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

[Tyrianth]

first of all Bob isn't paying 25% in taxes more like 40 to 50% if you add together all taxes paid
and the government would have to increase taxes higher then 10% to provided the million upon millions that they would be required to give all those that don't work a basic wage
and the more you tax something the less and less of it you will have so like a snow ball rolling down a hill taxes would have to continue to be raised to provide for more and more that don't work which causes more and more not to work

Except we're talking about income tax. In my scenario Bob pays 25%. I should know, it's my scenario....

And how do you know how much they are going to have to increase taxes? They aren't just adding basic income and leaving everything else the same. Every single other welfare program would be scraped and the money rebudgeted towards basic income. No more medicare, no more subsidized housing, no more old age pensions, no food stamps, no employment insurance, no more welfare, no more subsidized bus passes, no more anything. My 10% increase is literally just as valid as your 40% because neither of us know exactly how much it will need to be adjusted after all budgets have been reworked. Hell they may not even need to increase taxes at all once they get rid of all the administrative overheard of separate departments.

Again, you keep bringing up the slippery slope. They aren't going to tax people to the point where they make LESS than they would on basic income. If you are working you will always be able to buy more than those on basic income.

[Vyxn]

Flat out 100% wrong. The extra income for business owners embodied in automating exactly matches that lost out by the now unemployed worker. So yes they can absorb the tax increase with zero increase in what they charge. Its basic economics.

no it isn't a even trade off because you have to conceder the start up cost of buying and setting up the robots and then maintaining and power consumption of those robots

lets say a robot replaces a worker that maker 25k a year the basic wage is 20K a year the cost of buying setting up maintaining and power consumption of that robot cost the business 10k a year but now the business is required to pay 20k a year on that robot to provide a basic wage to the worker the robot replaced

[Scathbais]

And this is why I fear capitalism is doomed to fail. Once we reach a certain technological height, capitalism may no longer be sustainable. Communism or some other form of socialism may become a reality and maybe the only possibility in the future.

Still waiting for someone to show a country where communism or socialism don't implode. Would you rather our economy was like modern Venezuela after the destructive policies of Chavez?

[Etrock08]

What happens when we have soo much automation and such a large population that there are simply not enough human labor jobs to work, other than super specialized jobs that require only a handful of people? Eventually the norm will not be working jobs but rather following hobbies, and not all hobbies make money, so where will that income come from?

[Vyxn]

Except we're talking about income tax. In my scenario Bob pays 25%. I should know, it's my scenario....

.

which makes you scenario a fallacy if it doesn't coincide with reality

[Tyrianth]

It doesn't, that's the UK then France, then the US.

some of the worst

not

the worst

The US is worse than France, but better than the UK.

[s_bushido]

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).

I believe the correct response to this "they don't deserve it" nonsense is: Go fuck yourself. Everyone deserves to be able to put a roof over their heads and food on their plate, whether you deem their job worthy or not. And the idea that just because these jobs can be done by teenagers and the mentally handicapped means that they are being done just by teenagers and the mentally handicapped is stupid as hell. Not everyone can get a better job, and those people don't deserved to have fuckwits spitting on them.

[Barnabas]

*facepalms* Okay kiddo, I'll break this down for you.

Right now, the skilled job industry is not hurting. They have some openings, but it's not like they're less than half staffed.

With me so far?

If all of the unskilled labor folk.. your fast food, your garbage men, your crosswalk guards, so on so fourth, all instantly gained education and skills to join this field, they would somehow all magically gain jobs? Despite there not being enough jobs in the field to actually give them all one?

Well grandpa your solution seems to be to wait for the government handout while you spout your luddite fallacy for a few more pages. Because everyone be damned to figure out that their job is at risk because your job is a well defined procedure and maybe gain a skill that robots can't replace for awhile. You really don't understand how the introduction of new technology works and all the jobs it creates to support it do you?

[Captain N]

which makes you scenario a fallacy if it doesn't coincide with reality

Why doesn't it? Or is this the part where you complain about taxation while demonstrating your uncanny lack of knowledge on progressive tax brackets?

[Vyxn]

Except we're talking about income tax. In my scenario Bob pays 25%. I should know, it's my scenario....

And how do you know how much they are going to have to increase taxes? They aren't just adding basic income and leaving everything else the same. Every single other welfare program would be scraped and the money rebudgeted towards basic income. No more medicare, no more subsidized housing, no more old age pensions, no food stamps, no employment insurance, no more welfare, no more subsidized bus passes, no more anything. My 10% increase is literally just as valid as your 40% because neither of us know exactly how much it will need to be adjusted after all budgets have been reworked. Hell they may not even need to increase taxes at all once they get rid of all the administrative overheard of separate departments.

Again, you keep bringing up the slippery slope. They aren't going to tax people to the point where they make LESS than they would on basic income. If you are working you will always be able to buy more than those on basic income.

we spent over 15 trillion dollars on the war on poverty and the poverty rate is the same today as it was when the war was declared

[Tyrianth]

which makes you scenario a fallacy if it doesn't coincide with reality

I notice you quoted and responded to the first sentence of many.

