Fmr. McDonald's USA CEO: $35K Robots Cheaper Than Hiring at $15 Per Hour.

[Alvito]

Taxes
All the money no longer spent on unpaid hospital visits
All the money no longer spent on social security
All the money no longer spent on.. you know this list will be long, just 'all government policies that pay to support people'
Oh, and elimination of tax loopholes so someone with 15 houses and enough money to buy a small country can no longer pay less per year than an average joe family man.

The government doesn't pick up unpaid medical bills now so there isn't nearly as much savings there as people like to say there is.

[Vyxn]

The system as I understand it is taxes go towards it, and rather than having social security, medicare, so on so fourth, you have the 'income pool'. It'l take a reform of several things like drug costs and so on to regulate it, but it's doable. It'l also help promote more education in the world because people know they won't lose their homes if they have to quit their $7 an hour job to go to school full time. There are also various versions of it, including negative income tax.

so how much more does taxes need to be raised to afford to pay all those that will be out of work caused by making it cheaper to employ robots other then humans
how much more taxes above the 40 to 50% the skilled and educated ones will have to fork over already?
do you not think there is a point from which you raise taxes on some one, how much more you are forced to take from them before they decide it isn't worth the effort to go pay for an education learn a skill get a good paying job when 75% or more is taken from you so to pay for those that didn't and are required to live off the backs of others?

[Zephyr Storm]

Ladies and gentlemen: The root of the problem.

Though to be fair, still not a supporter of the $15 an hour myself. $10 is reasonable.

Root of what problem?

Sorry if I don't agree with the notion that a job that requires basically no skills and no education be allowed to make as much money as some people do with a two year associate's degree job.

I have little sympathy for people who either don't apply themselves when they need to or if they do actually apply themselves, they do it in the wrong areas. For example, I can't stand the morons who go to earn a college degree in a field that has almost no job opportunities available once they graduate, then they piss and moan about how their degree did them no good. Well guess what? Maybe you should have actually went and got a degree and skills in something that will actually be beneficial and have a job for you once you graduate.

I always laugh at the idiots who go and get degrees in things like philosophy or liberal arts and then cry the blues when they can't find a job after college. It's no one's fault but their own.

[Themius]

The thing that I find hilarious about the whole "fast food workers need $15/hour wage" is that they are literally fighting and protesting themselves out of their very own jobs. Companies will have ZERO qualms with replacing as many people as possible with machines if it means higher profit margins in the long run. Granted, they probably would have been replaced by computer kiosks and robotic machines eventually anyway, but this whole $15/hour thing is just speeding that process up even faster.

My suggestion? Go get a real job instead of working at one that was never meant to support a family anyway.

They didn't protest themselves out of a job, these machines were coming regardless because they're cheaper than minimum wage lol.


Also idk if you noticed but that led to a movement and now we have 15 dollar minimum wages coming to all jobs in various parts of the country.

You say go get a real job that the job was never meant to support a family. So what you are saying is "go get real job so companies don't continue to subsidize your income with tax payers money" At the end of the day WE THE PUBLIC pay so private companies can skimp on a basic livable wage.

[Wolfheart9]

The government doesn't pick up unpaid medical bills now so there isn't nearly as much savings there as people like to say there is.

Unless I'm mistaken (Totally possible I am), they do, in the form of tax credits towards the companies that do pick up that bill. Is it a freakish amount? Probably not, but it's a contributing factor.

- - - Updated - - -

Root of what problem?

Sorry if I don't agree with the notion that a job that requires basically no skills and no education be allowed to make as much money as some people do with a two year associate's degree job.

I have little sympathy for people who either don't apply themselves when they need to or if they do actually apply themselves, they do it in the wrong areas. For example, I can't stand the morons who go to earn a college degree in a field that has almost no job opportunities available once they graduate, then they piss and moan about how their degree did them no good. Well guess what? Maybe you should have actually went and got a degree and skills in something that will actually be beneficial and have a job for you once you graduate.

I always laugh at the idiots who go and get degrees in things like philosophy or liberal arts and then cry the blues when they can't find a job after college. It's no one's fault but their own.

Every person that is willing to work, should make enough money for themselves to have a roof over their head and food in their stomach without government aid, how is that a bad thing?

so how much more does taxes need to be raised to afford to pay all those that will be out of work caused by making it cheaper to employ robots other then humans
how much more taxes above the 40 to 50% the skilled and educated ones will have to fork over already?
do you not think there is a point from which you raise taxes on some one, how much more you are forced to take from them before they decide it isn't worth the effort to go pay for an education learn a skill get a good paying job when 75% or more is taken from you so to pay for those that didn't and are required to live off the backs of others?

