> McDonald's response to $15 is automation. Good, we should work to automate more low level work. In fact, all of it if possible. Our response to lower work

> McDonald's response to $15 is automation. Good, we should work to automate more low level work. In fact, all of it if possible. Our response to lower work availability will probably either be revolution or a better social safety net. But then again, the world of snowcrash is possible. > Increasing labor cost makes capital expenditure on automation more attractive. Tax automation. If it does the job of a human, tax it, like a normal human working. That's just one solution of many for the automation 'problem'. Of course, another option is to eliminate the minimum wage so that we never automate another thing, and there are a massive plethora of other responses to the problem, but mostly I'm just trying to avoid a false dichotomy logical fallacy while pointing out the two most extreme solutions. > Increasing minimum wage helps the people that keep a job, but hurts the people that can no longer find a job (especially high school, less educated, etc.) I have a feeling that this is going to become more true no matter the situation. Similar to how some energy companies have been coming out and arguing that no matter how much money we throw at oil, renewables are the future. The economy is changing, we are nearing a point where there are massive numbers of people that simply aren't needed to keep the modern economy running. The first time I really started following/believing (lacking a better term) this idea was when I read "Labour Markets: On Bullshit Jobs"[1]. If an economy makes enough for everyone, regardless of their ability to participate, perhaps we need to reconsider how the wealth is distributed a bit, especially if we have a falling population. > Just like mandated health insurance has pushed down working hour limits, so many workers have to have two half-jobs instead of one full-time job. Perhaps then we should reduce the number of hours in a full time job. Instead, we are currently going the opposite direction, with regulations moving towards no time and a half overtime pay. The shorter we make the hours, the more people hired, the more automated. Really, the problem is not with automation/high minimum wage/etc. The problem is with the response. Perhaps of assuming that companies are in the right with not hiring people and automating, thus protecting their massive profits that they have right now, we should be assuming that their massive profits are on the wrong side of history, and we should do something about that instead. [1]: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/08/labour-markets-0 http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/08/labour-m...