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

[Reeve]

Writing a blog isn't useful lol. Paying people to sit at home and write blogs? No thanks. And like I said before, if someone is doing a "useless" job, their employer is still paying them, where as paying people to literally sit at home and write a blog is a 100% drain on the tax payer.

And having people doing useless work at a burger joint is 100% drain on society. Blogs can indeed be useful. People do in fact read them and gain enjoyment from it. But you ignored the other things I mentioned, raising children and teaching yourself to program. You just decided to latch onto the thing you found objectionable. The fact is, the person could do anything or nothing. If they do nothing, they're a drain on the taxpayer (though they're spending that money, which contributes to the economy). But if they do damn near anything else, maybe they're a 60% drain, or a 20% drain. Anything is better than that fast food gig where they're a 100% drain.

This makes absolutely no sense. I've already said numerous times, and you ignore it every time, you can choose to not buy a hamburger at McDonald's, you can't choose to opt out of income tax.

I don't ignore it. If you'd actually ready what I said there, if all fast food joints and retail stores do this, you ARE going to spend some of that money at some point. And even if you don't, the other services you pay for become slightly more expensive, since the people providing those services will be spending money at those fast food joints and retail stores. You can't beat inflation unless you simply never spend any money at all.

No shit, you think repeating myself over and over because you refuse to read points and keep reposting your retarded logic isn't frustrating? 27,000 posts on a fucking forum and you think it's acceptable for people to be a drain on taxpayers and get paid to sit at home and do "something useful" such as writing a blog. I can tell you don't pay taxes.

Maybe you should consider taking a break, getting a massage or something. Calm down. You don't seem to be capable of having a discussion right now without throwing insults.

By the way, I pay approximately $20,000 per year in taxes.

Anyway, I'm out for now. I'll be back later.

[Xkiller9000]

$15 is a lot, $10-12 would be fine

[Wolfheart9]

And having people doing useless work at a burger joint is 100% drain on society. Blogs can indeed be useful. People do in fact read them and gain enjoyment from it. But you ignored the other things I mentioned, raising children and teaching yourself to program. You just decided to latch onto the thing you found objectionable. The fact is, the person could do anything or nothing. If they do nothing, they're a drain on the taxpayer (though they're spending that money, which contributes to the economy). But if they do damn near anything else, maybe they're a 60% drain, or a 20% drain. Anything is better than that fast food gig where they're a 100% drain.




I don't ignore it. If you'd actually ready what I said there, if all fast food joints and retail stores do this, you ARE going to spend some of that money at some point. And even if you don't, the other services you pay for become slightly more expensive, since the people providing those services will be spending money at those fast food joints and retail stores. You can't beat inflation unless you simply never spend any money at all.



Maybe you should consider taking a break, getting a massage or something. Calm down. You don't seem to be capable of having a discussion right now without throwing insults.

By the way, I pay approximately $20,000 per year in taxes.

Anyway, I'm out for now. I'll be back later.

'Paying people to write blogs is useless lol'

*posts on a forum run by those kind of people*

[Rakoth]

You don't have to buy a McDonald's hamburger or any fast food for that matter, so no, you aren't forced to pay a McDonald's employee's wages.


yeah, perfect logic mate. Just stop earning money, then you don't have to pay income tax. And then you can just get money from the government to sit at home and write a blog! Such an incrediby well thought out system. Fuck sake.

You are handicapped by tunnel vision. Fast Food jobs are just one industry that will get replaced. Educate yourself.

Truck drivers, gone. Call centers, gone.

The WEF started 2016 off by estimating the creation by 2020 of 2 million new jobs alongside the elimination of 7 million.
an Oxford study estimated the automation of about half of all existing jobs by 2033
Even the White House, in a stunning report to Congress, has put the probability at 83 percent that a worker making less than $20 an hour in 2010 will eventually lose their job to a machine. Even workers making as much as $40 an hour face odds of 31 percent.

I work in software, I know what A.I. can and will do. What do you do with all those displaced folks? They will make social programs explode beyond a sustainable form.

