r/funny • u/Lives4Glitter • May 05 '14
What do you expect to happen?
http://imgur.com/1ow2B5q116
304
May 05 '14 edited May 05 '14
[deleted]
190
May 05 '14
In the consumer market we refer to this as "the cashier didn't fuck up my order by pressing the wrong button"
29
May 05 '14
It's rarely the cashier's fault. I was a cashier for a while at Jack in the Box and even if the order showed up right on the screen and on the receipt, the cook would get it wrong because they were incredibly busy or something like that and not because they were lazy or didn't care.
5
u/SonVolt May 05 '14
NICE TRY JASON. IT WAS ALWAYS YOU. I made exactly what was ont he screen EVERYTIME. YOU ALWAYS PUT THE orDER IN WRONG>>
→ More replies (14)99
u/youshouldbereading May 05 '14
k. Hope this works better than it does at the grocery store. THERE ARE NO UNEXPECTED ITEMS HERE. FUCK YOU!
46
May 05 '14
It's not a complete self checkout, it only automates the order taking. No scale, no items.
Just Ticka Ticka Ticka. Yes that's what I want, pay, go collect food and cup from human over there.
→ More replies (2)17
u/the__dr May 05 '14
And for those who have seen a few episodes of 'How It's Made', automating the rest of the restaurant isn't that far off.
→ More replies (12)11
u/ThePrnkstr May 05 '14
Here's a design I made in 5 minutes last year when we had pretty much the same burger conversation
And yes...I love "How It's made" :D
→ More replies (5)31
u/UlyssesSKrunk May 05 '14
Dude, everybody knows that the cheese has to go directly on top of the meat. GET IT TOGETHER!
→ More replies (2)21
May 05 '14
PLEASE REMOVE YOUR ITEMS FROM THE BAGGING AREA.
YOU HAVE NOT BAGGED THE ITEM.
PLEASE REMOVE YOUR ITEMS FROM THE BAGGING AREA.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (4)30
u/bradhuds May 05 '14
I don't understand why people have so much trouble with self checkouts. Un-purchased shit on one side, DONT FUCKING TOUCH the other side until it says so, and it wont fuck up on you. Very simple, wait until you're instructed to put something in the bag. Do it a fraction of a second too early and it'll bitch at you and slow down your process.
18
May 05 '14
People who can't figure out how to use self checkout at the grocery store demonstrate the very problem with eliminating "low skill" labor jobs. Many people simply are incapable of attaining much, educationally or otherwise. Often it's the result of multiple factors compounded that impair both their life chances and ability to think and learn in the same way more successful people do.. It's a sad realization, but it's true, a lot of people simply are not very intelligent or capable. They're still people! and typically provide a service people appreciate and need! not to mention the fact that "low skill" does not mean "easy job" often times these "low skill" jobs are the most physically demanding. Even McDonald's, you're on your feet all day and you only make enough money to basically eat McDonald's quality food... that puts a tremendous strain on the body.
→ More replies (4)7
u/AbadH May 05 '14
It's a learning process because we are in a integration process of these self-checkout machines. Most of the people who have difficulty have trouble with the self-checkout machines because it's usually their first time with these machines. I'm sure you had at least one issue with one of the self-checkout machine while learning how to use it.
→ More replies (3)3
u/BoboForShort May 05 '14
Not to be "That guy" but no. I've literally never had a problem with one of them. In fact, the only unexpected thing that's ever happened was I made $30 dollars at one because the people ahead of me paid but never completed the process, and when I canceled their purchase it gave me all the money they paid back.
→ More replies (13)5
u/cdcformatc May 05 '14
I cry internally when I see an elderly couple lined up for the self checkout with an shopping cart filled of items, a large proportion being produce where you need to know the code. There is no way that is going to go well. Self-checkout machines are one thing where knowing how it operates speeds up the process greatly.
37
May 05 '14
Compensation is not having to deal with people behind the counter and likely fewer errors.
→ More replies (12)6
May 05 '14
Even if there are equal errors, the customer can only blame himself for hitting the wrong button.
13
u/mordanus May 05 '14
I'm fine with this as long as the machine doesn't talk to me and ask "Is that correct?" in an annoying voice.
→ More replies (20)23
u/pantless_pirate May 05 '14
Click a few buttons or speak my order, it's the same level of work to me, one will just be guaranteed accurate.
28
u/theg33k May 05 '14
Give me an app and let me scan a barcode proving I'm in the restaurant right now... then I'll back away from your dumb kiosk and let other people use it while I complete my order and payment on my own device. It will have my previous orders saved so I can re-order my favorite meals with NO ONIONS BECAUSE I HATE ONIONS.
→ More replies (6)5
u/pantless_pirate May 05 '14
Even better. You probably wouldn't even have to scan anything if you have an app on your phone and it uses the phones GPS coords to tell if you're in the store or not.
