just greedy pricks being greedy pricks. Like someone else pointed out itr works fine in the UK and EU so0o0o0o0o he is clearly full of it.
Carl's Jr. CEO Readies Robot Workforce to Counter Rising Wages
- Thread starter LJ Ellis
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Ever heard of Ned Ludd? He's a figure bordering on reality and folklore, after whom Luddites were named, a fairly active movement at the onset of XIXth century, where weavers would attack industrial equipment out of a well-founded concern, that said equipment will allow their work to be done by fewer, less skilled (and thus competitively priced) employees, forcing them out of a job. Turns out they were right, but they didn't die out, they just had to find different work.
Ultimately, as we now know Industrial Revolution has taken many lives of unqualified employees working in dangerous conditions because of insufficient legal regulation, an environment that mostly just allowed the rich to get richer, and faster. However, we have since developed laws, that make industry an important part of the modern world, that benefits not only the corporate fatcats, but pretty much everyone living in industrialized countries. As such, I don't think that progressing automation of work as a result of developments in robotics is something we should avoid - quite the opposite, it's to be welcomed, albeit well scrutinized and sensibly regulated (So like, write to your congressman about it or something? I'm not sure how that works in US - I mean this is inherently a global issue, but the fastfood in question is 'murican), so that we can hopefully avoid any situations analogous to XIXth century worker exploitation and the shit that came with it.
Honestly, I don't think we have reached a point already, where AI would offer suitable replacement for human servers at an economically viable price, but if he can make it work, it's probably a good thing for everyone.
TL;DR: A bad guy is doing a bad thing for bad reasons, but good things will come of it yet, especially if we help, so don't worry.
Ultimately, as we now know Industrial Revolution has taken many lives of unqualified employees working in dangerous conditions because of insufficient legal regulation, an environment that mostly just allowed the rich to get richer, and faster. However, we have since developed laws, that make industry an important part of the modern world, that benefits not only the corporate fatcats, but pretty much everyone living in industrialized countries. As such, I don't think that progressing automation of work as a result of developments in robotics is something we should avoid - quite the opposite, it's to be welcomed, albeit well scrutinized and sensibly regulated (So like, write to your congressman about it or something? I'm not sure how that works in US - I mean this is inherently a global issue, but the fastfood in question is 'murican), so that we can hopefully avoid any situations analogous to XIXth century worker exploitation and the shit that came with it.
Honestly, I don't think we have reached a point already, where AI would offer suitable replacement for human servers at an economically viable price, but if he can make it work, it's probably a good thing for everyone.
TL;DR: A bad guy is doing a bad thing for bad reasons, but good things will come of it yet, especially if we help, so don't worry.
Person 1 "Hey did you hear Carl's raised the salary of it's workers"rcs619 said:
Person 2 "That's good"
Person 1 "Want to go eat there?"
Person 2 "No way they charge to much this other place is cheaper"
Extra Credits episode on what a 1 cent price increase can do to a multi billion dollar company.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxfkWZPAUg4&list=PLB9B0CA00461BB187&index=140
They aren't afraid of paying their staff a livable wage, they just don't want to. Paying their staff a decent wage means they can't afford that fourth ferrari they've been dreaming about.Parasondox said:
There's this idea put forward by some CEOs that state "if I pay my workers less, then I can hire more workers and create more jobs for those that need them." however, in practice these CEOs are not so benevolent, instead they opt to run their companies on minimum wage, overworked skeleton crews[footnote]Then have the audacity to complain about losses and customer dissatisfaction because there aren't enough employees to cover all the tasks necessary to keep the store running efficiently.[/footnote].
I always found it interesting that the reward for being a good worker is overtime (read: more work).
-------------------------
OT: For those who didn't read the source article, it gets better.
So? Economics is an ecosystem, not a machine. One change causes a ripple effect. OK so you replace your front end staff with machines. Suzy, Sally, and Sheila lose their jobs as cashiers at the Quickie Burg. Except you need at least one human employee to keep an eye on the machines and because customers are accustomed to and demand human interaction in some degree, so Sheila gets hired back to babysit them to do that. Because her new job is technically a supervisor posistion and involves looking over multiple stations, it includes higher pay. Suzy and Sally are still crocked of course. Except you need technicians to service the machines when they inevitably break or glitch. A new infrastructure is created for this end. Even at the bare minimum you need a technician to service the machines, and a dispatch to handle the work load. Either you create this in house or new companies form to see to this need. You likely create more jobs than you cut. The cost is not lost, you defray it.
