And so it begins, Flippy the burger flipping robot starts work in California

[AshleyAshes]

22 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Much cheaper than paying someone minimum wage,and the robot won't get injured on the job,complain about wages,call in sick or not show up for work. Automation will just create other maintenance & basic skills jobs,it's not like the hamburger flippers are out of a job.

The robot will also work for ALL operating hours through a day, 7 days a week, even holidays.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

This raises some interesting questions for me, in 10 years when all fast food restaurants have Flippies what do all the people who no longer have jobs do for work?

 

They go to school and get an education unhindered by the need to work. Because with automation comes a shift in wealth, which means taxes and other sources of funding will reduce the need for students to pay for their own education.

 

I know it's a complex concept (many experts still debate how it will work), but the essential ideal is that the shift in wealth distribution will lead to people spending more time working and learning in disciplines that require them and not emptying bins or flipping burgers.  By the time my grandchildren get to university (about 20 years I expect) I imagine it will be free and in subjects that largely centre around stem and integrated philosophies.

 

 

 

 

 

[BluJay614]

10 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Yeah, I can definitely see how you'd come to that conclusion. However have you seen the statistics about how many people are making minimum wage? It's actually quite low. Granted this isn't a blanket statement, but it's true for most places. The number of affected people is relatively low. Let's also look at what most companies that employ minimum wage employees are; fast food, entry level retail, coffee shops. Aside from coffee shops, most of these are large corporations that can easily bear the burden of higher wages. Not only that, these people are now making a lot more money. What are they more likely to do? Spend it within the community. Which increases profits. Not only that, $15/hr doesn't have to be minimum wage. It is what would be required in more expensive cities, but a living wage in a lot of places is less than that.

 

I see what you mean, but honestly; do you really think $7.25/hr is really enough to live on?

Tell me, and be honest: do you really think getting rid of small/family businesses that can't afford to be paying people the higher minimum wage or have enough people staffed without overworking them when one expenditure is doubled?

 

I agree that the US Federal minimum wage is nowhere near enough to live on by yourself, but I have seen people group together and do it. A lot of the people that do aren't working just one job either.

 

You seem to forget the fact that when people make more money, the cost of living rises with it. When landlords see that they can charge more for rent because "they can afford it", they will raise the rent to match the increase in income. Raising the minimum wage is a bad idea, unless you wanna see the unemployment line grow and small businesses shut down. I'd love to see where you are getting your statistics concerning people's income.

 

I agree on that we have all seen automation coming, and that it creates more careers in the tech field(which makes me glad I'm getting into it). However, this also eliminates the human element, and the chance for younger people (like highschool students who want a part time job) to learn some work ethics and how to handle their own income. At the Job Corps center I'm currently at, we have a '50s style dinner we call The Red Door Café. I work there in the kitchen, partially to give myself something to do, but it also keeps me distracted from things that may be bothering me. When it comes to food, there is an element that comes from having your food made by someone who cares about the product they are pushing out, as compared to a machine or someone who doesn't give a crap. If nothing, it's teaching people how to cook, even to a limited extent, which is something that not everyone learns how to do at home. If you want to bring up the culinary school argument, almost all of them require at least 1 year of experience in a restaurant, and cost as much as most public collages.

[Tech_Dreamer]

Hey atleast it wont have someones foot fungus for random reason or some guys spit on the food for having a political merch wearing customer or the old genital swab when things go way south of the border . it might not be a popular opinion at the moment but i feel like it's a It's a good thing these areas are being tied to reliable form of production & hope it expands completely onto the distribution side as well .

[michaelocarroll007]

50 minutes ago, Mr. Smiley said:

You are kidding right? How is it not adding to the fire.  If you run a business and spend say 100k on labor a year at the current minimum wage, $7.25/hour, but all the sudden the cost of labor doubles to $15/hour, now you are paying 200k a year in labor.  Where is all that extra money going to come from?  Most places aren't pulling in huge amounts of profit like you think they are and can't just absorb a 100% increase in labor prices.  Therefore they have to either raise their prices on all of their products to maintain the same profit levels, which in turn puts the people that had increased wages at the same point as before.  Or find a cheaper source of labor, like this 60k robot.  Would pay for itself in less than a year in the instance above.  

