Fast food automation...

[doodle]

Couldn't find past thread to tack this onto, but seems like the fast food companies are starting to roll out another job squashing technology in response to recent demonstrations: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101026337

[Pointedstick]

Makes sense. Fast food workers are low-wage, low-skill, and completely interchangeable. The higher their wages go, the fewer of them there'll be.

[Kshartle]

This is the result of the government trying to protect workers by forcing employers to raise compensation.

The government protects them from working.

[WildAboutHarry]

A couple of months ago I saw a drink assembly line thingy at a McDonalds drive-through.  It basically dropped a cup on a moving belt, put in the ice, and added the drink.  I assume it was linked to the order computer.

Kind of cool, and of course a job killer (or at least minimizer).

[Kshartle]

Kind of cool, and of course a job killer (or at least minimizer).

A shovel is job killer too. Think how many more people would be employed if we dug holes with our bare hands.

We don't need more jobs, we need more stuff.

A more appropriate term is work killer.

This frees up labor to do something more valuable and lowers costs. It's awesome.

Hopefully some day all work is done by robots and we just sit back and manage them.

[Pointedstick]

Kind of cool, and of course a job killer (or at least minimizer).

A shovel is job killer too. Think how many more people would be employed if we dug holes with our bare hands.

We don't need more jobs, we need more stuff.

A more appropriate term is work killer.

This frees up labor to do something more valuable and lowers costs. It's awesome.

Hopefully some day all work is done by robots and we just sit back and manage them.

I agree with this statement. At that point, the problem becomes how to allocate purchasing power. Right now, for most people, purchasing power comes from a wage which comes from the act of production. What is going to happen to all the people whose productive capacity is rendered obsolete by the machines? Yes, of course, they'll need to adapt and keep up... but will they be able to? Will truck drivers and fast-food workers and gardeners be able to learn programming, electrical engineering, robot repair, or those sorts of skills?

I think there's a difference between a shovel and a robot. A shovel allows a laborer to do more work without having to really be something other than a laborer. A machine renders the laborer obsolete and obligates him to become something else. The question is: can he?

[Kshartle]

I agree with this statement. At that point, the problem becomes how to allocate purchasing power. Right now, for most people, purchasing power comes from a wage which comes from the act of production. What is going to happen to all the people whose productive capacity is rendered obsolete by the machines? Yes, of course, they'll need to adapt and keep up... but will they be able to? Will truck drivers and fast-food workers and gardeners be able to learn programming, electrical engineering, robot repair, or those sorts of skills?

I think there's a difference between a shovel and a robot. A shovel allows a laborer to do more work without having to really be something other than a laborer. A machine renders the laborer obsolete and obligates him to become something else. The question is: can he?

No difference between a shovel and a robot. You can move it up to excavator and eliminate the shovel.

Imagine we already had all the holes dug that we ever needed. Would we be worse off? Should we fill them in so people have jobs re-digging them? This is the logical conclusion of the argument and I hope demonstrates there is no downside to improved technology.

You don't need to worry about what people will do for a living. The market will sort all that out very very easily on it's own. you can participate by coming up with ideas for new products and services. Ohhh, and resisting the temptation of asking the government to figure it out. They always and forever get it wrong, every time.

[Pointedstick]

You don't need to worry about what people will do for a living. The market will sort all that out very very easily on it's own.

See, I'm not so sure about this anymore.

In theory, that's exactly how it should work. But in the world around me, I see an awful lot of people--including friends and family members--who just don't seem like they're able to keep up and get it sorted out. Whether it's because they're stubborn, or stupid, or set in their ways, or whatever... this process seems to get short-circuited.

A lot of people are living on credit, to say nothing of everyone on government welfare. It's like they're all waiting for things to go back to the way they were.

Now, you could say, "well, these people will eventually have to face reality when the money runs out!" And that's true. But it's going to entail a lot of pain and suffering and bitterness. And to be perfectly honest, I do worry about violence erupting. Take Occupy Wall St., and imagine that those people are actually hungry. And imagine that they've all brought the hunting rifles and pistols and shotguns their fathers keep in the closet.

