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

[Captain N]

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".

And as we've noticed in the last handful of these threads those comparing their self-worth are barely above the people they're complaining about. To use the infamous Conservative "War On" label....We currently do have a War On Labor. People griping about what other people deserve without understanding that they're damaging the job market for their own children and likely themselves if they end up out of their comfortable job for any number of reasons.

The crabs in a bucket mentality really has to stop.

[Tyrianth]

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

All the slippery slope fallacy.

Not all jobs can be automated.
Those that aren't employed by a corporation are still paying taxes via consumption taxes.
Those that aren't employed by a corporation are free to seek alternative forms of income generation such as, but not limited to:

• Generating art such as paintings, music, photos, plays, books, etc
• Craftsmen skills
• Opening a business now that they don't have the fear that their business may go under and they won't be able pay for their basic bills
• Philosophy

And as others have said, if the pool does actually become too small (extremely unlikely) then start taxing corporate profits more or tax for robot hours. Not that they don't have to pay for an employee they have extra revenue lying around ready to be taxed. And you also keep throwing hypothetical taxation rates that no roots in actual evidence. You're just pulling numbers out of your ass that make your argument look better.

[Beazy]

Whats the life of a 35k robot? 4 years?

Assuming it will only be running for half the time due to maintenance you would need to be able to pay an employee less than $2 an hour in order for them to be more cost effective than a robot.

There are robots at General Motors Arlington TX plant that are over 35 years old. They require maintenance every 4 to 6 months. Not sure where you get the insane idea that robots "die" every 4 years.

[Underverse]

Good. Replace unskilled human labor with robots, and tax corporations at a higher rate, redistribute to these people who would be working at McDonald's to fund education.

[Wolfheart9]

There are robots at General Motors Arlington TX plant that are over 35 years old. They require maintenance every 4 to 6 months. Not sure where you get the insane idea that robots "die" every 4 years.

And that's 35 years of 0 income tax, 0 health care, 0 federal tax, so on so fourth.

[Captain N]

There are robots at General Motors Arlington TX plant that are over 35 years old. They require maintenance every 4 to 6 months. Not sure where you get the insane idea that robots "die" every 4 years.

Ever keep up with modern technology -- Things aren't build to last like they were 15-20 years ago. Almost all electronic devices are built to be replaced instead of repaired after a few years of use.

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." ― Ronald Wright, A Short History of Progress

There's a certain amount of humor I find in that quote considering that just last week the wife and I became millionaires (not liquid assets obviously) and we're still pro-wage increase.

[Vyxn]

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.

so then are you suggesting for every job a robot replaces the business then will be taxed enough to provide a basic wage for that employee that robot replaced
no business would could afford to absorb that amount of a tax increase with out substantially increasing the cost of their product which then would require more taxes be taken from the business to provide for that increase in basic wage that would be required for the higher cost of living

[Wolfheart9]

Ever keep up with modern technology -- Things aren't build to last like they were 15-20 years ago. Almost all electronic devices are built to be replaced instead of repaired after a few years of use.

While true, if the task itself hasn't evolved, there is little reason to evolve the machine doing it.

- - - Updated - - -

so then are you suggesting for every job a robot replaces the business then will be taxed enough to provide a basic wage for that employee that robot replaced
no business would could afford to absorb that amount of a tax increase with out substantially increasing the cost of their product which then would require more taxes be taken from the business to provide for that increase in basic wage that would be required for the higher cost of living

Which would then spur them to hire more human workers, thus giving people jobs. Funny how that works eh? Or the more realistic outcome, a robot is taxed enough to do $10 an hour, wherein a live employee would be paid $15 an hour to do the same job. Better for the business to be taxed.

[Tyrianth]

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." ― Ronald Wright, A Short History of Progress

So they're delusional then. The US has some of the worst economic mobility rates in the developed world.

[Zoldor]

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

Where ever the franchisee decides that they would rather have the automated worker over paying payroll. Or in the minor percentage owned by the actual corporation. It won't be some sweeping corporate mandate like it was in the factory world. McDonald's Wendy's etc doesn't own by roughly 10% of the actual brick and mortar stores they are leased to franchisees who decided things like this and actually pay the payroll.

[Beazy]

Ever keep up with modern technology -- Things aren't build to last like they were 15-20 years ago. Almost all electronic devices are built to be replaced instead of repaired after a few years of use.

/facepalm

In 2008 Paint GM received new paint robots. I know because its my mothers job to fix them. They have lasted almost ten years with minimal maintenance. You're confusing SANYO TVs(planned obsolescence) with actual industrial robots.

[alexw]

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.

IMO it should be done via general taxation of corporate profits. If you tax robots directly it will mean that robots won't be cheaper and so won't replace workers as they should. Don't want to slow the rate of automation down which is entirely in and of itself a good thing.