[Dystemper]

$5000 to train a new employee when they're making $7.25 an hour? TOP KEK

Yes, in general for a retail employee to be hired and then trained, it costs the companies about $5,000 . There is the hiring process, the training , the uniforms, Processing paperwork , background check if done etc etc

[Captain N]

$15 is a lot, $10-12 would be fine

And this is one of the key reasons we have this issue. $15/hour is not a lot of money -- It's OK but by no means is it a lot.

The problem we have is that people have spent so long just accepting low wages no matter their education/skills that they believe what you said.

[Felya]

Either way you will complain if its aliens from mars taking your jobs. You've been at it for pages now.

I have? That's news to me...

[I Push Buttons]

You are handicapped by tunnel vision. Fast Food jobs are just one industry that will get replaced. Educate yourself.

Truck drivers, gone. Call centers, gone.

The WEF started 2016 off by estimating the creation by 2020 of 2 million new jobs alongside the elimination of 7 million.
an Oxford study estimated the automation of about half of all existing jobs by 2033
Even the White House, in a stunning report to Congress, has put the probability at 83 percent that a worker making less than $20 an hour in 2010 will eventually lose their job to a machine. Even workers making as much as $40 an hour face odds of 31 percent.

I work in software, I know what A.I. can and will do. What do you do with all those displaced folks? They will make social programs explode beyond a sustainable form.

Haven't you read what all the right wingers wrote? All of these tens of millions of people just have to materialize free time and money out of thin air, go to college and major in a STEM field, and then fill the few million STEM positions that are available.

Obviously man, its so simple.

[Luxxor]

In other news, the sky is blue.

I have a hard time seeing why people can't understand the massive paradigm shift coming because of a sweeping change to the minimum wage.

Endus sure doesnt.

[Fugus]

$15 is a lot, $10-12 would be fine

Actually it isn't.

It only seems like a lot because minimum wage has just lagged that far behind.

If it had kept up and been adjusted for both inflation and productivity increases, it would be over $22 an hour now I believe. Just for inflation alone it would be at about $11 or so just to keep pace with that while ignoring the increases in productivity we have had as a whole in that time.

[Jotaux]

Endus sure doesnt.

Well I see the shift and I think its good. You either pay people a livable wage or you become more efficient. I'm all for the robots and I'm all for $15 an hour minimum wage.

[Wolfheart9]

Actually it isn't.

It only seems like a lot because minimum wage has just lagged that far behind.

If it had kept up and been adjusted for both inflation and productivity increases, it would be over $22 an hour now I believe. Just for inflation alone it would be at about $11 or so just to keep pace with that while ignoring the increases in productivity we have had as a whole in that time.

We still have to take a look at what's liveable wages. $11 an hour at a McDonalds around here would be JUST barely good enough as there''s no way you're getting 40 hours a week, and I have a low cost of living. If you in bigger cities or what nots? No, you wouldn't make it without some heavy aid.

[Deleted]

The impending wholesale automatization/computerization of the Western society unskilled labour is going to eventually see spending power for those that these companies would love to have as consumers utterly tank. The saying goes 'May you live in uninteresting times' ... but we seem to be smack-dab in the middle of an industrial revolution.

The last one utterly changed the world and how we live/work, this next one is going to do much the same. Hope we don't get TOO much hardship before the chips settle.

[Masark]

In other news, the sky is blue.

I have a hard time seeing why people can't understand the massive paradigm shift coming because of a sweeping change to the minimum wage.

I have a hard time seeing why you can't understand the fact that they'll do this anyway even if we keep the minimum wage at a sub-poverty level.

[Fugus]

We still have to take a look at what's liveable wages. $11 an hour at a McDonalds around here would be JUST barely good enough as there''s no way you're getting 40 hours a week, and I have a low cost of living. If you in bigger cities or what nots? No, you wouldn't make it without some heavy aid.

I know, I think minimum wage should fulfill it's intended role as stated by FDR when he signed it into law and "Just getting by" isn't enough for a minimum wage to count as such.