He's spouting trickle down economics from the position of the only folks it actually works for -- the guys at the top. Because it doesn't, you know, trickle.Kuala BangoDango said:
Of course, it's not wrong to say that you can be more loose with hiring if you don't have to pay them much, and thus to a certain degree a lower minimum wage does mean more jobs (because it's cheap enough to throw more people at it to make the short term cost of moving to automation look unattractive, and short term profits are all that matter), but you're still going to only run the minimum crew you need for the job.
My current employer actually has everyone on reduced hours to avoid layoffs, and is having them do miscellaneous work instead of their actual jobs because we're between projects and it's easier and cheaper to have skilled tradesmen building fences at his farm, painting the offices, doing maintenance on company vehicles, etc (while still being paid at the hourly rate they make when making us money) than to try to replace them when the next project starts. In the past, we've been in that situation for upwards of a quarter, but we're a manufacturing company that really can't automate much (every piece is a one-off).
It's called a minimum wage job for a reason people. Minimum. Wage.
If you can't make a living off of it, work hard to get a better job? I did. Everyone else I know did.
If you can't make a living off of it, work hard to get a better job? I did. Everyone else I know did.
This is the kind of thing that's going to lead to a world where robots take up most of our population. I'm not okay with this seeing that putting a bunch of people out of work and money to keep themselves afloat.
If they take your advice and work hard to get a higher paying job because they can't make a living off of minimum wage, will there be enough decent paying jobs for everyone, considering those that are also being outsourced?BodomBeachChild said:
Don't get me wrong, I have a job in which I make that mythical $15 an hour, but I'm not so naive as to think my degree will save me from being replaced should somebody with slightly shottier skills but willing to work for $10 comes knocking because $10 looks good when you only make $8.
That's not even taking into account those who do have degrees, but simply can't get jobs in their field because it's over-saturated.
And how many "better jobs" are there? Is there even enough "better jobs" out there available to everyone? What if that "better job" that isn't on a minimum wages basis, does support the persons living cost?BodomBeachChild said:
It's all well and easy for you and "experts" to say, "well get a better job so you aren't on minimum wage", every time this argument comes up but are we actually looking at the stats and numbers correctly.
For example, in the North of England, they say the minimum wage suits many for people there than it does for those in the south because the price of living is less. However, there are less jobs Up North compared to the south. There may be more jobs in the south but the price of living is too high for so many which would result in people moving more and away from London and the south to areas who my have less job vacancies but can save a few pounds daily/weekly.
"Ahh, but what about they just drive and travel to work from North to South? Live in a cheap area but work where jobs are available."
Great idea but I'll give you an answer as to way that may not fully work. Apart from TFL, our rails (transport mostly) are private and run by companies. These companies focus on profit. Do you know how ridiculously expensive it is to travel in this country if you don't book two weeks in advance. Our transport infrastructure complex at the moment and aging pretty quickly. From motorways to rails, travelling isn't that easy. Yes improvements are being made but more problems keep raising. Pretty much money comes down to it.
That's kind of a shitty thing to say. 'Oh, are you sick because you can't afford to buy better food and medicine on your low wage? Well, work past your inability to eat/live healthily and things will get better!'BodomBeachChild said:
Ooh, I have another. 'Aw, can't afford to keep paying off that car you need to get to work? Get a better job, idiot! Duh. Don't give me that bullshit about you not being able to get one, either! It's really easy, I swear!'
Rent on average may be lower in the UK but that's not really the whole picture of cost of living, my partner has lived in both countries, rent is cheaper where she lives in Newcastle than it was in SoCal but a fair amount of other basics cost more, a lot of fruit and veg costs more, meat costs less, some toiletries cost less, gasoline costs a lot more, most luxuries cost more because we have bullshit high VAT.Li Mu said:
That said the minimum wage in the US is disgustingly low, it's still too low in the UK really to, and the "living wage" you get after you reach 25 won't help at all because putting an age gate on a higher wage rate opens a whole new can of worms. I earen about 7.20 an hour at present as a cook, saving up to get a car and train to for my C1+E licence to get a job that doesnt pay garbage rates.