[Zephyr Storm]

Wow, I bet they never thought of that!

/s

I know it's been said over and over, and sounds very cliche, but it's the honest truth.

I realized this shit when I was still in high school (why it still evades some grown ass adults is beyond me) and made sure I worked my ass off to get good grades, get scholarships to help pay my way through college, and got a bachelor's degree in a field that had job opportunities available to me at decent wages. I worked hard to get where I am. I put in the effort to make the living I do now. I did the research to make sure I could be where I'm at now. And I was able to figure all that shit out my sophomore year of high school.

Sorry, but a lot of people are in the situations they are in simply because they either didn't care enough when they should have or did not put forth the effort when necessary. This obviously doesn't apply to everyone, but it definitely applies to a lot of people.

And no, I didn't have a lot going for me when I was in school and growing up. My parents were at that point in the income bracket where they made just enough money to not qualify me for government aid in school, but not enough money to actually help me get through school financially. I was able to get all but my very last semester of college (4 year bachelor's degree) paid for by busting my butt earning scholarships to pay for it. I also worked the last two years of my college career with the associate's degree I had earned in the first two years in order to help with other costs. I can't count the number of people I saw who could have done the same thing as me, but chose not to because they were either to lazy or didn't care. And now those same people are paying the consequences at their minimum wage jobs because they've had zero motivation all along to try and do better.

So you'll have to excuse me for having zero sympathy for them and think that it's fucking ridiculous for a burger flipper to be making that much money (especially considering that $15/hour is around what I was making with my two year associate's degree while I was still working on my bachelor's).

[Felya]

Those machines do not cost 35k a year. Meaning, that if the machine needs to completley be replaced or match it's upfront through maitance cost in 3 years, the actual yearly salary of humans would need to be less than 11.6 k a year before taxes, to be cost effective. That doesn't even include the cost of HR and other expenditures from employees. If those are included, the yearly pay to match the 35k cost of a machine is closer to 10k a year. Then if you factor in a single machine can cover 3 daily shifts, in peek, swing and night, that cost goes down to about 3.3k a year salary.

The issue should obviously not be 15 per hour or 7.50 for that mater... but, far closer to about 2 bucks an hour... As in, China...

[Vyxn]

All the slippery slope fallacy.

Not all jobs can be automated.
Those that aren't employed by a corporation are still paying taxes via consumption taxes.
Those that aren't employed by a corporation are free to seek alternative forms of income generation such as, but not limited to:

• Generating art such as paintings, music, photos, plays, books, etc
• Craftsmen skills
• Opening a business now that they don't have the fear that their business may go under and they won't be able pay for their basic bills
• Philosophy

And as others have said, if the pool does actually become too small (extremely unlikely) then start taxing corporate profits more or tax for robot hours. And you also keep throwing hypothetical taxation rates that no roots in actual evidence. You're just pulling numbers out of your ass that make your argument look better.

t isn't a fallacy it is called critical thinking maybe you should try it some time
it is called considering the consequences of ones actions
It is a proven fact the more you tax something the less of it you will have

[Wolfheart9]

t isn't a fallacy it is called critical thinking maybe you should try it some time
it is called considering the consequences of ones actions
It is a proven fact the more you tax something the less of it you will have

Isn't it also a fact that if you have 10 of something, then you have 5 of something, it is in fact less? That's the job market right now. It is critical thinking to tax an automated robot that replaced a worker enough to equate to $10 an hour for basic income, wherein for that same performance of work you would pay a living employee $15 an hour. It saves the employer $5 an hour, and allows another to live 'bare minimum'

[Ornerybear]

it's a zero barrier to entry job, it requires no skill and a mentally handicapped person can be hired to do it (that's not a slight on the handicapped).

They do not deserve a living wage for a teenager/entry job, period. I'll be glad to have machines take their place, then you can hire a small staff of management and mechanics (skilled labor).

then maybe when i go to a fast food restaurant they will get my order right, because the people doing the job now 9/10 times the person at the last window either gives me the wrong food/drink, no sauce, and/or no straw. The person has 4 responsibilities, hand me my food, hand me my drink, hand me a straw, and hand me sauce. If they do only 2/4 of those things they are screwing up 50% of their job. That's like if I only did 50% of my job right 36hrs a week. Id get fired!

AUTOMATE THEM PLEASE!!

[Beazy]

It is a proven fact the more you tax something the less of it you will have

I dont know Vyxn, Paid sex is highly taxed in Nevada, and people are having plenty of that.
/rawr

[alexw]

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

Errr what?

If robots do everything and noone works then you give everyone "free" money and tax the income of the robot owners to get the free money to give away.

[Tico]

The original post again reminds me that we live in an age where reduced work hours and finally unconditional basic income will be the solution.