And if your wage requires aid at all, it isn't fulfilling it's role at all unless you are trying to live above any reasonable means.

Where I live, even with 40 hours per week at $11 per hour, you will still be barely making it unless you are living in a high crime area or having others to subsidize your living arrangement.

[I Push Buttons]

Actually it isn't.

It only seems like a lot because minimum wage has just lagged that far behind.

If it had kept up and been adjusted for both inflation and productivity increases, it would be over $22 an hour now I believe. Just for inflation alone it would be at about $11 or so just to keep pace with that while ignoring the increases in productivity we have had as a whole in that time.

Depends on where you live... $15/hour around here is plenty for a single person to live on... Two people living together each making that, you could live pretty damn well. But in other major metro areas, no that probably isn't enough... No it isn't enough to raise a family on...

I am all for increased wages and better safety nets, as well as the eventual transition to basic income... But I am with Republicans on one thing... You should NOT be able to comfortably raise a family on minimum wage.

Live comfortably as a worker? Be able to afford a decent place to live, food for yourself, transportation, amenities like internet, maybe something to save? Yeah... Minimum wage should be able to do that.

Provide for dependents, an even bigger place for those dependents to live, food for yourself and several other people, and all of that jazz... No, that's silly. Someone shouldn't be able to buy a several bedroom apartment or a house and provide for multiple people bagging groceries or flipping burgers. If you make the poor decision to have kids at that level of income, well shame on you, but in any case, like I said previously I am all for robust safety nets... No one should starve, no one should be homeless, every kid should go to school.

[Fugus]

Depends on where you live... $15/hour around here is plenty for a single person to live on... Two people living together each making that, you could live pretty damn well. But in other major metro areas, no that probably isn't enough... No it isn't enough to raise a family on...

I am all for increased wages and better safety nets, as well as the eventual transition to basic income... But I am with Republicans on one thing... You should NOT be able to comfortably raise a family on minimum wage.

Live comfortably as a worker? Be able to afford a decent place to live, food for yourself, transportation, amenities like internet, maybe something to save? Yeah... Minimum wage should be able to do that.

Provide for dependents, an even bigger place for those dependents to live, food for yourself and several other people, and all of that jazz... No, that's silly. Someone shouldn't be able to buy a several bedroom apartment or a house and provide for multiple people bagging groceries or flipping burgers. If you make the poor decision to have kids at that level of income, well shame on you, but in any case, like I said previously I am all for robust safety nets... No one should starve, no one should be homeless, every kid should go to school.

That is something we both will have to agree to disagree on I guess.

I feel a minimum wage job should be enough to support a single person no problem and allow them to improve themselves with without issue or be able to support themselves and their family on allowing for one parent to actually stay home and raise the child.

Making more than minimum wage should be able to cover more than that in my opinion.

It should not take both parents working just to provide for the family.

Minimum wage should be seen as a stepping stone but a livable one, it shouldn't be seen as a punishment.

But to each their own I guess on this one for the time being. Lets work on getting minimum wage up to at leave the level needed to support an individual and then we can debate on the rest. The current level couldn't feed a dog.

[kail]

So basically welfare. No thanks, I don't think taxpayers should be supporting people who don't make enough money at their full-time job. Make their fucking employer pay enough that they don't need to be on welfare.

Well I know you can't reply back, but this is considering the future where machines will take most jobs (and they will, tech has been taking jobs for centuries). So the options are thus.

1. Simply have a huge majority of the population in poverty because income is stagnated to the top. No job = zero income without welfare. This will put us in third world country status quick. Your philosophical principles stay intact, but the country just went to shit.

2. Have money circulated and managed through welfare and taxes. Very few would be in poverty and everyone is happy.

Reminder: This is based on the fact that jobs cease to exist. So long as they exist, keep the welfare out and wages livable.

[Wolfheart9]

Well I know you can't reply back, but this is considering the future where machines will take most jobs (and they will, tech has been taking jobs for centuries). So the options are thus.

