4 ms·

I'm very excited by this. It sounds like you have really analyzed your cost models. It's really fascinating to see the breakdown of labor and rent. Walmart an

by xrd 6y ago

I'm very excited by this. It sounds like you have really analyzed your cost models. It's really fascinating to see the breakdown of labor and rent. Walmart and Amazon have proven that people respond to cost more than anything, even if there is evidence those purchasing choices weaken their local community businesses and tax collection. But, having said that, if there were a way to pay $7 for a bowl that had an innovative way to bring innovation to local employment AND had robots doing things in trucks that didn't have to pay rental in downtown, I would happily pay for that bowl over a $4 one that removed the labor entirely. Just my $0.02

kolchinski 6y ago
It's hard to guess these things, but I suspect that even if we massively succeed we probably won't make much if any dent in sit-down and local/mom-and-pop restaurants (and the jobs that come with them) since we fill a very different role. E.g. I'll still be going to the local taqueria, Burmese hole-in-the-wall etc. post-Covid. But we might displace some demand and therefore labor from fast-food options like McDonalds. That said, they're having a lot of trouble finding workers right now (~200% annual turnover in the space from what I've seen) so I don't think we'll be creating unemployment there either.
- xrd 6y ago
  This is a terrific answer, thanks for engaging with me. It makes me feel better to hear that.
  - p1necone 6y ago
    I suspect McDonalds is only dealing with high turnover because their wages don't cover living costs. Not because there's actually nobody who needs the job.
    - TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
      Right. If they are really desperate for help that does not turn over, they would raise wages. If your help is fungible, why bother? Or am I missing something?
      - jfengel 6y ago
        They have constructed their business model around fungible people. That has upsides and downsides. It's good for providing employment to young people without a track record and inconsistent schedules. It's bad for making any kind of career. Even managing is only barely a living wage, despite being the overwhelming task of dealing with those fungible workers. It's kind of useful that such a thing exists. But it's disappointing that it makes them the third largest employer in the US -- right behind Yum! Brands, who do pretty much the same thing. They turn out a product that people should consume sparingly but is instead one of the main food providers. In other words... a lot is broken. Poorly paid, disposable employees is just a tiny piece of it.
p1necone 6y ago
(making numbers up here for the sake of an example) My take on the employment situation is that if currently ~10% of people are employed in the food industry, and we replace 20% of those with robots (so 2% of the whole population) then that should be an unequivocally good thing. If there's not enough jobs to go around, but we're still producing the same amount of value then we should be supporting those who don't have work (in this case, probably by everyone in other industries doing 2% less work but getting paid the same as they are currently, and employing the people replaced by robots to take up the slack, along with some sort of subsidy). The problem here isn't that we're working out ways to do things without human labor, it's that we're still stuck in this mindset of people having to work, even though there's plenty of resources to go around (and there should be even more with automation, not less).
- imtringued 6y ago
  In principle automation is always a good thing. Think of a society where there is a collective bank account and everyone shares their wealth. There are 100 people and there is 800 hours of work to be done. 100 hours of work in fast food. If you automate fast food then only 700 hours of work have to be done for an economy of the same size. The real problem is fairness. Now that there is enough work for 88 people it would be unfair for the working people if those 12 people simply get to stop working. The remaining working members would go on strike. So we expect those 12 unemployed people to work regardless of whether there is enough work for everyone. Globalization is another productivity booster that has the same effect. The answer is to give people work, even if the work has to be created through artificial means. Infrastructure is a common example. You can just let these unemployed people build roads or houses and lay fiber for internet and so on. Infrastructure doesn't discriminate and tends to benefit everyone so ultimately even those who didn't lose their job will benefit. If that infrastructure results in a greater tax income in the future you can even finance it through debt.
  - Grustaf 6y ago
    > In principle automation is always a good thing I don't agree with this, but even if I did, we all know that in practice automation leads to a transfer of wealth from the working class to the very richest, that own the automated companies.

by xrd 6y ago

kolchinski 6y ago

It's hard to guess these things, but I suspect that even if we massively succeed we probably won't make much if any dent in sit-down and local/mom-and-pop restaurants (and the jobs that come with them) since we fill a very different role. E.g. I'll still be going to the local taqueria, Burmese hole-in-the-wall etc. post-Covid. But we might displace some demand and therefore labor from fast-food options like McDonalds. That said, they're having a lot of trouble finding workers right now (~200% annual turnover in the space from what I've seen) so I don't think we'll be creating unemployment there either.

xrd 6y ago
This is a terrific answer, thanks for engaging with me. It makes me feel better to hear that.
- p1necone 6y ago
  I suspect McDonalds is only dealing with high turnover because their wages don't cover living costs. Not because there's actually nobody who needs the job.
  - TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
    Right. If they are really desperate for help that does not turn over, they would raise wages. If your help is fungible, why bother? Or am I missing something?
    - jfengel 6y ago
      They have constructed their business model around fungible people. That has upsides and downsides. It's good for providing employment to young people without a track record and inconsistent schedules. It's bad for making any kind of career. Even managing is only barely a living wage, despite being the overwhelming task of dealing with those fungible workers. It's kind of useful that such a thing exists. But it's disappointing that it makes them the third largest employer in the US -- right behind Yum! Brands, who do pretty much the same thing. They turn out a product that people should consume sparingly but is instead one of the main food providers. In other words... a lot is broken. Poorly paid, disposable employees is just a tiny piece of it.

p1necone 6y ago

(making numbers up here for the sake of an example) My take on the employment situation is that if currently ~10% of people are employed in the food industry, and we replace 20% of those with robots (so 2% of the whole population) then that should be an unequivocally good thing. If there's not enough jobs to go around, but we're still producing the same amount of value then we should be supporting those who don't have work (in this case, probably by everyone in other industries doing 2% less work but getting paid the same as they are currently, and employing the people replaced by robots to take up the slack, along with some sort of subsidy). The problem here isn't that we're working out ways to do things without human labor, it's that we're still stuck in this mindset of people having to work, even though there's plenty of resources to go around (and there should be even more with automation, not less).

imtringued 6y ago
In principle automation is always a good thing. Think of a society where there is a collective bank account and everyone shares their wealth. There are 100 people and there is 800 hours of work to be done. 100 hours of work in fast food. If you automate fast food then only 700 hours of work have to be done for an economy of the same size. The real problem is fairness. Now that there is enough work for 88 people it would be unfair for the working people if those 12 people simply get to stop working. The remaining working members would go on strike. So we expect those 12 unemployed people to work regardless of whether there is enough work for everyone. Globalization is another productivity booster that has the same effect. The answer is to give people work, even if the work has to be created through artificial means. Infrastructure is a common example. You can just let these unemployed people build roads or houses and lay fiber for internet and so on. Infrastructure doesn't discriminate and tends to benefit everyone so ultimately even those who didn't lose their job will benefit. If that infrastructure results in a greater tax income in the future you can even finance it through debt.
- Grustaf 6y ago
  > In principle automation is always a good thing I don't agree with this, but even if I did, we all know that in practice automation leads to a transfer of wealth from the working class to the very richest, that own the automated companies.