4 ms·

A ton of minimum wage jobs simply cannot be exported or automated at this time.

by ddingus 5y ago

pydry 5y ago
Basically all jobs left. Your McDonalds Big Mac isnt getting grilled in the Phillipines.
- ddingus 5y ago
  Exactly! And tons of those jobs are paying less than it costs laborers to work them too. That is a raw subsidy, and it's US paying so big players get a bigger profit. We should not pay a dime, and they make a smaller one, but they also earned it fair and square too, not mooching on the public dime.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  There definitely are experiments with robotic cooks [0]. Not widespread yet, but neither were cars nor computers in their early days. The ratio of robots to humans in kitchens is likely to grow in the future. From its current very low value to something more meaningful. [0] https://singularityhub.com/2020/11/06/flippy-the-fast-food-robot-just-went-commercial-and-its-selling-like-crazy/ https://singularityhub.com/2020/11/06/flippy-the-fast-food-r...
  - ddingus 5y ago
    It will be a long while. Besides, nothing about that automation actually changes the funding labor problem. I have always found it tough to sell a robot a good meal too. There will be basic labors we need doing and a lot of people doing them for the foreseeable future.
    - bumby 5y ago
      Wouldn't an automation tax change the funding labor problem?
      - ddingus 5y ago
        Assuming an already expensive automation makes any kind of economic sense, it could. But right now for a vast majority of basic labors, automation remains out of reach being impractical economically, if not technically. And robots don't need a good movie, a night out, a good meal, or any of those things, so whatever taxes has to find their way to the people who do present real demand for those things. And those people do have costs, unless we simply allow them to cease to exist and not show up for work anymore.
        bumby 5y ago
        >vast majority of basic labors We might need some qualifiers to understand exactly what you mean. Most automation is readily within reach if the job is rote and the economic differential is there. (FWIW, I used to build and program assembly line robuts). >whatever taxes has to find their way to the people who do present real demand for those things. I think this is the intent. Call it UBI, Freedom Dividend, or whatever, but the goal is to fund the societal base that has the actual need for whatever automation (or humans) will produce.
        ddingus 5y ago
        Those are not real answers in my view. How we value human labor is a real answer, and the fact is we need to start with the cost of existing and or showing up for work. As for rote... look, automation is expensive to establish, adapt transport and maintain, and need infrastructure to support it all. People, at their real cost, are a GREAT deal and that will be true for a very long time yet. Go work through a few cases. I have experience in automation. It is the little things that cost a lot. We are more likely to succeed with augmented labor, and already do. Better tools = labor multipliers.
        bumby 5y ago
        Automation is expensive, but so is human labor. Once you cost in all the human costs, like paid time off, the variability in performance, administrative overhead, etc. it can be a lot cheaper to automate. Which is exactly why it's done. As for cases, I worked in automotive assembly line robots. Upfront costs are high, sure, but nothing compared to the legacy costs of the dozens of the unionized human labor they supplant. (I'm not against unionization btw, only bringing it up because it tends to - fairly IMO - sway the power to the worker in terms of higher wages). An automation tax would at least make up for some of the lost revenue that supports societal infrastructure. It would also sway the economics to extend the time horizon of when it usurps specific segments of the labor economy. Automation is never fully automated, so I would consider it all augmented. It just tends to shift the labor towards fewer and more skilled workers.
  - pydry 5y ago
    Horn and Hardart closed in the 1970s because given the choice, people would rather not eat in automated restaurans. But, with wealth inequality as high as it is the "automated" restaurant may be making a comeback. Just as income inequality is bringing a new wave of app-based delivery servants.
    - ddingus 5y ago
      Or people will simply prepare their own food. I can tell you absolutely that is my response. I'm not going to eat some automated thing that nobody's checking, or has poorly maintained for the least dollars.

A ton of minimum wage jobs simply cannot be exported or automated at this time.

pydry 5y ago

Basically all jobs left. Your McDonalds Big Mac isnt getting grilled in the Phillipines.

ddingus 5y ago
Exactly! And tons of those jobs are paying less than it costs laborers to work them too. That is a raw subsidy, and it's US paying so big players get a bigger profit. We should not pay a dime, and they make a smaller one, but they also earned it fair and square too, not mooching on the public dime.
inglor_cz 5y ago
There definitely are experiments with robotic cooks [0]. Not widespread yet, but neither were cars nor computers in their early days. The ratio of robots to humans in kitchens is likely to grow in the future. From its current very low value to something more meaningful. [0] https://singularityhub.com/2020/11/06/flippy-the-fast-food-robot-just-went-commercial-and-its-selling-like-crazy/ https://singularityhub.com/2020/11/06/flippy-the-fast-food-r...
- ddingus 5y ago
  It will be a long while. Besides, nothing about that automation actually changes the funding labor problem. I have always found it tough to sell a robot a good meal too. There will be basic labors we need doing and a lot of people doing them for the foreseeable future.
  - bumby 5y ago
    Wouldn't an automation tax change the funding labor problem?
    - ddingus 5y ago
      Assuming an already expensive automation makes any kind of economic sense, it could. But right now for a vast majority of basic labors, automation remains out of reach being impractical economically, if not technically. And robots don't need a good movie, a night out, a good meal, or any of those things, so whatever taxes has to find their way to the people who do present real demand for those things. And those people do have costs, unless we simply allow them to cease to exist and not show up for work anymore.
      - bumby 5y ago
        >vast majority of basic labors We might need some qualifiers to understand exactly what you mean. Most automation is readily within reach if the job is rote and the economic differential is there. (FWIW, I used to build and program assembly line robuts). >whatever taxes has to find their way to the people who do present real demand for those things. I think this is the intent. Call it UBI, Freedom Dividend, or whatever, but the goal is to fund the societal base that has the actual need for whatever automation (or humans) will produce.
        ddingus 5y ago
        Those are not real answers in my view. How we value human labor is a real answer, and the fact is we need to start with the cost of existing and or showing up for work. As for rote... look, automation is expensive to establish, adapt transport and maintain, and need infrastructure to support it all. People, at their real cost, are a GREAT deal and that will be true for a very long time yet. Go work through a few cases. I have experience in automation. It is the little things that cost a lot. We are more likely to succeed with augmented labor, and already do. Better tools = labor multipliers.
        bumby 5y ago
        Automation is expensive, but so is human labor. Once you cost in all the human costs, like paid time off, the variability in performance, administrative overhead, etc. it can be a lot cheaper to automate. Which is exactly why it's done. As for cases, I worked in automotive assembly line robots. Upfront costs are high, sure, but nothing compared to the legacy costs of the dozens of the unionized human labor they supplant. (I'm not against unionization btw, only bringing it up because it tends to - fairly IMO - sway the power to the worker in terms of higher wages). An automation tax would at least make up for some of the lost revenue that supports societal infrastructure. It would also sway the economics to extend the time horizon of when it usurps specific segments of the labor economy. Automation is never fully automated, so I would consider it all augmented. It just tends to shift the labor towards fewer and more skilled workers.
- pydry 5y ago
  Horn and Hardart closed in the 1970s because given the choice, people would rather not eat in automated restaurans. But, with wealth inequality as high as it is the "automated" restaurant may be making a comeback. Just as income inequality is bringing a new wave of app-based delivery servants.
  - ddingus 5y ago
    Or people will simply prepare their own food. I can tell you absolutely that is my response. I'm not going to eat some automated thing that nobody's checking, or has poorly maintained for the least dollars.