I Mean It isnt paying for its self in a year its 60k and cant even put cheese on it. so youll need a person there still to do that and many other tasks. It currently will only up production for currently employees They defiantly wont be able to just replace someone. and most fast food employees work less then 40 hours a week  30 hours x 15 an hour is $23.4k a year.  if the $7.25 you quoted it would need to take Many jobs to pay for it self in one year. One day a machine like this will directly take jobs but This is not it yet. 

 

$15 an hour isnt whats making this happen ( it might arguably bring it 1 or 2 years sooner but maybe not also.) . Its the advancement of Technology. If they were getting paid $10 12 or 15 it will happen. The tech will get Much better and cheaper. and it is much more reliable its not calling in sick from work. It doesnt take vacation days no breaks no downtime no overtime. To simpler things like not having to Create W2s checking working papers  payrolls  each week manage workers, Hire and fire people. less theft  managers would have less work could probably pay them less and so on. 

 

 

[maartendc]

1 hour ago, RotoCoreOne said:

I dream that automation will help lead us into a utopian society but unfortunately life dictates differently

Hahahahaha, no.

 

Automation will actually lay bare the worst parts of capitalism: the means of production are in the hands of a few. When the means of production are robots, and no longer require humans to run them (save for some maintenance workers), a lot of people will be out of a job. The people who own the means of production don't want or have to share their increased wealth with anybody.

 

I know this has happened before in the industrial revolution, people being put out of work because of machines, and people learned to adapt and evolve. However, I think the onset of robotics and AI will be an even bigger shock to the system then industrialization first was.

 

Eventually people will learn to overcome this, but there will be a couple of decades where the people who used to flip our burgers, drive our ubers, drive our buses, check out our groceries, and work in our factories, ... will be unemployed and will be either too old or unable to re-educate themselves

[Bcat00]

i actually don't understand the point of this thing. Likely be more work to maintain.

Easier to get a oven like the one's used by pizza places and roll them out

[TacoSenpai]

12 minutes ago, maartendc said:

Hahahahaha, no.

 

Automation will actually lay bare the worst parts of capitalism: the means of production are in the hands of a few. When the means of production are robots, and no longer require humans to run them (save for some maintenance workers), a lot of people will be out of a job. The people who own the means of production don't want or have to share their increased wealth with anybody.

 

I know this has happened before in the industrial revolution, people being put out of work because of machines, and people learned to adapt and evolve. However, I think the onset of robotics and AI will be an even bigger shock to the system then industrialization first was.

 

Eventually people will learn to overcome this, but there will be a couple of decades where the people who used to flip our burgers, drive our ubers, drive our buses, check out our groceries, and work in our factories, ... will be unemployed and will be either too old or unable to re-educate themselves

See I actually think a couple things will happen.  Yes people will have to adapt how long that will take is anyone's guess.  After all who fixes the robots who fixes the robots?  I'm sure in time there will be far more technical jobs some of which will be menial centering around managing, securing, and maintaining automated infrastructure. 

 

In the bigger worldwide picture and tumble I think will come in population size being a massive disadvantage.  Think of it like this a country with a smaller population will have less people to provide a system to gain the means of getting a job and supporting themselves,less low end labor effected in general and supporting themselves and likely will be hit by automation less and probably benefit from it while countries with high populations will be thrown into chaos because automation will take all the menial jobs.

 

It used to be having a big population in the industrial era was an advantage in that you had people to man the factories, produce material, manpower to fight a war of attrition.  Automation is going to completely reverse that.

[mr moose]

17 minutes ago, maartendc said:

Hahahahaha, no.

 

Automation will actually lay bare the worst parts of capitalism: the means of production are in the hands of a few. When the means of production are robots, and no longer require humans to run them (save for some maintenance workers), a lot of people will be out of a job. The people who own the means of production don't want or have to share their increased wealth with anybody.

 

I know this has happened before in the industrial revolution, people being put out of work because of machines, and people learned to adapt and evolve. However, I think the onset of robotics and AI will be an even bigger shock to the system then industrialization first was.

