Robots the big winner in the "fight for $15 min wage"

[UpstateSCHokie]

I can't help but wonder how much of this is being driven by Silicon Valley because they would seem to be well poised to profit from more & more auotomation. The idiots that protest on the ground are either the ultimate definition of useful idiots, or they are being paid by the DNC corporatists.

http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/wendy ... um=twitter

[Major Kong]

It'll be like ordering from Sheetz everywhere!

[absolutvt03]

I can't help but wonder how much of this is being driven by Silicon Valley because they would seem to be well poised to profit from more & more auotomation. The idiots that protest on the ground are either the ultimate definition of useful idiots, or they are being paid by the DNC corporatists.

http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/wendy ... um=twitter

This was going to happen (and has been happening) regardless of minimum wage. We've had automation taking over manufacturing jobs for years. We've had ordering kiosks at food places for years. When it becomes more cost-effective to use machines than people then companies are going to do it. We also see it with regards to fast food restaurants implementing ordering within their apps.

[FireFuente]

This was going to happen (and has been happening) regardless of minimum wage. We've had automation taking over manufacturing jobs for years. We've had ordering kiosks at food places for years. When it becomes more cost-effective to use machines than people then companies are going to do it. We also see it with regards to fast food restaurants implementing ordering within their apps.

Yep, minimum wage laws might have sped things up but we've always been heading this direction.

Robots are never late or call in sick
Robots don't need healthcare or benefits
Robots don't have discipline problems or character flaws
Robots always speak the native language

[ElbertoHokie]

Already some fully autonomous mines in Australia. No drivers in the mining trucks. They do still have shovel operators loading the trucks though.

I think the biggest reason you haven't seen this everywhere is flexibility, design to automation(They didn't build the mine with this intended so it's much more expensive to retoactively implement), and labor agreements that are in place in existing mines.

[HokieJoe]

Of course automation will happen in the fast food industry. The question is, how far does a $15/hr mandatory minimum wage advance transition along that timeline?

Without government interference, I suspect it would take a 10-20 years for automation to have a significant impact on that workforce.

A natural transition would allow the market to react more efficiently in absorbing those job losses. $15/hr will significantly hasten the transition and result in new 'workforce transition programs'.

[Major Kong]

The trouble is way too many dim bulbs confuse minimum wage with a living wage...minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage.

The whole things is bonkers.

[USN_Hokie]

I can't help but wonder how much of this is being driven by Silicon Valley because they would seem to be well poised to profit from more & more auotomation. The idiots that protest on the ground are either the ultimate definition of useful idiots, or they are being paid by the DNC corporatists.

http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/wendy ... um=twitter

This was going to happen (and has been happening) regardless of minimum wage. We've had automation taking over manufacturing jobs for years. We've had ordering kiosks at food places for years. When it becomes more cost-effective to use machines than people then companies are going to do it. We also see it with regards to fast food restaurants implementing ordering within their apps.

Everyone knows that; that's not the point. The point is that the government is artificially accelerating/increasing the cost of labor, creating a situation where robots/computers are cheaper than people, while at the same time making goods and services more expensive for consumers (a hamburger made by a $13/hr robot is going to cost more than a burger made by a $10/hr person). Putting people out of work and making goods and services more expensive is not the role of government.

As an aside, it's also quite foolish to be importing/legalizing millions of uneducated people at the same time you're making it more expensive to give them jobs.

[absolutvt03]

I can't help but wonder how much of this is being driven by Silicon Valley because they would seem to be well poised to profit from more & more auotomation. The idiots that protest on the ground are either the ultimate definition of useful idiots, or they are being paid by the DNC corporatists.

http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/wendy ... um=twitter

This was going to happen (and has been happening) regardless of minimum wage. We've had automation taking over manufacturing jobs for years. We've had ordering kiosks at food places for years. When it becomes more cost-effective to use machines than people then companies are going to do it. We also see it with regards to fast food restaurants implementing ordering within their apps.

Everyone knows that; that's not the point. The point is that the government is artificially accelerating/increasing the cost of labor, creating a situation where robots/computers are cheaper than people, while at the same time making goods and services more expensive for consumers (a hamburger made by a $13/hr robot is going to cost more than a burger made by a $10/hr person). Putting people out of work and making goods and services more expensive is not the role of government.

As an aside, it's also quite foolish to be importing/legalizing millions of uneducated people at the same time you're making it more expensive to give them jobs.