[Wolfheart9]

no it isn't a even trade off because you have to conceder the start up cost of buying and setting up the robots and then maintaining and power consumption of those robots

lets say a robot replaces a worker that maker 25k a year the basic wage is 20K a year the cost of buying setting up maintaining and power consumption of that robot cost the business 10k a year but now the business is required to pay 20k a year on that robot to provide a basic wage to the worker the robot replaced

Lets say a robot costs 35k to buy. They can replace one position at a factory. One worker at a factory costs 40k a year.. per shift. So, a full day's 3 shifts, that turns into 120k a year. Matinence is say.. 10k a year. And lets say that a basic income would be about 30k.

Year 1: 35k + 90k to pay basic income for 3 people + 10k matinence = 135k
Year 2: 90k + 10k = 100k
Year 3: 100k
Year 4: 100k
Year 5: 100k

Oh, and the employer doesn't have to match the bots 401k nor their healthcare.

Now employees:

Year 1: 3 employees = 120k + healthcare/etc
Year 2: 120k + healthcare/etc
Year 3: 120k + healthcare/etc

With sick days, vacation, so on so fourth.

Well grandpa your solution seems to be to wait for the government handout while you spout your luddite fallacy for a few more pages. Because everyone be damned to figure out that their job is at risk because your job is a well defined procedure and maybe gain a skill that robots can't replace for awhile. You really don't understand how the introduction of new technology works and all the jobs it creates to support it do you?

Awww, you have to go to insults rather than answering the question, so cute! You have fun now in your fantasy world.

[Deleted]

Some jobs will die, but another will take their place. It's been like that forever. Don't worry there wont suddenly be less jobs, there will be just different jobs.

[Ealyssa]

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.

It won't slow down robotisation, at all. You underestimate the gain on the marginal cost when it will be done everywhere. McDonalds having one machine in each restaurant doing every single burger needed is such a massive profit. And that's just one exemple. The overall cost cut will be massive, especially in the service industry.

What you directly tax is open to debate. The result would still be the same. Taxing a part of this huge "free" profit, as you don't have to pay the charges you had before with humans.

[Themius]

not



The US is worse than France, but better than the UK.

Well when you get to those who have proper degrees economic mobility is BEST in this country.

[Wolfheart9]

Well when you get to those who have proper degrees economic mobility is BEST in this country.

'When you skew the data to be beneficial to the results I want, we're the best!'

[Tyrianth]

we spent over 15 trillion dollars on the war on poverty and the poverty rate is the same today as it was when the war was declared

Do you actually think that counters anything I've said? That only strengthens my argument.

If your current system isn't working and is wasting money THEN CHANGE IT. Otherwise you're going to continue wasting money.

- - - Updated - - -

Well when you get to those who have proper degrees economic mobility is BEST in this country.

Do you have a source or are you just speaking out of your ass?

- - - Updated - - -

'When you skew the data to be beneficial to the results I want, we're the best!'

They do this with crime statistics too, it's quite funny.

"If you ignore all our worst citizens in the statistics then we're actually the country with the lowest crime rate. Other countries of course have to continue including their worst citizens in their stats!"

[xuros]

Sounds like bullshit.

A company doesn't have morals besides what makes the most money. If robots where so much cheaper they would get them regardless.

It might be slightly cheaper but the price for maintenance and the complexity involved makes me hard to believe it would be a large gain.

They would hire on mechanics on salary to keep them working with a couple fulltimers in store for other things. Without the hassle of having to pay to insure workers along with taxes and other fees it would end up being a huge boost to profits. Not to mention not having to worry about the robots bitching that they dont make enough to flip a burger patty. That alone is a huge boost!

[Etrock08]

Well grandpa your solution seems to be to wait for the government handout while you spout your luddite fallacy for a few more pages. Because everyone be damned to figure out that their job is at risk because your job is a well defined procedure and maybe gain a skill that robots can't replace for awhile. You really don't understand how the introduction of new technology works and all the jobs it creates to support it do you?

You seem to not understand the ratios involved here, 1 machine doesnt need 1 supporter, several stores of 10-15 machines could be handled by a single technician and programmar.

There are not enough "skilled" jobs available for everyone to be entered into, and not enough current income for families to support the amount of new businesses and positions and inovations and inventions that would be needed to support a large influx of "skilled" workers.

If unskilled labor was replaced by robots and their technicians it would leave hundreds of thousands of workers out of work. Our population is growing, and capitalism thrives on serving the largest amount of people with the fewest amount of people, eventually we will reach a breaking point where the amount of human workers needed to support a community is so few, that the job market will be so bloated that 50-60-70% of the population will be uneeded. What happens then? How would people make a living?

[Draeth]

Fact: Automation, like all other technologies, becomes cheaper and more efficient every year.

Fact: The cost of living increases every year.

Conclusion: Basing arguments over wages on the threat of automation is completely meaningless, because automation is inevitable and people will continue to need more money every year to survive, even after the cost of automation/hour has dropped below the already unlivable minimum wage.

This argument is and always has been a strawman.