That the market will eventually sort this out is something that I sometimes fear will be prevented by violence committed by those who feel like they've gotten the short end of the stick. This isn't fair, but revolutions never feel fair to those who are being revolted against.

[Kshartle]

You don't need to worry about what people will do for a living. The market will sort all that out very very easily on it's own.

See, I'm not so sure about this anymore.

In theory, that's exactly how it should work. But in the world around me, I see an awful lot of people--including friends and family members--who just don't seem like they're able to keep up and get it sorted out. Whether it's because they're stubborn, or stupid, or set in their ways, or whatever... this process seems to get short-circuited.

A lot of people are living on credit, to say nothing of everyone on government welfare. It's like they're all waiting for things to go back to the way they were.

Now, you could say, "well, these people will eventually have to face reality when the money runs out!" And that's true. But it's going to entail a lot of pain and suffering and bitterness. And to be perfectly honest, I do worry about violence erupting. Take Occupy Wall St., and imagine that those people are actually hungry. And imagine that they've all brought the hunting rifles and pistols and shotguns their fathers keep in the closet.

That the market will eventually sort this out is something that I sometimes fear will be prevented by violence committed by those who feel like they've gotten the short end of the stick. This isn't fair, but revolutions never feel fair to those who are being revolted against.

This is what happens when the government "stimulates" and prevents transactions. It makes people with low skills unemployable with min wage and other regulations. It blatantly outlaws other products and service people want. It sets price floors and ceilings which result in shortages and gluts.

None of the problems are market driven, they are all force driven. Technology never makes us worse off. Force always does. Absent the government force people will find non-violent solutions to their problems. It's much more economical. Violent psycopaths will be removed from society and excluded from participation.

If it concerns you, like I said, teach people these principles and encourage them to stop asking for violent intervention in our lives.

[Pointedstick]

I agree with you. But that's not the world we live in. It would be great if we lived in a non-coercive world without all those interventions. But we don't. We've got to muddle through and deal with all the problems that government causes.

[WildAboutHarry]

This frees up labor to do something more valuable and lowers costs. It's awesome.

Agree re: the awesomeness.  But labor is not necessarily fungible, as PS alludes.  Individual laborers - as opposed to labor - may or may not be able to do something more valuable.

The soda jerk (mix syrup and carbonated water) was replaced by pre-blended soda, dispensed by an employee.  Self-serve largely eliminated that job (except for drive-through, which apparently is on the way to at least partial automation).

And a shovel is vastly different from a hole-digging robot, just like a piece of paper and pencil is different from a computer.

I don't see a downside to humanity from "improved technology" (which some might view as a somewhat slippery and subjective concept, i.e. improved relative to what?), but I do see a downside to individual humans from "improved technology."

Technology never makes us worse off.

Not so.  Thalidomide, the shoe-fitting fluoroscope, the Sony Betamax, et al.

[Kshartle]

And a shovel is vastly different from a hole-digging robot, just like a piece of paper and pencil is different from a computer.

I don't see a downside to humanity from "improved technology" (which some might view as a somewhat slippery and subjective concept, i.e. improved relative to what?), but I do see a downside to individual humans from "improved technology."

Agreed, hole-digging robots and computers are much better than shovels and paper/pencil.

Individual humans will see a downside when their skills are no longer desired. Full agreement. Any effort to prevent this is destructive and hurts everyone else by a greater amount, or rather prevents greater offsetting benefits.

No need to worry though, very smart people will always be thinking of ways to make other people valuable, unless government force prevents it.

[Pointedstick]

No need to worry though, very smart people will always be thinking of ways to make other people valuable

In theory... my own experience just doesn't line up with this. IMHO what very smart people actually do is think up ways to make the less smart and adaptable people less valuable by constantly raising the bar that the value of their labor must clear in order to be salable in the marketplace. As WAH said, this is a valuable service to humanity, but not necessarily a valuable service to those humans who are hardest-hit by it.