 

Eventually people will learn to overcome this, but there will be a couple of decades where the people who used to flip our burgers, drive our ubers, drive our buses, check out our groceries, and work in our factories, ... will be unemployed and will be either too old or unable to re-educate themselves

You might want to take a closer look at the industrial revolution then.   Since the 18th century humankind has been automating and growing.  The only thing that has changed on any significant level is the standard of living which has gone up hugely and workplaces have become safer.   Unemployment and abject poverty has shrunk, life expectancy has grown and access to education has improved.   There have been no periods of great unemployment due to automation. 

 

 

[maartendc]

28 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You might want to take a closer look at the industrial revolution then.   Since the 18th century humankind has been automating and growing.  The only thing that has changed on any significant level is the standard of living which has gone up hugely and workplaces have become safer.   Unemployment and abject poverty has shrunk, life expectancy has grown and access to education has improved.   There have been no periods of great unemployment due to automation. 

 

 

Over a longer period, yes, that is true. However, there are and have always been, periods of painful adjustment of years, or even decades, of people losing their jobs. Those people are forced to adapt eventually, but it is up to governments to make sure people can get re-educated and can adapt. And it is up to governments to make sure there is income redistribution and welfare while people adapt.

 

Just ask coal miners in the rust belt. Why are they out of a job? Because we no longer require heat or energy? No, just because newer technology has made coal obsolete. Oh, just go work in a solar panel factory you say? Well, what if I am 55 years old, and my coal mine closing down is in Pensylvania, but the solar plant is in California (or China for that matter).

 

Just in the same way, Truck drivers and burger flippers will need to find new jobs, and it won't happen over night. They will need to go back to school. Easier said then done if you are 50 years old and all you have ever done is drive a truck.

 

Once automated driving technologies get perfected, in the next 10 years probably, the way things are going, 3.5 million truck drivers in the US are going to lose their jobs, and there won't be a need for 3.5 million self-driving truck mechanics. These are huge numbers. Sure, you will need more programmers to program the AI of the trucks, you will need more people making the parts for the radars and lidars, and whatnot, ... but those truck drivers ain't programmers, or mechanics yet. So there will be painful adjustment periods.

 

Governments need to start thinking about how to bridge these periods in both education programs and welfare systems.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

22 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You might want to take a closer look at the industrial revolution then.   Since the 18th century humankind has been automating and growing.  The only thing that has changed on any significant level is the standard of living which has gone up hugely and workplaces have become safer.   Unemployment and abject poverty has shrunk, life expectancy has grown and access to education has improved.   There have been no periods of great unemployment due to automation. 

 

 

 

There is no other source of material progress than increases in productivity, that is, doing more with the same amount of labor (doing the same with less labor, if you will). Everyone understands this easily when they think about doing laundry and having a washing machine, but when things get to the whole society scale it gets harder for many to see. If the group of workers being displaced by Flippy at a particular restaurant would jointly purchase a Flippy and rent it out to the restaurant, the advantage of not having to flip burgers would be evident to everyone (I invite anyone concerned about the disappearance of the sacred burger-flipping jobs to get and keep one. I'm all for eliminating chores, paid or not, and focus human time on something else ). Of course, such robot-owning cooperative isn't on the horizon, but it helps to understand that any concern one may have regarding technical progress is "merely" distributional. And once we acknowledge that, we also realize that impoverishment of the masses and automation cannot grow simultaneously without bound, since automation pays for itself only at large scales, and large scales require mass consumption. Some institutional changes may be needed along the way, but it wouldn't be the first nor the last time

[maartendc]

48 minutes ago, LordTaco42 said:

See I actually think a couple things will happen.  Yes people will have to adapt how long that will take is anyone's guess.  After all who fixes the robots who fixes the robots?  I'm sure in time there will be far more technical jobs some of which will be menial centering around managing, securing, and maintaining automated infrastructure. 

 

In the bigger worldwide picture and tumble I think will come in population size being a massive disadvantage.  Think of it like this a country with a smaller population will have less people to provide a system to gain the means of getting a job and supporting themselves,less low end labor effected in general and supporting themselves and likely will be hit by automation less and probably benefit from it while countries with high populations will be thrown into chaos because automation will take all the menial jobs.