And my point was this was going to happen regardless of the minimum wage. Last I checked it was not $15 an hour in most places. The government isn't "putting people out of work", the companies are the ones making that choice just as many manufacturing jobs were lost due to automation. You can blame the government all you want but in reality it's the "fault" of technological advances. I don't think the minimum wage should be $15/hour, FWIW. I just don't think this is a compelling argument or a good example of cause and effect.

[USN_Hokie]

I can't help but wonder how much of this is being driven by Silicon Valley because they would seem to be well poised to profit from more & more auotomation. The idiots that protest on the ground are either the ultimate definition of useful idiots, or they are being paid by the DNC corporatists.

http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/wendy ... um=twitter

This was going to happen (and has been happening) regardless of minimum wage. We've had automation taking over manufacturing jobs for years. We've had ordering kiosks at food places for years. When it becomes more cost-effective to use machines than people then companies are going to do it. We also see it with regards to fast food restaurants implementing ordering within their apps.

Everyone knows that; that's not the point. The point is that the government is artificially accelerating/increasing the cost of labor, creating a situation where robots/computers are cheaper than people, while at the same time making goods and services more expensive for consumers (a hamburger made by a $13/hr robot is going to cost more than a burger made by a $10/hr person). Putting people out of work and making goods and services more expensive is not the role of government.

As an aside, it's also quite foolish to be importing/legalizing millions of uneducated people at the same time you're making it more expensive to give them jobs.

And my point was this was going to happen regardless of the minimum wage. Last I checked it was not $15 an hour in most places. The government isn't "putting people out of work", the companies are the ones making that choice just as many manufacturing jobs were lost due to automation. You can blame the government all you want but in reality it's the "fault" of technological advances. I don't think the minimum wage should be $15/hour, FWIW. I just don't think this is a compelling argument or a good example of cause and effect.

No, this has nothing to do with technological advances. It has everything to do with the government meddling with the economy to the point that technology which has been around forever is a cheaper alternative. There's nothing wrong with market forces directing technology to replace labor, but there's something fundamentally wrong with the government committing an action which increases the cost of goods and services while decreasing employment...that's anathema to the (one of the legitimate) purposes of government.

I'll add, for us to believe your "explanation" would require us to believe that Democrats are lying to their constituents....or have I missed all the politicians telling people "this will put you out of work, but don't worry, it was going to happen eventually."??

[absolutvt03]

No, this has nothing to do with technological advances. It has everything to do with the government meddling with the economy to the point that technology which has been around forever is a cheaper alternative. There's nothing wrong with market forces directing technology to replace labor, but there's something fundamentally wrong with the government committing an action which increases the cost of goods and services while decreasing employment...that's anathema to the (one of the legitimate) purposes of government.

I'll add, for us to believe your "explanation" would require us to believe that Democrats are lying to their constituents....or have I missed all the politicians telling people "this will put you out of work, but don't worry, it was going to happen eventually."??

So you think that touch-screen ordering kiosks cost the same now as they did in 2000? I'm not sure how else to interpret your dismissal of advances in technology. I'm also not sure how you can claim the technology has "been around forever". That's obviously not the case but technology does tend to get cheaper as the components become more widely available and less pricey. TVs have "been around forever" and yet a flat screen TV doesn't cost nearly the amount it did 15 years ago. The Subway in Blacksburg had ordering kiosks back in the mid-late 2000s. I don't think that had anything to do with minimum wage. Oddly enough they ended up removing them because people didn't like using them (not me personally, I thought they were pretty cool).

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say with your second paragraph. I don't think anyone is "lying" to anyone (well anymore than politicians (regardless of party affiliation) lie). Automation put a lot of manufacturing employees out of work because it became more cost-effective. I think we've seen (and will continue to see) that in some areas of the service industry. That's not politics, that's business. As I said, I don't think the minimum wage needs to be $15 everywhere. I'm also not opposed to it being raised as needed. There's a lot of room between $15 everywhere and the current minimum wage.

[USN_Hokie]

No, this has nothing to do with technological advances. It has everything to do with the government meddling with the economy to the point that technology which has been around forever is a cheaper alternative. There's nothing wrong with market forces directing technology to replace labor, but there's something fundamentally wrong with the government committing an action which increases the cost of goods and services while decreasing employment...that's anathema to the (one of the legitimate) purposes of government.

I'll add, for us to believe your "explanation" would require us to believe that Democrats are lying to their constituents....or have I missed all the politicians telling people "this will put you out of work, but don't worry, it was going to happen eventually."??