The companies that are raking in billions of dollars over their mass automation task force end up paying the lump sum, try not to focus so much on taxes, eh?

[MatthewOU2015]

I'm all for this but what if software developers inflate prices?

[Tyrianth]

so how much more does taxes need to be raised to afford to pay all those that will be out of work caused by making it cheaper to employ robots other then humans
how much more taxes above the 40 to 50% the skilled and educated ones will have to fork over already?
do you not think there is a point from which you raise taxes on some one, how much more you are forced to take from them before they decide it isn't worth the effort to go pay for an education learn a skill get a good paying job when 75% or more is taken from you so to pay for those that didn't and are required to live off the backs of others?

Then they won't get a job and they live off basic income and live a basic lifestyle that pays for food, shelter, and clothing. Nothing more. No fancy cars, no toys, no vacations, no entertainment, having trying to date anyone when you won't have the money to go out for dinner or the movies.

Luckily most people want more than a basic life and will continue to get an education so that they can get a job that hasn't be automated and be able to buy luxuries.

You can't have a large scale automation without some form of extensive social security system.

[Vyxn]

By taxing you Vyxn, obviously. Just you, 100000000% tax rate to steal all of your moneys and give it to minorities.

Is that what you want to hear?

and how much more over the 40 to 50% of someone ones income they already pay in taxes before those people say screw it isn't worth the effort I'm my self aren't going to work sit my ass home and live off the backs of others?

[Wolfheart9]

Then they won't get a job and they live off basic income and live a basic lifestyle that pays for food, shelter, and clothing. Nothing more. No fancy cars, no toys, no vacations, no entertainment, having trying to date anyone when you won't have the money to go out for dinner or the movies.

Luckily most people want more than a basic life and will continue to get an education so that they can get a job that hasn't be automated and be able to buy luxuries.

You can't have a large scale automation without some form of extensive social security system.

Pretty much this.. In the places it's been tested it was shown that more people went to go for extra employment because they could experiment without the risk of losing their home. They could go educate themselves because they could still feed their children.

and how much more over the 40 to 50% of someone ones income they already pay in taxes before those people say screw it isn't worth the effort I'm my self aren't going to work sit my ass home and live off the backs of others?

Then the job they just vacated will be taken by someone who wants that basic income + what the job was providing because they want a better life?

[unfilteredJW]

Every person that is willing to work, should make enough money for themselves to have a roof over their head and food in their stomach without government aid, how is that a bad thing?

It is when their self worth is based on how much better they are doing than the people below them. It's egoism, and the root of most of these peoples "issues".

[Reeve]

The thing that I find hilarious about the whole "fast food workers need $15/hour wage" is that they are literally fighting and protesting themselves out of their very own jobs. Companies will have ZERO qualms with replacing as many people as possible with machines if it means higher profit margins in the long run. Granted, they probably would have been replaced by computer kiosks and robotic machines eventually anyway, but this whole $15/hour thing is just speeding that process up even faster.

My suggestion? Go get a real job instead of working at one that was never meant to support a family anyway.

Wow, I bet they never thought of that!

/s

[Ealyssa]

the government? and where does the government get the money to then pay for the basic income?

You tax robotic work. Simple as that.

If it's cheaper to buy a robot than hiring a human being. You should tax the delta of cost. And not it's not even that hard to understand and agree to. This delta between human VS machine is a direct benefit for the owner. Benefits are taxed, this benefit should be taxed.

[Wolfheart9]

I agree there will come a choice between Elysium, or "Star Trek" like economy. But that will be the people choosing. As the people that are gung ho for Trump (or Hillary for that matter, for different reasons.), who think that he will bring back jobs from China (not understanding that it will also increase the cost of living and tank the global economy/stock market) realize that protectionism is not going to get them (US) back to the 1950's, the economy will have to come to terms with people that are unemployable.

The biggest hit to the economy won't come from food service being automated. It is truck drivers:

Current Employment number type by state:



This is the estimate from Morgan Stanley, not a fringe transhumanist group:




Google veterans head off on their own to work on self-driving trucks
http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/17/11...-truck-startup

Pretty much this. We could drop all pay to $5 an hour, and companies would still try to automate, and the population would continue to grow, while the amount of available jobs continue to shrink. It has nothing to do with people being lazy, uneducated, or anything of that nature. It's simple math. 100 is less than 1000.