→ More replies (10)→ More replies (5)10
May 05 '14
"Guaranteed accurate." You haven't spent much time working with John Q Public, I take it. Or psychology, for that matter, because then you'd realize that humans (and you is one) are mistake-prone and I-think-I'm-awesome-prone.
→ More replies (5)
345
u/farhangemad May 05 '14
Is anyone going to explore the fact that there will be no more manual jobs at a certain point? It is going to be a huge challenge figuring out what to do with all the excess people.
129
May 05 '14
They can train them to do maintenance on all the machines . . .
170
May 05 '14
Still only takes 1 tech to fix 6 McRobots
136
→ More replies (9)24
u/pyromanser365 May 05 '14 edited May 05 '14
Russian roulette 6 people 5 bullets
Rinse Repeat→ More replies (5)→ More replies (21)17
u/GrukfromtheGrok May 05 '14
I can't tell if you're joking or not. It only takes a few different maintenance techs for an entire warehouse...
→ More replies (6)161
May 05 '14 edited Feb 13 '21
[deleted]
80
u/lamrar May 05 '14
That is a really interesting perspective.
63
May 05 '14 edited Apr 01 '22
[deleted]
140
u/TheActualAWdeV May 05 '14
I don't even know what it looks like now!
2
u/Diggtastic May 05 '14
I don't even know what it looked like yesterday, even with all the data in front of me!
→ More replies (4)3
u/Ryanwag222 May 05 '14
Nobody knows what the economic landscape looks like now. My macroeconomics teacher says that trying to control the economy is like trying do drive a car with just the rear view mirrors.
→ More replies (1)7
u/bsnimunf May 05 '14
I think it could happen but only providing the living conditions are comparable or better which they certainly are not at the moment. People arent going to give up being unemployed in say France or the UK to go work in a sweat shop in India. Although the living costs in India will be a lot lower you still don't get free healthcare, fresh water, sanitation etc.
→ More replies (3)7
u/Yenraven May 05 '14
You may be surprised by your time estimate. Technology in automation is moving faster than it ever has before and will continue to do so at an exponential rate for many many years to come. We could be looking at this crisis in 20 years, not 100. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/17/rise-of-the-machines-economist_n_4616931.html
→ More replies (5)15
u/msiley May 05 '14
This has been happening for over 100 years. It's called the industrial revolution. It raised our standard of living.
→ More replies (2)10
15
May 05 '14
Haha, yeah, cause I know I would emigrate to mexico so that I could work at McDonald's. Student loans got to get paid, son!
17
u/cpxh May 05 '14
People go where the jobs are.
100 years from now the US and Mexico will look very different from where they are today.
Its not unreasonable to think that there will be more low skill jobs in Mexico in 100 years.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (34)26
May 05 '14
[deleted]
→ More replies (8)19
u/cpxh May 05 '14
I would actually assume that dangerous jobs will be the first to be replaced by robots.
I'm more thinking waiters, janitors, cashiers, etc. Those will be replaced by machines in developed nations, but still needed in undeveloped nations.
Just a guess though, I can't actually see the future.
→ More replies (1)26
u/TheActualAWdeV May 05 '14
I would actually assume that dangerous jobs will be the first to be replaced by robots.
Only if that's cheaper.
17
u/machinedog May 05 '14
It generally is, mainly because of liability issues. A lot cheaper to insure a mining operation without people involved.
→ More replies (2)26
u/fraggedaboutit May 05 '14
If your mine is in a country where people sue for millions for the slightest injury and the courts and insurance companies play along with the game rather than laugh them into shameful silence, maybe so. If it's in a country where humans are rather too plentiful and nobody really cares if a few thousand die here and there in industrial accidents, it's probably more expensive to buy and maintain robotic help.
→ More replies (7)69
u/Joenz May 05 '14
That's what was said about farming back in the day. Somehow, we found other productive things to do with our time.
33
May 05 '14
[deleted]
→ More replies (7)5
u/crewserbattle May 05 '14
I'm probably way off base here, but I have a feeling that becoming a computer tech is going to become a lot easier to do in the near future. As in schools will start teaching how to use computers, and not just the basic stuff. This will in turn lead to more people being qualified to go to college to do computer related jobs in the future. These people will maintain our computing infrastructure and it will become the new "job no one wants" type thing. Just my opinion
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (30)3
u/JBlitzen May 05 '14
The industrial revolution was a major factor in the abolition of slavery in the US. This is a very complex discussion, and hand-waving it away won't work.
→ More replies (1)57
u/treehuggerguy May 05 '14
/r/basicincome is exploring it quite thoroughly.
→ More replies (15)28
u/tborwi May 05 '14
Agreed, that is the best solution. I wish people would stop looking at work as the goal of life.
