Low/No-skilled Workers replaced by technology

[Raeph]

In the http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...ration-reform) thread there seems to be a discussion forming about immigration reform not being necessary in about a decade because of a drop in the necessary Low/No-skilled labor force, in the United States.

Doing some digging around, I found these two pages on the Bureau of Labor Statistics website: http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011.htm and http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011tbls.htm, for year 2011. There are currently 3.82 million people making minimum wage or less, as of 2011. 2.24 million have a high school diploma only or less education.

Now the issue at hand to consider: Say a new technology is developed to make say hamburgers easier, or whatever. All the minimum wage positions are eliminated, over the course of two years as the technology is rolled out through the economy (159k per month). They are replaced by 10% of that total as service technicians and maintenance personnel, making $15 an hour average.

1) Would this be good for the country as a whole?
2) What should happen to/for the people that have lost their jobs due to the technological improvements?
3) Should the government help or hinder the companies trying to roll out this technology?

Unrelated to the example, but secondarily related to the issue:

1) Do you think that the labor force will ever become skilled enough to no longer require an enforced minimum wage, excepting in the case of non-adult laborers (people between 15-19)?
2) Should the government in general encourage, hinder or ignore technological improvements, that when applied into the economy results in an increase in productivity, but a gross loss of jobs?

Your thoughts?

***
Please keep to the topic, without diverging into discussions of the morality of a minimum wage, evil corporations or immigration policy. Please?

(restated the example situation, to maintain a semblance of urgency in the situation)

[Masark]

Doing some digging around, I found these two pages on the Bureau of Labor Statistics website: http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011.htm and http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011tbls.htm, for year 2011. There are currently 73.9 million people making minimum wage or less, as of 2011. 35.2 million have a high school diploma only or less education.

You're misreading that chart. It's 73.9 million people who are paid by the hour (rather than a salary).

3.8 million of those are paid at or below minimum wage.

[Raeph]

Saw that and I updated the situation. Amazing what you miss when you type out something, while answering the phone.

[Kathandira]

Here is an example of this happening.

Two nights ago I went to my local Quick Chek (Convenience Store - Chain) Our Quick Cheks are normally staffed with young men and women. They have 3 Check Out stations. Normally only 1 person is there, on the weekends they have 2 or 3 during busy hours. While I was there, there was a technician installing 2 Self Check Out stations in place of two of the regular check out stations.

There will likely be lay offs there are they no longer have a need for 2 employees.

[Faroth]

At a local Jack in the Box, they have an order kiosk. You go up, push buttons to select what you want, how you want to customize it, etc. You pay with cash or credit card same as self checkout at Wal-Mart or grocery stores and it prints your receipt with your order number.

No cashier necessary, and thus one less job arguably necessary.

My friend pointed out this is exactly how Earth developed in Star Trek. As more and more technology automated systems, less jobs were needed and more became poor or homeless until a civil war broke out over it, leading to the development of the society that goes on to create the Federation, etc. I only find that interesting because of how frequently we tend to imitate what was once science fiction.

I could definitely see the advance of robotics and automated systems lead to a more socialist/capitalist mix where those without jobs are supported and less and less who still have jobs make more since those jobs become necessities of society.

.....until the machines turn on us. That always happens in sci-fi too...

[Masark]

My friend pointed out this is exactly how Earth developed in Star Trek. As more and more technology automated systems, less jobs were needed and more became poor or homeless until a civil war broke out over it, leading to the development of the society that goes on to create the Federation, etc. I only find that interesting because of how frequently we tend to imitate what was once science fiction.

Might find this novella interesting.

[Endus]

1) Would this be good for the country as a whole?
2) What should happen to/for the people that have lost their jobs due to the technological improvements?
3) Should the government help or hinder the companies trying to roll out this technology?

1) Eventually, with proper support systems in place.
2) Better public support systems. Additional training/education options. More new-industry and research-and-development positions created, in new initiatives funded by the government if private industry won't invest in it. Etc.
3) Like any new business, if they need startup capital, maybe. In general, though, once a business is up and running, I think government's main goal should be to ensure that they don't harm people or the country, directly or indirectly. Not hiring as many employees doesn't qualify as either.

This isn't really new, even. It's the same thing that happened when factories started moving to automation rather than line workers for assembly. We're just talking about doing the same thing with burgers that we used to do with other stuff.

1) Do you think that the labor force will ever become skilled enough to no longer require an enforced minimum wage, excepting in the case of non-adult laborers (people between 15-19)?
2) Should the government in general encourage, hinder or ignore technological improvements, that when applied into the economy results in an increase in productivity, but a gross loss of jobs?

1) No, because "minimum wage" has nothing to do with the skill of the worker, and everything to do with quality of life and what companies are willing to offer in pay.

2) The government shouldn't oppose progress, as long as we're ensuring that those who benefit from it are paying back into the system, to help fund the support of the citizens and economy that support their business.

My thoughts on that last point are best summed up by this quote by a man much smarter than I;

"Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to, only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer."

[Deleted]

Alot more where that came from. I'm wary of the future.

- Bots that can do better surgery than surgeons
- Automatic payment (like Ikea has, and alot of belgian shops), no cashiers needed, at one point u just fill in a form and a machine will poop out the grocery's u want in a box.
- Self driving cars - Delivery services / mail / taxi companies.
- Machines that can diagnose and recommend diëts/cures/treatments/whatever
- Computers that know the justice system inside out, so no more lawyers needed

Etc.

Yeap, were all fucked.