 

It used to be having a big population in the industrial era was an advantage in that you had people to man the factories, produce material, manpower to fight a war of attrition.  Automation is going to completely reverse that.

Interesting point. I think what you say is true, as long as your country with a small population has a well-educated population that is going to benefit from the kinds of jobs that more automation will create: programmers, designers, engineers, mechanics, etc. etc.

 

Countries with a generally lower level of education will suffer indeed. I think most European countries will actually do quite well, because they invest a lot in education.
 

I fear for countries like the US, where education is expensive, and the amount of low-educated and easily automated jobs is very high.

 

I grew up in Belgium, and live in the US now. If I just look at US supermarkets versus European supermarkets for example, US supermarkets have about 2-3 times more employees than European ones: they have baggers, they have greeters, they have people collect the carts in the parking lots (instead of customers returning them), etc. etc. If all supermarkets go the way of the Amazon Go store... bigger problem for the US than it is for Europe. Sure, some supermarkets can distinguish themselves by still having "the human touch", but they won't be able to compete with Amazon supermarkets on price.

[Okjoek]

I'm a pizza chef. How long until I'm replaced by a robot?

[maartendc]

6 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

 

..... If the group of workers being displaced by Flippy at a particular restaurant would jointly purchase a Flippy and rent it out to the restaurant, the advantage of not having to flip burgers would be evident to everyone

...

but it helps to understand that any concern one may have regarding technical progress is "merely" distributional.

Yes, in those two sentences of yours lies the problem exactly.

 

It is not the workers owning the burger flipping robot, it is the corporation.

 

The problem is "merely" distribution (of labor). Only problem is that this "redistribution" of labor means being out of a job, having to go back to school and having to potentially relocate. Easy if you are 25 and don;t have a family. Not so easy if you are 50, and all your family and friends are where you grew up. These mere "inconveniences" of progress have a real human cost.

[knightslugger]

43 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You might want to take a closer look at the industrial revolution then.   Since the 18th century humankind has been automating and growing.  The only thing that has changed on any significant level is the standard of living which has gone up hugely and workplaces have become safer.   Unemployment and abject poverty has shrunk, life expectancy has grown and access to education has improved.   There have been no periods of great unemployment due to automation. 

 

 

in the 18th century, a 1% increase in the unemployed was not 323,100 people.

[NumLock21]

3 hours ago, EnergyEclipse said:

I hope someone hacks this so it starts flipping the burgers at the ceiling... Just you wait

throwing at the customer like a ninja star is the better option.

 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

I don't think I have a big disagreement with you, but I'd just clarify this:

 

7 minutes ago, maartendc said:

The problem is "merely" distribution (of labor). Only problem is that this "redistribution" of labor means being out of a job, having to go back to school and having to potentially relocate. Easy if you are 25 and don;t have a family. Not so easy if you are 50, and all your family and friends are where you grew up. These mere "inconveniences" of progress have a real human cost.

It's not distribution of labor, it's distribution of product that I'm talking about (for me, a problem in the distribution of labor would mean that someone has to work more/harder than others - a problem for slave economies, or probably soviet ones as well ). We are bombarded so much with "create jobs" competitions during political campaigns that we often forget jobs are a necessary evil, hence the laundry analogy: we work because we have to, but it's better if we can avoid it. Yes, some people may tell me how much they love doing what they do for money, but the point is that nothing would prevent them from doing it for free - nothing except having to spend the time doing something else for money (or for own consumption, like laundry).

The bottom line is higher productivity brings more output, so it is perfectly possible to leave everyone as well off as without the innovation - even in the presence of increasing inequality (which doesn't need to be the case, but can easily be the case).

This problem isn't new, and over the decades we've seen the rise of Fordism, the welfare state, etc. I don't want to oversell the idea that "everything fixes on its own", I'm just trying to undersell the idea that "this time is different"  The only certain "fixes itself" mechanism present is that, if automation displaces too many jobs too quickly, and laid off workers have no alternative source of income (or it is substantially lower), aggregate demand falls and deters further automation (because not enough purchasing power on consumers' side to justify the investment). So the pace of technology adoption self-regulates to soem extent.

Of course, that doesn't rule out recessions and increased financial distress for particular groups (unemployment -which is quite low now- could double in the US right now and it would be irrelevant for the pace of technology adoption, but very bad for the newly unemployed under the current state of social security).