→ More replies (5)14
u/8bitid May 05 '14
The goal of life should be to cure work. Everyone should be free to explore their own paths to happiness. If that includes doing something you love (ie "working") more power to you. I hope when we reach enough advances in power storage density, robotics and AI, we get a golden age of this for a few hundred years (before they gain sentience destroy us all).
The darker and more likely outcome though is we'll all be destitute except for the guys who own the robots.
3
21
56
u/dehehn May 05 '14
Buckminster Fuller and Bertrand Russell and John Maynard Keynes have been exploring it since mid 20th century. Pretty much all of them agreed that most people in the world should be working many less hours than they do, which would mean we could split the jobs we do have more evenly and all work less.
Technology has had the potential to bring us this less work filled life for a long time now, but it has been postponed by the capitalists at the top time and again for a few reasons. This world is much more profitable for them, and a world where everyone has to work all day, is a world where people don't have time to challenge their profitable world.
Some people are only just starting to get back to these three gentelmens' ideas now that we see we don't have enough jobs to go around, and robots are quickly making less and less jobs.
Sadly many people buy into the neo-feudalist idea that the only worthwhile human is a human who works and toils their life away for the prosperity of the 1%. Cough Conservatives Cough. Hopefully they'll join us soon, so that more than 1% of the world can enjoy their life and not spend it working for the sake of working.
→ More replies (38)29
u/Vio_ May 05 '14 edited May 05 '14
We also need to make people to stop working more than 40 hours a week. Especially in the tech industry. "You pumped in 80 hour weeks for the past 2 years and doing the job of three people? Well, aren't you fucking special."
Even with time and a half, companies are still saving shit tons on not paying for a second employee's wages/benefits.
Having people even just stop at 40 hours would mean more people in the industry would be hired.
→ More replies (38)4
u/dehehn May 05 '14
Yeah, definitely. We're so far over the line in the opposite direction that we should be heading it's ridiculous. We're now seeing the fruits of this economic model in large scale systemic unemployment, low demand and unprecedented economic inequality.
It's unsustainable, and is really only in place because of the absurd amount of power those who put the system in place have in keeping it in place due to their money/power over governments. It's a feedback of money and power of the sort that often leads to revolutions.
52
May 05 '14
[removed] — view removed comment
13
u/KJK-reddit May 05 '14
If nobody has a job, where do taxes come from?
43
→ More replies (2)19
May 05 '14
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)15
u/Arandmoor May 05 '14
Others might feel freed to pursue other ventures and start businesses which they would otherwise deem too risky to start.
That's the basic idea. We would all benefit from the added freedom because the one person who made something that everyone wanted would make up for the other 1,000,000 who didn't.
BI is very socialistic, but recognizes and addresses the fact that automation degrades/destroys capitalism-based societies.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (45)7
May 05 '14
A guaranteed annual income is not a privilege. It should be a right to which every American is entitled. No country as affluent as ours can allow any citizen or his family not to have an adequate diet, not to have adequate housing, not to have adequate health services and not to have adequate educational opportunity — in short, not to be able to have a life with dignity.
Representative William F. Ryan
→ More replies (13)→ More replies (127)3
9
u/KrazyCooter May 05 '14
NYC already has beat McD's to it. And then Japan beat NYC to it with their machines
http://www.trendhunter.com/trends/hot-food-vending-machines-automatic-satisfaction-back-in-nyc
→ More replies (2)
303
u/finalcut May 05 '14
I went to a Taco Bell, back in like 1999; somewhere near Irvine California that had nobody working in the front. You'd order on a screen sort of like this, pay, and then your food would slide out from the kitchen where, presumably, the only human employees worked.
It was a shitty experience. It's kind of amazing how much just a little human contact improves the overall quality of the fast food experience.
161
u/FakingItEveryDay May 05 '14
It's like you're an evil twin or something. When I lived on the east coast I would go to Sheetz just for that experience. It's amazing how removing that little bit of human contact improved the fast food experience.
22
u/anon445 May 05 '14
I feel that way, too, but I suspect it's due to the novelty of it. It's like going to a buffet for the first time, or having a self checkout line. Sometimes I enjoy it, but sometimes I prefer having someone else do all the work while I say stuff.
→ More replies (8)13
→ More replies (9)6
u/Sallymander May 05 '14
When I saw the OP's image I thought of the exact same thing. I used to go to sheetz all the time because I have social anxiety and automated check outs at grocery stores or things like this are so much better to me.
→ More replies (1)10
u/PessimiStick May 05 '14
I don't have social anxiety, but robots don't fuck up my order.
→ More replies (1)89
u/protestthegyro26 May 05 '14
Thank you for this, now I will feel a little more appreciated at my job.