[Vyxn]

Then they won't get a job and they live off basic income and live a basic lifestyle that pays for food, shelter, and clothing. Nothing more. No fancy cars, no toys, no vacations, no entertainment, having trying to date anyone when you won't have the money to go out for dinner or the movies.

Luckily most people want more than a basic life and will continue to get an education so that they can get a job that hasn't be automated and be able to buy luxuries.

You can't have a large scale automation without some form of extensive social security system.

as the pool of those that do work gets smaller and smaller as the pool of those that are required to live off the backs of those that do work get larger and lager
which then forces more taxes being taken from those that do work which makes more and more say screw it
it wont be long at all that the takers will greatly out number the makers and everyone become takers and no makers left to provide for them

[alexw]

Yea, back in the day factory work was the go-to. Anyone out of school could get into one and while it wasn't glorious work, it was enough to survive.. now good luck getting into one that's not complete ass.



This. Want this kind of stuff to stop, want minimum wage to stay where it is? Then lower the cost of living to match minimum wage, rather than making minimum wage match cost of living.

Err from an economic standpoint lowering the cost of living is exactly the same as raising the minimum wage. Increasing wages increases the share of income that goes to wages. Cutting companies income which is exactly what lowering the cost of living would do would similarly increase wages as a share of income (unless of course you cut wages also which defeats the point of lowering the cost of living).

[zenkai]

The original article is taken from Fox news which for months now has been "frothing" about the various moves to raise the minimum wage, while making no mention of the inevitability of robots replacing workers due to continually falling automation costs.

And where do you they they will install these things first? Some city who has spiked minimum wage or BFE?

[Wolfheart9]

You tax robotic work. Simple as that.

If it's cheaper to buy a robot than hiring a human being. You should tax the delta of cost. And not it's not even that hard to understand and agree to. This delta between human VS machine is a direct benefit for the owner. Benefits are taxed, this benefit should be taxed.

That'l end up happening eventually I'd wager. A robot pays no income taxes, no health care, no nothing, so it's an economical dead end for anyone but the employer.

as the pool of those that do work gets smaller and smaller as the pool of those that are required to live off the backs of those that do work get larger and lager
which then forces more taxes being taken from those that do work which makes more and more say screw it
it wont be long at all that the takers will greatly out number the makers and everyone become takers and no makers left to provide for them

It's adorable how wrong you are. As more people say 'screw it' and decide to live in a one bedroom apartment with their basic income, other people that want a bigger home and a fancy car will happily take up the jobs they left.

Err from an economic standpoint lowering the cost of living is exactly the same as raising the minimum wage. Increasing wages increases the share of income that goes to wages. Cutting companies income which is exactly what lowering the cost of living would do would similarly increase wages as a share of income (unless of course you cut wages also which defeats the point of lowering the cost of living).

Oh I know it's the same, it's more a point to the people saying 'Minimum wage higher is bad!', when minimum wage can't even let a single person live in most states without government aid.

[Ivanstone]

I always laugh at the idiots who go and get degrees in things like philosophy or liberal arts and then cry the blues when they can't find a job after college. It's no one's fault but their own.

Ok what happens when all of those people decide to bootstrap their way into a real degree. All of the liberal arts majors and all of the MacDonald's employees and other assorted scum decide to be as educated as you so they can find a "good" job.

You know what happens? They find out the "good" jobs are strictly limited. Even if a "good" job is currently facing a shortage, its not a shortage on the order of hundreds of thousands.

So what happens? You have millions of people that still need to be fed regardless of what they can do. What's your solution? Soylent green. That might work.

PS
http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgean.../#7a5025c75a75

[Zoldor]

Ladies and gentlemen: The root of the problem.

Though to be fair, still not a supporter of the $15 an hour myself. $10 is reasonable.

Cost of living based on the geographic location is probably the best way to handle it. Some places 10 would be perfect some 15. This is probably the biggest issue with minimum wage across the board is cost of living now varies greatly in the US alone.

[Wolfheart9]

Cost of living based on the geographic location is probably the best way to handle it. Some places 10 would be perfect some 15. This is probably the biggest issue with minimum wage across the board is cost of living now varies greatly in the US alone.

Yea that. Where I live I could have a cheap car payment, a one bedroom apartment, enough money for food and a pinch to put away, but not enough to pay for additional education on $10 an hour. Other places like D.C. and so on? Yea, they need higher.