5 ms·

Somewhat ironic since we were told in no uncertain terms that automation would cause the exact opposite to happen.

pjc50 7y ago
"Service" roles have been put in a weird state where, because they involve relating to humans, they're difficult to automate. But because they involve doing what you're told, with low room for autonomy and creativity, they're low-status and therefore low paid.
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  > they're low-status and therefore low paid. Pretty sure it's mostly the other way: They're low status because they're low paid. Jobs are low paid when there is a big supply of people who can and want to do them. Which is pretty much equivalent to the jobs being low skilled. Since everyone can flip a burger, you don't have to pay much to find someone to do it.
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    Additionally, the demand may not be sufficient to support higher wages. Even if no one is willing to flip a burger for less than $50 per hour, who is willing to pay for a burger flipped by someone earning $50 per hour?
    - CydeWeys 7y ago
      And yet people are totally willing to contribute to servers earning much more than $50/hr in tips (on busy nights). $50/hr spread across a lot of customers works out to not actually being that much per customer. Admittedly this is relatively expensive sit-down restaurant service we're talking about here, which is different from the fast food market.
  - crdoconnor 7y ago
    You typically have to pay a lot more if public sector jobs and wages aren't being cut.
- cannonedhamster 7y ago
  It would be trivial to replace servers, but there's an initial cost investment most restaurants can't afford. The obvious transition is those screens you see popping up everywhere. It's going to be the next step are conveyer belts that deliver the food to your table. Industrial automation already exists for this. Need to send it back open the receptacle click the screen to say what's wrong and your order will come back correct.
  - rmrm 7y ago
    Except you would need to remodel every exusting restaraunt to have conveyer belts behind false walls. This isnt the next step, it will not happen. Walk up windows for ordering and numbers are already increasing. That is the next step for reducing server numbers.
edoo 7y ago
Capitalism sees most the productivity gains to the workers. I think our experiment has failed and it is time to try capitalism again. Our country hasn't seen it for over 100 years.
- Frost1x 7y ago
  That sounds like communist socialist facist nazi etc. propaganda to me... ...at least that's the knee-jerk defense you hear from the priests of our current system (most mislead or benefiting from the corruption). If you don't support our current broken form of capitalism, you're labeled a blasphemer. Heaven forbid we, as a society, re-evaluate the functionality of something adopted hundreds of years ago and adapt/change it without offering an impossibly proven successful alternative. Because, you know, the current economic system we have was proven successful before it was adopted. It won't necessarily be trivial or painless but it will be less painful than it will at a later date, unless we want to pass the burden down to future generations.
  - edoo 7y ago
    Since they instituted the communist economic system that makes it impossible to save capital by draining the purchasing power of the currency at an exponential rate the working class has been on a steep downhill decline. I think it is pretty obvious at this point the experiment has failed.
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      I'm sure this will convince nobody of anything, but inflation in the US in July was 1.8% (annualized) in July, and a Vanguard money market fund was yielding 1.9% recently. What more can you ask, whether you're ranting in favor of or against socialism? Risk free returns maintain your purchasing power, while at the same time, you get essentially nothing for taking no risk with capital. This seems exactly how it should work in a perfect system...doesn't it?
      - lotsofpulp 7y ago

"Service" roles have been put in a weird state where, because they involve relating to humans, they're difficult to automate. But because they involve doing what you're told, with low room for autonomy and creativity, they're low-status and therefore low paid.

BurningFrog 7y ago
> they're low-status and therefore low paid. Pretty sure it's mostly the other way: They're low status because they're low paid. Jobs are low paid when there is a big supply of people who can and want to do them. Which is pretty much equivalent to the jobs being low skilled. Since everyone can flip a burger, you don't have to pay much to find someone to do it.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  Additionally, the demand may not be sufficient to support higher wages. Even if no one is willing to flip a burger for less than $50 per hour, who is willing to pay for a burger flipped by someone earning $50 per hour?
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    And yet people are totally willing to contribute to servers earning much more than $50/hr in tips (on busy nights). $50/hr spread across a lot of customers works out to not actually being that much per customer. Admittedly this is relatively expensive sit-down restaurant service we're talking about here, which is different from the fast food market.
- crdoconnor 7y ago
  You typically have to pay a lot more if public sector jobs and wages aren't being cut.
cannonedhamster 7y ago
It would be trivial to replace servers, but there's an initial cost investment most restaurants can't afford. The obvious transition is those screens you see popping up everywhere. It's going to be the next step are conveyer belts that deliver the food to your table. Industrial automation already exists for this. Need to send it back open the receptacle click the screen to say what's wrong and your order will come back correct.
- rmrm 7y ago
  Except you would need to remodel every exusting restaraunt to have conveyer belts behind false walls. This isnt the next step, it will not happen. Walk up windows for ordering and numbers are already increasing. That is the next step for reducing server numbers.

edoo 7y ago

Capitalism sees most the productivity gains to the workers. I think our experiment has failed and it is time to try capitalism again. Our country hasn't seen it for over 100 years.

Frost1x 7y ago
That sounds like communist socialist facist nazi etc. propaganda to me... ...at least that's the knee-jerk defense you hear from the priests of our current system (most mislead or benefiting from the corruption). If you don't support our current broken form of capitalism, you're labeled a blasphemer. Heaven forbid we, as a society, re-evaluate the functionality of something adopted hundreds of years ago and adapt/change it without offering an impossibly proven successful alternative. Because, you know, the current economic system we have was proven successful before it was adopted. It won't necessarily be trivial or painless but it will be less painful than it will at a later date, unless we want to pass the burden down to future generations.
- edoo 7y ago
  Since they instituted the communist economic system that makes it impossible to save capital by draining the purchasing power of the currency at an exponential rate the working class has been on a steep downhill decline. I think it is pretty obvious at this point the experiment has failed.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    I'm sure this will convince nobody of anything, but inflation in the US in July was 1.8% (annualized) in July, and a Vanguard money market fund was yielding 1.9% recently. What more can you ask, whether you're ranting in favor of or against socialism? Risk free returns maintain your purchasing power, while at the same time, you get essentially nothing for taking no risk with capital. This seems exactly how it should work in a perfect system...doesn't it?
    - lotsofpulp 7y ago