Even absent the minimum wage and all the other government interventions that neither of us like, if a very smart person invents a cost-effective robot that does janitorial work for an amortized cost of $0.50/hour, you can say goodbye to all the janitors.

Which smart people are lining up to figure out what valuable social role can be done by the former janitors? I don't see any doing that. I mostly see smart people programming computers, building robots, doing scientific research, designing hyperloops, going into space... all amazing and cool and socially valuable things, but let's not kid ourselves that these pursuits are going to benefit low-skill, low IQ people who are just as valuable human beings as anyone else, but who can't find work due to technology rendering their meager labor power obsolete. That's all I'm saying.

[doodle]

The median human IQ is 100. 50% are above that and 50% are below. While IQ isn't everything, the fact remains that the majority of middle to upper class jobs require a significant amount of mental ability. Those jobs that require moderate mental faculties and a strong back or a good work ethic are slowly being replaced by machines.

Simply saying "the market will sort things out" is not a suitable answer to this problem. Evolution is a slow and cumbersome process especially in a civilized world where we don't just allow the weaker among us simply starve to death on the street as the successful roar past in their fancy sports cars. Even if that were the case, humans don't significantly evolve in 100 years or even 1000.

The reality is that if machine automation continues at the present pace, we will have fully half of the population that is economic deadweight. They have no  skills to add to the productive process and therefore no way of earning money and supporting themselves. That is a bad situation...

[Pointedstick]

I agree with everything you said there, doodle.

In the past, it seems like religion did a lot to take care of people who were "left behind" by the rest of society, so to speak. With the destruction of religion that marks most modern nations, this option too is fading away.

[MediumTex]

Historically, there are a handful of events that tend to destroy capital.

Among them,

1. Unexpected environmental changes
2. Tyrannical domestic governments
3. Tyrannical foreign governments
4. Social unrest triggered by oppression of certain groups in society

The fourth category shouldn't be underestimated.  Ask entrepreneurs of recent decades in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe and South Africa.

In the U.S., the move toward socialism in the 1930s was in many ways a response to the industrial revolution-driven concentrations of wealth that had accumulated in prior decades.

I think that the best argument for some level of redistribution of wealth is simply to maintain the capital generating platform without it being destabilized by social unrest.

The problem with poor, uneducated and unemployed people is that they often find the only thing they are good at is breaking things, especially other people's property.

[Bean]

Did we not learn anything from I, Robot?

I would be completely ok with people getting to sit around and think things up with work robots doing all the repeatable labor. 

It is what the Anunnaki did or at least that is what the greatest show in modern time is saying. 

[Kshartle]

if a very smart person invents a cost-effective robot that does janitorial work for an amortized cost of $0.50/hour, you can say goodbye to all the janitors.

Which smart people are lining up to figure out what valuable social role can be done by the former janitors? I don't see any doing that.

It is difficult to see I admit, but you don’t have to see it to know it’s there. You have to understand the economic principle. The mechanism by which obsolete jobs are replaced with more productive ones is very difficult to see.

Many more janitors would be employed if we did not have the technology of the bucket and mop. They would have to go back and forth to the water source with a sponge. It would take forever. Or it would so uneconomical to have janitors that business would just have dirty offices. The work-saving technology has actually created jobs, not reduced them.

It doesn’t matter if a work saving device reduces the number of employed people or increases it. We are all richer for it in total. We don’t live for the sake of work, we work for the sake of living. Some of the older newly displaced workers may have a difficult time finding a new role to play. This is their own mini-recession. Just like larger economic recessions these need to be embraced if we are to raise standards of living and production.

I am sure there are millions of examples but understanding the principle relieves the burden of seeking out all of these. Does the principle make logical sense? If so, the “invisible hand”? of the market is proven to exist, even it can’t be seen. It is “invisible”? after all.

BTW evidence from the current economy is always extremely shaky because economic truths are distorted by misallocations that would not occur absent force.

Government fighting poverty increases poverty in the long run.

Government fighting unemployment increases unemployment in the long run.

Etc. etc.

Browne wrote a very good book on all this titled “Why Government doesn’t work”?

[Pointedstick]

Did we not learn anything from I, Robot?