So you think that touch-screen ordering kiosks cost the same now as they did in 2000? I'm not sure how else to interpret your dismissal of advances in technology. I'm also not sure how you can claim the technology has "been around forever". That's obviously not the case but technology does tend to get cheaper as the components become more widely available and less pricey. TVs have "been around forever" and yet a flat screen TV doesn't cost nearly the amount it did 15 years ago. The Subway in Blacksburg had ordering kiosks back in the mid-late 2000s. I don't think that had anything to do with minimum wage. Oddly enough they ended up removing them because people didn't like using them (not me personally, I thought they were pretty cool).

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say with your second paragraph. I don't think anyone is "lying" to anyone (well anymore than politicians (regardless of party affiliation) lie). Automation put a lot of manufacturing employees out of work because it became more cost-effective. I think we've seen (and will continue to see) that in some areas of the service industry. That's not politics, that's business. As I said, I don't think the minimum wage needs to be $15 everywhere. I'm also not opposed to it being raised as needed. There's a lot of room between $15 everywhere and the current minimum wage.

What part of "not new technology" don't you understand? ATM's have been around since the 60's, so the necessary technology has been around for almost 50 years. Touch screen ordering has been around in fancy gas stations (Sheetz) since the early 90's by my recollection.

You understand that politicians are campaigning on raising the minimum wage, right? Are they campaigning on putting people out of jobs, or are they campaigning on mo' money for people who vote for them?

[absolutvt03]

What part of "not new technology" don't you understand? ATM's have been around since the 60's, so the necessary technology has been around for almost 50 years. Touch screen ordering has been around in fancy gas stations (Sheetz) since the early 90's by my recollection.


You understand that politicians are campaigning on raising the minimum wage, right? Are they campaigning on putting people out of jobs, or are they campaigning on mo' money for people who vote for them?

While we're talking about not being able to understand, you somehow dodged my question so I'll ask again:

So you think that touch-screen ordering kiosks cost the same now as they did in 2000?

Also the "early 90s" is hardly "technology that has been around forever". But that's beside the point. You seem to think that technology (even that's been around for years) does not get better or cheaper.

Your last point is interesting. Don't many politicians (on both sides) campaign for "mo' money for people who vote for them"? Isn't that what Trump and Clinton both are doing when they talk about cutting taxes for certain people? Isn't that the whole concept behind getting rid of Obamacare? I'm not sure why you think that's a bad thing or something unique to this discussion. I imagine lots of people vote for candidates (Republican, Democratic, or otherwise) because they believe that candidate's policies will translate into a better financial situation for them.

You seem to be conflating my argument with yours. I'm not saying raising the minimum wage will put people out of jobs. I'm saying citing increased automation as proof of that is flawed.

[USN_Hokie]

I did answer your question, you just don't like the answer.

You do have a talent for spinning off into obscurity and making completely irrelevant points to try and "save" yourself. A great example is you backing yourself into a corner where your argument implies every candidate you support is an outright liar (on this we agree, every candidate you support is a liar). Then, when I present this dissonance to you, you spin even further off on a tangent where you argue how it doesn't matter because R's are promising to get rid of Obamacare - more nonsense that's irrelevant to the discussion, but tacks away from the trap you backed yourself into.

Another great one is when I point out that places like Sheetz have been using touchscreen ordering since at least the early 90's(refuting your absurd argument that it's "new technology") - your response is that's "hardly 'forever'". To avoid my point (or maybe because you're autistic), you instead attack the literal interpretation of my hyperbolic statement. To clarify, no, I'm not saying that touchscreen ordering has been around since the big bang.

This is usually the point in the thread where you guys accuse me of putting words in your mouth rather than try to un-knot the mess of an argument you've made.

[133743Hokie]

What part of "not new technology" don't you understand? ATM's have been around since the 60's, so the necessary technology has been around for almost 50 years. Touch screen ordering has been around in fancy gas stations (Sheetz) since the early 90's by my recollection.


You understand that politicians are campaigning on raising the minimum wage, right? Are they campaigning on putting people out of jobs, or are they campaigning on mo' money for people who vote for them?

While we're talking about not being able to understand, you somehow dodged my question so I'll ask again:

So you think that touch-screen ordering kiosks cost the same now as they did in 2000?

Also the "early 90s" is hardly "technology that has been around forever". But that's beside the point. You seem to think that technology (even that's been around for years) does not get better or cheaper.

Your last point is interesting. Don't many politicians (on both sides) campaign for "mo' money for people who vote for them"? Isn't that what Trump and Clinton both are doing when they talk about cutting taxes for certain people? Isn't that the whole concept behind getting rid of Obamacare? I'm not sure why you think that's a bad thing or something unique to this discussion. I imagine lots of people vote for candidates (Republican, Democratic, or otherwise) because they believe that candidate's policies will translate into a better financial situation for them.