 

For those reasons, I think it's important to avoid more Luddite-type approaches, focused on slowing down / halting technical progress, and rather put the focus on social security, or distributional policies more generally, re-design. In the end, we want to work as little as possible, if at all, without giving up (typically increasing) consumption, and we need progress for that. Just imagine if, in order to replace yourself with a washing machine at home, you had to find a new, alternative chore to do... I think our society already has some perfectly normal, market jobs that constitute some formed of masked transfer (and I'm not necessarily thinking of low wage jobs)  

 

 

 

[mr moose]

47 minutes ago, maartendc said:

Over a longer period, yes, that is true. However, there are and have always been, periods of painful adjustment of years, or even decades, of people losing their jobs. Those people are forced to adapt eventually, but it is up to governments to make sure people can get re-educated and can adapt. And it is up to governments to make sure there is income redistribution and welfare while people adapt.

 

Just ask coal miners in the rust belt. Why are they out of a job? Because we no longer require heat or energy? No, just because newer technology has made coal obsolete. Oh, just go work in a solar panel factory you say? Well, what if I am 55 years old, and my coal mine closing down is in Pensylvania, but the solar plant is in California (or China for that matter).

 

Just in the same way, Truck drivers and burger flippers will need to find new jobs, and it won't happen over night. They will need to go back to school. Easier said then done if you are 50 years old and all you have ever done is drive a truck.

 

Once automated driving technologies get perfected, in the next 10 years probably, the way things are going, 3.5 million truck drivers in the US are going to lose their jobs, and there won't be a need for 3.5 million self-driving truck mechanics. These are huge numbers. Sure, you will need more programmers to program the AI of the trucks, you will need more people making the parts for the radars and lidars, and whatnot, ... but those truck drivers ain't programmers, or mechanics yet. So there will be painful adjustment periods.

 

Governments need to start thinking about how to bridge these periods in both education programs and welfare systems.

Have you got some research to back that up, because so far I haven't found anything other than a steady decline in poverty and unemployment rates.  Short term job losses due to automation still aren't as major as recessions and other more common ebb and flow conditions of the economy. 

 

I see why people fear it, but the reality is people tend to over simplify what is happening. it's not 3.5 Million jobs lost. It's 3.5 million jobs shifted to other areas.   There has been nothing but a growth in population, growth in technology and a growth in employment.

 

38 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

 

There is no other source of material progress than increases in productivity, that is, doing more with the same amount of labor (doing the same with less labor, if you will). Everyone understands this easily when they think about doing laundry and having a washing machine, but when things get to the whole society scale it gets harder for many to see. If the group of workers being displaced by Flippy at a particular restaurant would jointly purchase a Flippy and rent it out to the restaurant, the advantage of not having to flip burgers would be evident to everyone (I invite anyone concerned about the disappearance of the sacred burger-flipping jobs to get and keep one. I'm all for eliminating chores, paid or not, and focus human time on something else ). Of course, such robot-owning cooperative isn't on the horizon, but it helps to understand that any concern one may have regarding technical progress is "merely" distributional. And once we acknowledge that, we also realize that impoverishment of the masses and automation cannot grow simultaneously without bound, since automation pays for itself only at large scales, and large scales require mass consumption. Some institutional changes may be needed along the way, but it wouldn't be the first nor the last time

 The only institutional change I see we need is to restructure the ideals by which we distribute wealth.  Currently we distribute wealth based largely on physical labour.  Once that ceases to be, we will have to address it another way (many don't like that concept).  But the reality is that throughout history, automation has not had the effects people fear.   Largely this is because when they do start to cause an issue it forces governments to do something about it (usually they fund education and retraining and offer incentives to employers/business).  The system as a society self regulates in that regard.  

 

The other thing of interest here is that sometimes when automation occurs we see a drastic drop in the cost of a product, the sudden consumer uptake has the effects that more people are employed directly in that industry to meet demand.    In that scenario it is purely a volume condition.  An exponential growth in income from an exponential growth in production that only required a small increase in the workforce = more people employed in a larger business. 

 

28 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

in the 18th century, a 1% increase in the unemployed was not 323,100 people.