The problem with this theory is that you're not going to have the technician and dispatch for just that one store unless it's a large one. They will likely be covering many stores over a significant area . I know because it's what I do now already for POS equipment. Even with new fields being created you'll need less bodies then before, which will drive down wages further due to supply and demand.TsunamiWombat said:
Like it or not, we live in an age of globalization and extremely rapid technological advancement. The job of management is to maximize productivity, defined as the ratio of output to inputs used in the production process (O/I). Inputs include labor and capital (including the costs of purchasing and maintaining equipment; i.e. automation). To improve productivity, you need to increase outputs or decrease inputs. Generally speaking, it is easier and more effective to decrease inputs than it is to increase outputs.
There are some situations where labor is overwhelmingly more effective than automation. There are situations where automation is overwhelmingly more effective than labor. In between the two is a huge middle ground where management must decide whether it is more cost-effective to use machines (automation) or humans (labor). Smart managers don't make this decision lightly; at the graduate (MBA) level, there are entire courses dedicated to just this one decision process and consultants who are good at it are very sought-after and highly compensated.
Increasingly, the decision is being made to move from labor to automation because labor is getting more expensive and automation is getting cheaper. It's not evil. It's not greed. It's necessary to continue to operate in the global economy where industrialized nations are competing against nations where the government can drive down labor costs to less than a tenth of what is paid in democratic industrialized nations.
Why is labor so expensive? Well, humans get sick... or sometimes just call in sick because the weather's nice, they're hung over or they just don't feel like showing up. They take vacations. They are entitled to benefits. They make mistakes. They goof off. They get injured. They fail to follow procedures. They form unions and go on strike.
Some forward-thinking economists have suggested that we're approaching a tipping point where we will need to start paying people a basic living "wage" not to work because automation will become so much more efficient than labor. That is an idea Americans rankle at because it's fundamentally at odds with the American work ethic. The reality is that things already kind of work that way (badly) through entitlement programs. I can definitely foresee a day when that happens. The corporations definitely won't like it, but all it would take is removing a few loopholes that encourage offshore taking of profits and we could definitely collect enough in corporate tax to make something like that work.
There are some situations where labor is overwhelmingly more effective than automation. There are situations where automation is overwhelmingly more effective than labor. In between the two is a huge middle ground where management must decide whether it is more cost-effective to use machines (automation) or humans (labor). Smart managers don't make this decision lightly; at the graduate (MBA) level, there are entire courses dedicated to just this one decision process and consultants who are good at it are very sought-after and highly compensated.
Increasingly, the decision is being made to move from labor to automation because labor is getting more expensive and automation is getting cheaper. It's not evil. It's not greed. It's necessary to continue to operate in the global economy where industrialized nations are competing against nations where the government can drive down labor costs to less than a tenth of what is paid in democratic industrialized nations.
Why is labor so expensive? Well, humans get sick... or sometimes just call in sick because the weather's nice, they're hung over or they just don't feel like showing up. They take vacations. They are entitled to benefits. They make mistakes. They goof off. They get injured. They fail to follow procedures. They form unions and go on strike.
Some forward-thinking economists have suggested that we're approaching a tipping point where we will need to start paying people a basic living "wage" not to work because automation will become so much more efficient than labor. That is an idea Americans rankle at because it's fundamentally at odds with the American work ethic. The reality is that things already kind of work that way (badly) through entitlement programs. I can definitely foresee a day when that happens. The corporations definitely won't like it, but all it would take is removing a few loopholes that encourage offshore taking of profits and we could definitely collect enough in corporate tax to make something like that work.
I'm getting a headache and flashback to the annual company email at my last work reading that (where I was made redundant hehe XD)Mortuorum said:
[quote/]
Some forward-thinking economists have suggested that we're approaching a tipping point where we will need to start paying people a basic living "wage" not to work because automation will become so much more efficient than labor. That is an idea Americans rankle at because it's fundamentally at odds with the American work ethic.[/quote]
its add odds with the way modern society is structured....everything from the cradle to retirement is often geared (sometimes unfortunately) for the purpose of "getting a good job"
a little left of field but I did wonder were we able to implement a basic income...what kind of social programs could be implemented to keep people fulfilled and engaged with life. We're not used to doing things for the sake of doing things or being masters of our own time...but I think its doable, because you ask most people about their jobs they usually wish they could be doing something else
on one hand I am very wary and fundamentally against forcing people to do shit for "their own good" (looking at "work for the dole" programs in my own country) on the other I worry you wouldn't want to foster a population of angoraphobic shut ins who do nothing but consume corporate mass produced entertainment all day.....[sub/]sounds terrible I wouldn't know anything about that...[/sub]