The article makes a number of arguments as if stating accepted facts, when much of it doesn't even logically follow. >Some low-wage work would be reallocated o

The article makes a number of arguments as if stating accepted facts, when much of it doesn't even logically follow. >Some low-wage work would be reallocated out of the relatively low-social-value restaurant sector and into things like child care and home health assistance, for which there is ample demand. If this is true, then what is preventing it from happening now? >we are able to produce everything we need with less labor, we can afford to let people work less. The tired old utopia argument. Robots will do everything while we all sun on the beach. Firstly, this ignores the fact that people spend their time working because they need money, not because there is work to be done. Secondly, If we are making things with less labor, then there is less demand for labor and, thus, lower wages. Yet, the producers realize higher profits. The actual result is not utopia for all, but the wealth divide that we see now. >Most restaurants would keep longer hours (they're paying for the rent and the robots anyway), meaning many workers would get a raise and change shifts. Not sure where any of the leaps of logic packed in there originate. The entire statement is completely irrational. >advanced robo-restaurant technology would itself be a valuable American export good, and people would be employed in designing and selling it Complete sleight of hand. We're talking about the effect on low wage workers, not highly skilled robotics designers and sales engineers. The people who are displaced are very unlikely to gain employment designing the robots that are replacing them.