Which is exactly why we use percentages instead of sheer numbers.   3 million people unemployed people today might well be better economic statistics than 3000 unemployed in the 19th century.  

 

Also why it's important to look at all the outcomes,  with less unemployed, less impoverished and higher standards of living even in lower socioeconomically grouped areas, you can see the net effect automation has had.  There is no logical reason to assume because the scale is larger that the outcome will be worse, technically it is only going to get better. 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

 The only institutional change I see we need is to restructure the ideals by which we distribute wealth.  Currently we distribute wealth based largely on physical labour. 

I would say we distribute income based largely on labor, although automation would increase the weight of property (wealth) in distributing income. But we can always re-distribute income to some extent

Wealth, on the other hand, has a strong inter-generational component, and is much more unequally distributed than income. Many of these changes would go smoothly if everyone's income was more diversified between labor and capital, but while almost everyone has labor income, barely a few have any capital income worth of mention. In your house, you are both the business owner and the worker, so of course there are no frictions to replace your own labor with a machine  

 

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Once that ceases to be, we will have to address it another way (many don't like that concept).  But the reality is that throughout history, automation has not had the effects people fear.   Largely this is because when they do start to cause an issue it forces governments to do something about it (usually they fund education and retraining and offer incentives to employers/business).  The system as a society self regulates in that regard.  

I pretty much agree with this.

[dalekphalm]

3 hours ago, SC2Mitch said:

I take it's programmed to know when the burger is cooked or does it know each individual burger's cooking time

I read a news article about this earlier, and it uses thermal sensors to tell how well cooked the meat is.

 

Though these sensors may not be suitable for all types of cooking. Eg: cooking a thick steak - can the sensor see deep enough into the flesh to tell when the centre is ready?

2 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

The robot will also work for ALL operating hours through a day, 7 days a week, even holidays.

How will the robot spend his holiday pay? Buying robot VR porn?

[orbitalbuzzsaw]

It begins...

[knightslugger]

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

Buying robot VR porn?

calling pintsize? (questionable content).

[JoseGuya]

You wanted 15 usd /hour? Here's your 15 usd / hour.

[ravenshrike]

6 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

More #thousandsunemployedbecauseofrobotsnet

#FightFor15

5 hours ago, Mr. Smiley said:

You are kidding right? How is it not adding to the fire.  If you run a business and spend say 100k on labor a year at the current minimum wage, $7.25/hour, but all the sudden the cost of labor doubles to $15/hour, now you are paying 200k a year in labor.  Where is all that extra money going to come from?  Most places aren't pulling in huge amounts of profit like you think they are and can't just absorb a 100% increase in labor prices.  Therefore they have to either raise their prices on all of their products to maintain the same profit levels, which in turn puts the people that had increased wages at the same point as before.  Or find a cheaper source of labor, like this 60k robot.  Would pay for itself in less than a year in the instance above.  

Don't forget that as prices increase amount sold decreases, which means less labor needed, which means less people working. However it's generally the case in minimum wage laws unless the loss is perfect that those left are stretched even thinner and have to work harder.

4 hours ago, dizmo said:

 However have you seen the statistics about how many people are making minimum wage? It's actually quite low.

You're actually right. There's a reason that the unions are the biggest proponents of stuff like the Fight for 15, and that's because their base wages are generally a multiple of the minimum wage. So they're pretending to care about the little guy making minimum wage because it looks good and gets them a free raise.

[Beskamir]

Automation's really wonderful and honestly I don't have much sympathy for people who are only capable of flipping buggers...

 

Sure in some cases the environment heavily affected a person's life such that they have to flip burgers for a living but I'm of the opinion that an ambitious enough person would be able to overrule that environmental pressure and do something more skillful than just flipping burgers.

 

What's more worrying is that this is only the beginning and we're still nowhere near a universal basic income. Perhaps the most terrifying aspect of AI replacing humans is that it won't replace an entire field overnight. It'll make it so that instead of 100 people to do a task you'll only need 50, then 25, then 12, etc. but at no point will the field disappear making it feel like the threat of an AI replacing you isn't that high since clearly there are still pilots, radiologists, doctors, etc. even though the number required is decreasing.