people from eating junk food

[tanstaaf1]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...

Corporate Profit Margins have been obscenely high

[leknowlton]

My opinion is that the profit margins on the bigger companies need to shrink, make it so everyone can have a damn savings account. Begone 30%+ profit margins, begone golden parachutes, begone military-industrial complex rip-offs and begone pharmaceutical gouging! It's time to pay your damn workers more to far narrow the pay gap between the CEO and all those below the CEO! That is where the large corporate changes need be made. Smaller businesses may need slower pay adjustments as people will, over time, be able afford to pay more at their local small businesses. It's a tough change for many small businesses true, but in the end it will bring small businesses back and break up the corporate box store formula mentality we've come to accept.

Re:with unlimited student loans you can learn what

[kwbauer]

Wanting a better educated and healthier populace is not evil. Wanting to confiscate private property to attempt to achieve that goal is. Yes, bot Bernie and Hillary are now running ads talking about confiscating wealth without due process if and when people and organizations decide to emigrate from the US. They make fun of Trump for talking about a wall to keep illegal immigrants out and they are talking about building walls to keep people in. Which one sounds more like dictators from history with that?

Idiocracy

[DarthVain]

You pretty much didn't understand Idiocracy then.

The basic premise is that the more successful and smart you are, the less kids you have, and that the poorer and stupid you are, the more kids you have. You take this principle, and fast forward hundreds of years, and what they are predicting is a world full of dummies.

So paying people more money, making them more successful, and upwardly mobile, able to better pay for things like nutrition, education, healthcare, etc... would be enabling the opposite of Idiocracy. Employing a large amount of wage slaves without a living wage, with little advantage or hope is pretty much what leads to electing Terry Crews president, and destroying your agriculture with electrolytes...

I'll cite the emergence of Donald Trump as a likely contender for President as proof that the current system of low wages the past couple decades isn't really working towards avoiding the Idiocracy future...

Re:of course it will....

[BronsCon]

Someone failed math class...

There are going to be 5 $1 increases...

(5 * 1 = 5)

... which will raise the minimum wage to $15 ...

(15 - 5 = 10)

... because the minimum wage where the increases is happening is already $10.

If that were realistic in California, we wouldn't be increasing it.