4 ms·

If a business can’t pay a living wage, automate the role.

by andreshb 5y ago

erhk 5y ago
And tax the labour that automation provides
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- mc32 5y ago
  Lots of things have been automated over time. What’s the cutoff? Tractors automate things. Email automates things. Computing in general automated things.
- kristjansson 5y ago
  What? No. Automation doesn't need a new tax, it's just capital investment like any other. Tax the proceeds from investment (in automation and everything else) at a rate commensurate with taxes on labor...
throwaway292893 5y ago
Looking at you California farms.
- nradov 5y ago
  Strawberry picking robots are coming. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/rob.21889 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/rob.21889
  - throwaway292893 5y ago
    Those exploited immigrants won't hold their breath. I'm sure those farms unwilling to pay a fair wage will start investing in those expensive machines' R&D. Then do it for all other crops.
    - dehrmann 5y ago
      > farms unwilling to pay a fair wage Half the blame has to go to consumers and a lack of desire for fair-wage strawberries that cost 2x as much.
      - throwaway292893 5y ago
        No, the full blame goes to the near slave farms exploiting these people. Raise the prices if you have to and tell the consumers to shove it. Chipotle just did this, farms can do it. If you can't survive without slave labor don't survive at all.
        dehrmann 5y ago
        Chipotle is big; they can do this. Most of their costs are also in store labor and rent, not food. If you're a small farmer, the distributor will pay you $x regardless of how you produce it. There's no market for strawberries picked by well-paid workers, so they don't care. What you're saying only works if you're Driscoll's and tell farmers to pay workers more or enough consumers demand it, but I just don't see much demand for this. The most we've seen is Fairtrade chocolate, coffee, etc., but there's only limited demand for it.
      - danaris 5y ago
        That would only be true if, when I went to the supermarket, there was a display of strawberries that said over it "Low Low Prices Enabled By Virtual Slavery And Other Worker Abuses!", and another display of strawberries next to it that said "Slightly Higher Prices, But Their Workers Live Well!" You can't claim the market will resolve things when there is no meaningful opportunity for customers to "vote with their wallets". It requires not only equal access to the two products, but also full information about what the differences are.
        dehrmann 5y ago
        > Slightly Higher Prices I think it's more than slightly higher. Cherries and peaches are both stone fruit. They're grown in similar regions, and the trees are so closely related you see hybrids commonly marketed. Cherries are regularly 2x-3x the price by weight because the smaller fruit means they're more labor intensive. Raspberries are also noticeably more expensive than strawberries, and I assume it's because they're harder to pick. These are labor-intensive produce, so labor drives the price. Staples like wheat aren't, so an extra $5 per hour for someone driving a tractor really would be "slightly higher prices."
qudat 5y ago
I disagree. Not everyone needs a livable wage (e.g. teenagers) and by removing entry level positions we eliminate the lowest rung of the ladder. This is not a good outcome.
- riskable 5y ago
  ...but imagine the economic benefits of giving teenagers a living wage. People who have loads of extra money to spend on unnecessary items (because presumably they're not paying for the bare necessities like food and housing). <Gasp! Some might even save some of that extra money for use in the future!>
  - oh_sigh 5y ago
    But they already get a living wage, since for almost all working teenagers, their biggest expenses are usually taken care of by their parents (rent & health insurance).
- pydry 5y ago
  Not a good outcome for employers. Good for everyone else.
  - gruez 5y ago
    Where do you think the employers get the money from?
    - pydry 5y ago
      Customers?
      - gruez 5y ago
        That's the point. Absent any competition (which there won't be, because everyone is subject to the same minimum wage), the cost is fully passed on to the customers (ie. "everyone else"). Therefore your conclusion is incorrect.
paulpauper 5y ago
automation is expensive. it is not like a company or franchise can just flick on a switch to automate jobs. It has taken millions of dollars and decades to make robots that walk on stirs, let alone do anything that a low-skilled human worker can do.
- bogwog 5y ago
  > automation is expensive. Especially without right to repair!