You seem to be conflating my argument with yours. I'm not saying raising the minimum wage will put people out of jobs. I'm saying citing increased automation as proof of that is flawed.

Isn't the point that moving to a $15/hr minimum wage will justify the costs to accelerate the development and/or implementation of automation?

[absolutvt03]

I did answer your question, you just don't like the answer.

You do have a talent for spinning off into obscurity and making completely irrelevant points to try and "save" yourself. A great example is you backing yourself into a corner where your argument implies every candidate you support is an outright liar (on this we agree, every candidate you support is a liar). Then, when I present this dissonance to you, you spin even further off on a tangent where you argue how it doesn't matter because R's are promising to get rid of Obamacare - more nonsense that's irrelevant to the discussion, but tacks away from the trap you backed yourself into.

Another great one is when I point out that places like Sheetz have been using touchscreen ordering since at least the early 90's(refuting your absurd argument that it's "new technology") - your response is that's "hardly 'forever'". To avoid my point (or maybe because you're autistic), you instead attack the literal interpretation of my hyperbolic statement. To clarify, no, I'm not saying that touchscreen ordering has been around since the big bang.

This is usually the point in the thread where you guys accuse me of putting words in your mouth rather than try to un-knot the mess of an argument you've made.

No you didn't answer my question and you still haven't. I will ask again. It's a simple yes or no:

So you think that touch-screen ordering kiosks cost the same now as they did in 2000?

Answer that and then I'll respond to the rest of that tripe you call a post. BTW, calling someone autistic is poor form even for you. I've been able to respond to your frustrating misstatements of my posts without personal insults, maybe you can do the same?

Isn't the point that moving to a $15/hr minimum wage will justify the costs to accelerate the development and/or implementation of automation?

That's USN's point... not mine. That's the problem. He's somehow (perhaps intentionally) gotten his argument tangled up with mine and wants me to argue for/against it.

[absolutvt03]

I wanted to circle back to a couple of posts while waiting for USN to answer my question (or make up a new position/argument for me).

Yep, minimum wage laws might have sped things up but we've always been heading this direction.

Robots are never late or call in sick
Robots don't need healthcare or benefits
Robots don't have discipline problems or character flaws
Robots always speak the native language

Good points. An employee's salary is only part of the cost to a company. You also don't have to post a job listing and interview a new robot when the old one breaks down. There's a myriad of advantages beyond not having to pay a wage.

The trouble is way too many dim bulbs confuse minimum wage with a living wage...minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage.

The whole things is bonkers.

I agree with this too. The question then is why are people staying in these jobs and trying to make them a "career"? Is it because there aren't any better jobs in the area? Is it because they aren't qualified for any better jobs? Is it a matter of motivation, laziness, or routine? Whatever the reason we have people staying in jobs that were not meant to be long-term. What is the solution for getting people out of these low-paying jobs and into something that does provide a living wage?

[USN_Hokie]

What part of "not new technology" don't you understand? ATM's have been around since the 60's, so the necessary technology has been around for almost 50 years. Touch screen ordering has been around in fancy gas stations (Sheetz) since the early 90's by my recollection.


You understand that politicians are campaigning on raising the minimum wage, right? Are they campaigning on putting people out of jobs, or are they campaigning on mo' money for people who vote for them?

While we're talking about not being able to understand, you somehow dodged my question so I'll ask again:

So you think that touch-screen ordering kiosks cost the same now as they did in 2000?

Also the "early 90s" is hardly "technology that has been around forever". But that's beside the point. You seem to think that technology (even that's been around for years) does not get better or cheaper.

Your last point is interesting. Don't many politicians (on both sides) campaign for "mo' money for people who vote for them"? Isn't that what Trump and Clinton both are doing when they talk about cutting taxes for certain people? Isn't that the whole concept behind getting rid of Obamacare? I'm not sure why you think that's a bad thing or something unique to this discussion. I imagine lots of people vote for candidates (Republican, Democratic, or otherwise) because they believe that candidate's policies will translate into a better financial situation for them.

You seem to be conflating my argument with yours. I'm not saying raising the minimum wage will put people out of jobs. I'm saying citing increased automation as proof of that is flawed.

Isn't the point that moving to a $15/hr minimum wage will justify the costs to accelerate the development and/or implementation of automation?

Absolut doesn't understand this. Good luck trying to explain it to him.