1. Simply have a huge majority of the population in poverty because income is stagnated to the top. No job = zero income without welfare. This will put us in third world country status quick. Your philosophical principles stay intact, but the country just went to shit.

2. Have money circulated and managed through welfare and taxes. Very few would be in poverty and everyone is happy.

Reminder: This is based on the fact that jobs cease to exist. So long as they exist, keep the welfare out and wages livable.

Amusingly as much as people say 'Upping minimum wage will make people get laid off and no more jobs!', around me, and around many other cities that aren't huge cities, almost everything but the cheapest of stores and food spots are closing down. People don't have the money to spend on simple extra things anymore, so those companies/shops are all going out of business. More money in people's pockets means more spending which means more trading of money and goods, which helps the economy.

[Yvaelle]

Well I see the shift and I think its good. You either pay people a livable wage or you become more efficient. I'm all for the robots and I'm all for $15 an hour minimum wage.

The controversy is cultural.

Socialist societies will benefit from automation, because the increased profits resulting from the cost reductions of automation will inspire increased taxes on these profits. These profits will be redistributed back into society, which will compensate for the transitional unemployment resulting from automation. Automation becomes a net benefit to the total productive output of society, since some portion of profit will still remain with the owners, and some portion of the profit will be taxed, and support those who lost their jobs as a result of that automation: in total, the sums of these outputs exceeds the input, to the difference of the productivity gained by automating.

In practice, this has additional effects which are - in the short-term - detrimental imperfections. In any organizational change, things tends to get better before they ultimately improve - this means that implementing automation will not reach peak productivity until sometime after it is implemented - this delay means that while layoffs will be instantaneous, the cost reductions and therefore profits will not be.

Profits also have a lag time between when they are collected (at the time of sale) and when they are taxed (at the end of the fiscal year).

Another lag time exists between when the government will recognize the paradigm shift in the market, develop new tax policy to compensate, and pass it into law - and then the delay between when the law is passed and the next fiscal period before it is enacted (and often industries are given years, even a decade, in advance of such a tax shift).

However, Socialist economies benefit from reacting to the needs of their citizens first - meaning that they will likely enact new social safety nets as soon as the layoffs begin - but will run a program (or even federal budget) deficit until the tax changes are implemented to compensate.

To contrast to a more Conservative fiscal view - they will not enact new social policy until they have new tax policy implemented: this may mean decades of mass unemployment without compensating social safety nets which, 'they cannot afford' - due to the priority fiscal conservatives talk about running a balanced budget (even though Conservative parties the world over are institutionally bad at actually running balanced budgets). That is likely to result to chaos in the streets - and a cascade failure through the economy as things like housing markets, stock markets, etc - all collapse on one another like a house of cards - the weight of each collapse overburdening the institutions below it.

This is why the paradigm shift of automation which is to come is seen as controversially a Utopian or Dystopian future.

It all depends on the perspective of the viewer toward their government, which they either trust/distrust, to implement corresponding fiscal and welfare policy to compensate for the obsolescence of human labor.

If we think that Justin Trudeau will figure implement social safety nets quickly, and then develop corresponding new fiscal policy in a timely manner - then ultimately this is a boon to humanity. Automation will increase societies net productivity alone, while also decreasing the cost of production - and simultaneously humans will be freed up to do other things - further increasing the productive output of society (in the form of whatever we choose to do, whether that's compose music, craft furniture, blog, or play video games).

If you think that your government is either too inept to respond in a timely fashion to the paradigm shift - or too corrupt/heartless to help the newly poor by taxing the exponentially rich (ex. Shillary Clinton, Donald Trump, etc). Then the prospects for mass automation means 'I no longer have value in this brave new world'.

If you don't trust or believe your government will act in the best interest of the people - or you ideologically believe it has no obligation to the people (a bewildering position to me, but one we here all too often around here, from the anarchist / anarcho-capitalist Right) - the future will be mass unemployment, and instead of social safety nets: a long hard fall into poverty, anarchy, and death.