If a business can’t pay a living wage, automate the role.

erhk 5y ago

And tax the labour that automation provides

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mc32 5y ago
Lots of things have been automated over time. What’s the cutoff? Tractors automate things. Email automates things. Computing in general automated things.
kristjansson 5y ago
What? No. Automation doesn't need a new tax, it's just capital investment like any other. Tax the proceeds from investment (in automation and everything else) at a rate commensurate with taxes on labor...

throwaway292893 5y ago

Looking at you California farms.

nradov 5y ago
Strawberry picking robots are coming. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/rob.21889 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/rob.21889
- throwaway292893 5y ago
  Those exploited immigrants won't hold their breath. I'm sure those farms unwilling to pay a fair wage will start investing in those expensive machines' R&D. Then do it for all other crops.
  - dehrmann 5y ago
    > farms unwilling to pay a fair wage Half the blame has to go to consumers and a lack of desire for fair-wage strawberries that cost 2x as much.
    - throwaway292893 5y ago
      No, the full blame goes to the near slave farms exploiting these people. Raise the prices if you have to and tell the consumers to shove it. Chipotle just did this, farms can do it. If you can't survive without slave labor don't survive at all.
      - dehrmann 5y ago
        Chipotle is big; they can do this. Most of their costs are also in store labor and rent, not food. If you're a small farmer, the distributor will pay you $x regardless of how you produce it. There's no market for strawberries picked by well-paid workers, so they don't care. What you're saying only works if you're Driscoll's and tell farmers to pay workers more or enough consumers demand it, but I just don't see much demand for this. The most we've seen is Fairtrade chocolate, coffee, etc., but there's only limited demand for it.
    - danaris 5y ago
      That would only be true if, when I went to the supermarket, there was a display of strawberries that said over it "Low Low Prices Enabled By Virtual Slavery And Other Worker Abuses!", and another display of strawberries next to it that said "Slightly Higher Prices, But Their Workers Live Well!" You can't claim the market will resolve things when there is no meaningful opportunity for customers to "vote with their wallets". It requires not only equal access to the two products, but also full information about what the differences are.
      - dehrmann 5y ago
        > Slightly Higher Prices I think it's more than slightly higher. Cherries and peaches are both stone fruit. They're grown in similar regions, and the trees are so closely related you see hybrids commonly marketed. Cherries are regularly 2x-3x the price by weight because the smaller fruit means they're more labor intensive. Raspberries are also noticeably more expensive than strawberries, and I assume it's because they're harder to pick. These are labor-intensive produce, so labor drives the price. Staples like wheat aren't, so an extra $5 per hour for someone driving a tractor really would be "slightly higher prices."

qudat 5y ago

I disagree. Not everyone needs a livable wage (e.g. teenagers) and by removing entry level positions we eliminate the lowest rung of the ladder. This is not a good outcome.

riskable 5y ago
...but imagine the economic benefits of giving teenagers a living wage. People who have loads of extra money to spend on unnecessary items (because presumably they're not paying for the bare necessities like food and housing). <Gasp! Some might even save some of that extra money for use in the future!>
- oh_sigh 5y ago
  But they already get a living wage, since for almost all working teenagers, their biggest expenses are usually taken care of by their parents (rent & health insurance).
pydry 5y ago
Not a good outcome for employers. Good for everyone else.
- gruez 5y ago
  Where do you think the employers get the money from?
  - pydry 5y ago
    Customers?
    - gruez 5y ago
      That's the point. Absent any competition (which there won't be, because everyone is subject to the same minimum wage), the cost is fully passed on to the customers (ie. "everyone else"). Therefore your conclusion is incorrect.

paulpauper 5y ago

automation is expensive. it is not like a company or franchise can just flick on a switch to automate jobs. It has taken millions of dollars and decades to make robots that walk on stirs, let alone do anything that a low-skilled human worker can do.

bogwog 5y ago
> automation is expensive. Especially without right to repair!