4 ms·
This is super exciting. Would the people who argue against this machine on the basis that it replaces human workers also argue against the use of robots to pro
by WoodenChair 12y ago
This is super exciting. Would the people who argue against this machine on the basis that it replaces human workers also argue against the use of robots to produce cars and computers to replace secretaries? Yes, some people lose their jobs in the short term, but in the long term the asset reallocation that goes on in the economy actually creates more jobs than it destroys. Plus, who doesn't want a more sanitary, cooked-to-order, more customizable burger rather than the microwaved shit we get at the low-end fast food restaurants today?
The company even addresses the issue on its website: "The issue of machines and job displacement has been around for centuries and economists generally accept that technology like ours actually causes an increase in employment. The three factors that contribute to this are 1. the company that makes the robots must hire new employees, 2. the restaurant that uses our robots can expand their frontiers of production which requires hiring more people, and 3. the general public saves money on the reduced cost of our burgers. This saved money can then be spent on the rest of the economy. We take these issues very seriously so please feel free to tell us how we can help with this transition."
We don't need to take them at their word because something like this is inevitable anyway. We just need to enjoy the burgers!
- asdfologist 12y agoArguing against technological progress, for the sake of preserving jobs, is really nothing more than the broken window fallacy[0] in disguise. Imagine if Henry Ford decided to stop making cars for the sake of the people working in the horse carriage industry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
- gress 12y agoArguing that technology always creates more jobs than it replaces is as fallacious as arguing that technological progress should be blocked in order to protect jobs.
- WoodenChair 12y agoOn average it does though. With all of the technological progress of the last 200 years, there would be no jobs left if it didn't.
- gress 12y agoSo all processes that have been running for the past 200 years are sure to continue indefinitely?
- afafsd 12y agoThere is an extremely long term trend, though, in which low-skilled labour which anyone can do is slowly replaced by high-skilled labour which requires intelligent people. A thousand years ago, perhaps even a hundred years ago, 90% of jobs could quite easily be performed by someone with a two-digit IQ, because they were manual labour. But as we replace manual workers with robot repairmen we run into the problem that some people who were smart enough to be manual labourers just aren't smart enough to be robot repairmen. Eventually we reach the point (which I think we're already pushing against) where the number of jobs which can be performed by people with (say) two-digit IQs is less than the number of people with two-digit IQs. What do we do then? Put them all on welfare and wait for our cities to burn down? Invent bullshit make-work jobs to keep them busy? Other more controversial solutions which I dare not mention?
- beejiu 12y agoAs long as you are not complaining about these people living on state benefits, and not working. I support the use of machinery and robots to replace people, but you also need to right economic and societal structure to make it work. If you have 30% of the population unemployed, how do we keep those people from becoming depressed and impoverished?