[USN_Hokie]

No you didn't answer my question and you still haven't. I will ask again. It's a simple yes or no:

So you think that touch-screen ordering kiosks cost the same now as they did in 2000?

Your attempt to change the question is silly. Your argument that we didn't have the technology to automate ordering fast food before now is just laughable.

[awesome guy]

No you didn't answer my question and you still haven't. I will ask again. It's a simple yes or no:

So you think that touch-screen ordering kiosks cost the same now as they did in 2000?

Your attempt to change the question is silly. Your argument that we didn't have the technology to automate ordering fast food before now is just laughable.

It's funny because they already moved to computers in the 80s and 90s for order processing. The kiosk is the same basic screen, just turned around for the customer to enter it themselves.

[absolutvt03]

No you didn't answer my question and you still haven't. I will ask again. It's a simple yes or no:

So you think that touch-screen ordering kiosks cost the same now as they did in 2000?

Your attempt to change the question is silly. Your argument that we didn't have the technology to automate ordering fast food before now is just laughable.

That's not and has never been my argument. I'm also not sure why you continue to avoid my question. I asked it in my third post in the topic (my second response to you). The idea that I'm "changing the question" when it's literally the same one I've asked since this whole thing started is another one of your attempts to confuse the issue.

[HokieFanDC]

No you didn't answer my question and you still haven't. I will ask again. It's a simple yes or no:

So you think that touch-screen ordering kiosks cost the same now as they did in 2000?

Your attempt to change the question is silly. Your argument that we didn't have the technology to automate ordering fast food before now is just laughable.

Kiosk technology today vs. 1990, or 2000, is like cell phone technology today vs. 2000. Kiosks have become much more robust due to advances in computing power, wireless technology, remote server management, and security. It's not comparable other than that both had screens and processors.

[awesome guy]

No you didn't answer my question and you still haven't. I will ask again. It's a simple yes or no:

So you think that touch-screen ordering kiosks cost the same now as they did in 2000?

Your attempt to change the question is silly. Your argument that we didn't have the technology to automate ordering fast food before now is just laughable.

Kiosk technology today vs. 1990, or 2000, is like cell phone technology today vs. 2000. Kiosks have become much more robust due to advances in computing power, wireless technology, remote server management, and security. It's not comparable other than that both had screens and processors.

LOL, not really. Only significant change is touch screens. They have the same fundamental capabilities.

[USN_Hokie]

No you didn't answer my question and you still haven't. I will ask again. It's a simple yes or no:

So you think that touch-screen ordering kiosks cost the same now as they did in 2000?

Your attempt to change the question is silly. Your argument that we didn't have the technology to automate ordering fast food before now is just laughable.

Kiosk technology today vs. 1990, or 2000, is like cell phone technology today vs. 2000. Kiosks have become much more robust due to advances in computing power, wireless technology, remote server management, and security. It's not comparable other than that both had screens and processors.

LOL, not really. Only significant change is touch screens. They have the same fundamental capabilities.

Yep. Same functionality. You bring up a good point that they already use them facing the other direction. Hell, the change is automatically dispensed even. All the teller does is count dollar bills... that's been around since the 60's.

[awesome guy]

No you didn't answer my question and you still haven't. I will ask again. It's a simple yes or no:

So you think that touch-screen ordering kiosks cost the same now as they did in 2000?

Your attempt to change the question is silly. Your argument that we didn't have the technology to automate ordering fast food before now is just laughable.

Kiosk technology today vs. 1990, or 2000, is like cell phone technology today vs. 2000. Kiosks have become much more robust due to advances in computing power, wireless technology, remote server management, and security. It's not comparable other than that both had screens and processors.

LOL, not really. Only significant change is touch screens. They have the same fundamental capabilities.

Yep. Same functionality. You bring up a good point that they already use them facing the other direction. Hell, the change is automatically dispensed even. All the teller does is count dollar bills... that's been around since the 60's.

Everyone is missing that one of the biggest barriers was computer knowledge of both management and customers. Management didn't comprehend what they could do and were reluctant to be innovative because they just didn't understand them. Customers were even more ignorant and so kiosk were off the table. That's 20 years ago, most all of the boomers have at least basic computer or tablet experience now and the WWII generation is dying off or not self sufficient. So the oldest customer population isn't as intimidated as they were in the 80s and 90s. The model has been proven out now, so the culture has shifted with greater technology knowledge and it's no longer an unknown business model. Add in $15 min wage and it's a no brainer. Labor costs are artificial and abhorrent and almost everyone can operate a screen so it's time has come.