Funny thing is, unemployment could be way less, if corporations didnt care to make 5 billion profit instead of 4.9 billion. (thats 100 mil, thats around 3000 employees at 30k/year. If they chose to just make 2 billion profit a year, they could employ 100,000 people.
See how that works?

[Hraklea]

1) Would this be good for the country as a whole?

Yes, technology is always a good thing.

2) What should happen to/for the people that have lost their jobs due to the technological improvements?

They would work on something else. Technology doesn't increase the unemployment rate. Just look at how much technology we have now compared to a 100 years ago and look at the unemployement rate back then.

3) Should the government help or hinder the companies trying to roll out this technology?

No.

1) Do you think that the labor force will ever become skilled enough to no longer require an enforced minimum wage, excepting in the case of non-adult laborers (people between 15-19)?

We don't need minimum wage now, and we won't need it in the future. But no, I don't think those who support the welfare state will ever admit that the minimum is unnecessary.

2) Should the government in general encourage, hinder or ignore technological improvements, that when applied into the economy results in an increase in productivity, but a gross loss of jobs?

The government should only enforce the law. It is not the state's job to produce technology.

[Deleted]

We don't need minimum wage now, and we won't need it in the future. But no, I don't think those who support the welfare state will ever admit that the minimum is unnecessary.

Lolled. Soooo jobs are unobtainable for u, and i offer u a 60h/week job paying u 2 bucks an hour (caus im a corporate douchebag). You will make a monthly 480$, your rent alone is around 300 a month not counting gas, water, electricity, food. But oh well, u couldve lived under a bridge right? Be glad that ur back gives out at age 40 because u worked a physicly intense job 60h a week for 480$. Minimum wage, hah.

[Fahrenheit]

My friend pointed out this is exactly how Earth developed in Star Trek. As more and more technology automated systems, less jobs were needed and more became poor or homeless until a civil war broke out over it, leading to the development of the society that goes on to create the Federation, etc. I only find that interesting because of how frequently we tend to imitate what was once science fiction.

Fast forward a few decades and yeah, we'll need GMI (guaranteed minimum income) Or Universal Basic Income, just so we don't have destitute people by the millions wandering the streets.

[frumper]

A few problems with the 3.8 million number. That is the federal minimum wage. Many states have a higher minimum wage and those people are automatically making above the wage for that chart even though its the legal minimum they can work for. Also, if your boss gave you a 5 cent raise you're no longer counted even though you effectively are making the same wage. The number of people making $10 or less is about 25% of the labor force. That puts the number at around 38 million people in the US.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1699103.html Huffpo article also links to the study.

[Masark]

They would work on something else. Technology doesn't increase the unemployment rate. Just look at how much technology we have now compared to a 100 years ago and look at the unemployement rate back then.

Yes, but that was because there was another upcoming economic sector taking up the slack.

When the primary sector (raw material production) started to mechanize and automate, reducing manpower needs, industrialization and the secondary sector (manufacturing) picked up to supply more jobs.

When the primary sector continued to shrink and the secondary sector started to automate and shrink manpower requirements, the tertiary sector (services) picked up the people.

Now the tertiary sector is headed towards automation and demanpowering and the question is "Now what?". What picks up those people no longer needed by the tertiary sector? If there isn't anything past the tertiary sector, how do we deal with that?

[rhandric]

[Raeph]

One thing on the second question one:

"1) Do you think that the labor force will ever become skilled enough to no longer require an enforced minimum wage, excepting in the case of non-adult laborers (people between 15-19)? "

I do not mean that we learn enough work skills that we all automatically make enough money or we can all apply for high tech positions, rather meaning that we become generally skilled enough to take full advantage of market negotiating on our own behalf. Consider if each employee is, instead of a worker contracted with a corporation, rather a corporation of one, who contracts short, medium or long term projects, with a larger corporation. Something like payment is given to the micro-corporation for project X, with the benefit that the larger corporation underwrites the human resources compliance of the micro-corporation.

- - - Updated - - -

I wish I could print that out and display it at work.

[rhandric]

I wish I could print that out and display it at work.

You should

[Kellhound]

Yes, but that was because there was another upcoming economic sector taking up the slack.

When the primary sector (raw material production) started to mechanize and automate, reducing manpower needs, industrialization and the secondary sector (manufacturing) picked up to supply more jobs.

When the primary sector continued to shrink and the secondary sector started to automate and shrink manpower requirements, the tertiary sector (services) picked up the people.

Now the tertiary sector is headed towards automation and demanpowering and the question is "Now what?". What picks up those people no longer needed by the tertiary sector? If there isn't anything past the tertiary sector, how do we deal with that?

Plus, the quality of jobs has slipped during the change over. Technology may create a few good jobs, but it is generally used to get rid of far more. Look at the US railroads, technology allows them to move far more cargo with a fraction of the manpower of 1913. And a lot of those lost jobs were "living wage" types.

[frumper]

Why would someone monitoring these machines be paid that much? I know when I go to Meijer or Wal-Mart the cashiers manning the self scanning stations make the same as any other cashier. The more likely case is this new burger maker machine watcher will be paid minimum wage.

Well yea, they are obviously unskilled....beyond the skill they were taught to manage the machines, but hey the company taught them that so its not really a "real" skill....makes total sense.

[Masark]

I wish I could print that out and display it at work.

What? Don't have a printer? Or no wall art allowed at work?

I have 7 XKCD comics on my office wall right now.

[Felya]

Won't we still need workers that build robot building robots?