I would be completely ok with people getting to sit around and think things up with work robots doing all the repeatable labor. 

It is what the Anunnaki did or at least that is what the greatest show in modern time is saying. 

I would too.

The problem is that right now, consumption power is determined by purchasing power, which is determined by wages, which is determined by productivity.

A world in which we mostly laid around having fun while robots did the hard work would be an amazing world to live in, but our ability to consume robot-produced goods and services would have to be distributed throughout society by a means other than prior productivity through wages.

[Gumby]

BTW evidence from the current economy is always extremely shaky because economic truths are distorted by misallocations that would not occur absent force.

I hope we can discuss civilly, (I'm genuinely quite curious), why is that evidence "shaky" if that is our reality? I'm genuinely trying to learn your point of view. To my mind, the evidence from the economy is reality (albeit distorted). When these "economic truths" are distorted, they are no longer "true," by definition.

[Kshartle]

I think that the best argument for some level of redistribution of wealth is simply to maintain the capital generating platform without it being destabilized by social unrest.

Capital is best allocated where it can be used most efficiently. This is always best determined by win-win negotiation and agreement and not with guns. Guns are win-lose at best.

The hammer and sickle crew redistributed wealth with guns. What innovations and wonderful improvments came from there vs. here where volutary exchange was the norm?

The Soviets and socialists fail for a lack of proper capital distribution because they interfere with the market. No good can come from the violence.

I may be wrong on all this. If you disagree perhaps my error can be pointed out with logic and reason?

Capitalism and free markets rasie the standard of living for all, most especially the poor. All other forms of capital control and property restriction/theft retard this process and we are poorer than otherwise would be.

[Pointedstick]

It doesn’t matter if a work saving device reduces the number of employed people or increases it. We are all richer for it in total. We don’t live for the sake of work, we work for the sake of living.

I am sure there are millions of examples but understanding the principle relieves the burden of seeking out all of these. Does the principle make logical sense?

Yes. And I agree with it. But...

Some of the older newly displaced workers may have a difficult time finding a new role to play. This is their own mini-recession. Just like larger economic recessions these need to be embraced if we are to raise standards of living and production.

...I still worry about this. That's all I'm saying.

And as I said in my previous post, I would welcome this world, and in fact I already do because clearly we're well on our way there. But saying, "in the aggregate, we all have more goods and services" is true, but it glosses over the fact that there may be many in society who have very few goods and services because the mechanism that allows an increase in aggregate goods and services has simultaneously reduced their ability to consume them because it has reduced or eliminated their wages by making their labor obsolete.

Should they adapt? Yes. Will they? That's what I'm not so sure about. This isn't an economic story but a psychological one, a biological one, a cultural one. Once we start talking about whether people will adapt and how they will if they can, I feel like we need to round up some anthropologists, sociologists, and evolutionary biologists to get their perspectives as well.

[Pointedstick]

BTW evidence from the current economy is always extremely shaky because economic truths are distorted by misallocations that would not occur absent force.

I hope we can discuss civilly, (I'm genuinely quite curious), why is that evidence "shaky" if that is our reality? I'm genuinely trying to learn your point of view. To my mind, the evidence from the economy is reality (albeit distorted). When these "economic truths" are distorted, they are no longer "true," by definition.

Let's not go there in this thread. If everyone agrees, I'd like to keep the subject to automation and such. Gumby, would you mind perhaps starting another thread to discuss that?

[Gumby]

Sure thing!

[MediumTex]

Did we not learn anything from I, Robot?

I would be completely ok with people getting to sit around and think things up with work robots doing all the repeatable labor. 

It is what the Anunnaki did or at least that is what the greatest show in modern time is saying. 

A very close analog to a society that should be composed entirely of the leisure class is Saudi Arabia, except that rather than robots preventing people from needing to work, it has been oil for the last 70 years or so.

And how has that worked out for Saudi Arabia?  Not very well.  The wealth has been concentrated in the hands of a tiny percentage of the population and the rest of the population has turned into a farm league for international terrorism.

Doh!