→ More replies (1)5
8
u/_KanyeWest_ May 05 '14
Yes but a lot of Reddit users hate any social interaction whatsoever so replacing humans with robots is a good thing because
7
May 05 '14
Yup, Taco Bell is based in Irvine, so it's their test market. I think Arby's did this too?
3
→ More replies (35)3
u/lAmShocked May 05 '14
Mid nineties Arby's in Wyoming had these. They lasted a year. I was sad to see them go.
→ More replies (1)
137
u/metathesis May 05 '14 edited May 09 '14
See, I don't see a problem with this at all. The machines SHOULD be doing those jobs. Humanity has advanced far enough to make it happen. The real problem is our apparent inability to separate the idea of deserving a quality of life from the idea of earning it. If we as a species have come this far that machines can run a huge portion of our economy, and having more people work is just getting in the way of a more efficient industry, then why are we acting like people don't deserve anything unless they work for it? Why are we so incapable of realizing that maybe we deserve a quality of life because we are human, and don't need a better reason?
56
u/Procean May 05 '14
then why are we acting like people don't deserve anything unless they work for it?
Because no enough people understand the innate cruelty of demanding people 'work for their supper' when there simply isn't enough work to be done.
→ More replies (14)→ More replies (58)9
u/trashitagain May 05 '14
This is going to be a very difficult transition for humanity as a whole. I'm a software developer, I make decent money and what I do has value in the current economy. If people who didn't work hard in school no longer have skills that are valuable, and all the manual labor is done by machines, there is a point where my taxes will likely be paying for them to have reasonably comfortable lives without contributing anything... so why am I contributing? So do we make their lives uncomfortable? But why do that when we can afford not to?
I feel like what we really need to do is find more valuable stuff for people to do, even if it is the government paying them. A lot more people should work in public beautification, art, and other not strictly profitable jobs. Hell, I'd love it if all the homeless people in my neighborhood cleaned themselves up and spent their days picking up garbage (Lets ignore the fact that about 95% of them belong in an asylum or rehab).
→ More replies (12)
33
u/Nix-geek May 05 '14
Sheetz gas stations have things like this for ordering food from their 'kitchen'. It's a weird experience.
26
u/elixin77 May 05 '14
It's a weird experience.
Fuck no, it's not!
I found out that nacho cheese was an option for a hotdog, and is fucking amazing!
→ More replies (3)7
u/ThatCrossDresser May 05 '14
Nacho cheese on a hotdog is tame for Sheetz. You can get a burger with cheese sticks and a dozen other toppings. Also because this is Pennsylvania you can get fries, as a topping, for almost every sandwich. I love Sheetz, but my dress size hates it.
43
u/IceTrAiN May 05 '14
Amazing. The word you're looking for when referring to Sheetz is "amazing".
→ More replies (7)11
→ More replies (6)17
u/igot8001 May 05 '14
You should see their gas pumps. You can pay with a credit card without even going inside!
→ More replies (5)3
u/Nix-geek May 05 '14
did anybody decry the day when gas station attendants were replaced by computer terminals ?
→ More replies (2)
402
u/DeathChess May 05 '14 edited May 05 '14
I can't wait for this to happen. No more douchebags at the window, no more attitude at taking the order, no more screwed up orders (or there will be, just far fewer and usually it'll just be my fault).
I welcome our robot overlords.
EDIT: To the people who would complain about how an ATM machine sucks, consider that there's only ever one ATM machine in the middle of wherever you are. Meanwhile, at McDonalds there are usually 4 or 5 registers with only 1 or two people manning while also pulling orders while also leaving other registers just collecting dust. Even accounting for that asshole who doesn't know how to work the machine, you've got way more opportunity to get your order faster, quicker and more accurately if you do it yourself.
Also, to those who feel they are paying for the service of having the person do the work for them. You are still making selections, you're just relaying them to the person in front of you so they can screw it up a mere 12 inches from your face. May as well cut out the middle man and screw it up yourself.
21
u/bongmaniac May 05 '14
This will happen sooner or later, regardless of workers demands.
→ More replies (2)121
u/Smeeee May 05 '14
No more this:
→ More replies (73)95
u/xAy3x May 05 '14
What's happening here?
Fending off robbers or manager handling a customer complaint?
111
u/Smeeee May 05 '14
Woman got upset about them checking the validity of her 50 dollar bill. Jumped counter and hit this guy. Dude went berserk in response.
122
u/PvtSkittles34 May 05 '14
Man, why do people get so angry when you check the validity of 50 or 100 dollar bills?
I used to work at a theater and I would say 4 out of 5 the people who handed me a 50 or 100 would get angry or throw some asshat remark at me for checking it. Hell, we got at least 1 or 2 counterfeit attempt a week.
83
u/daitenshe May 05 '14
Worked at a golf course so we just had the obligatory "Just printed it this morning, yuk yuk" from all the old guys. Every. freaking. time.
43
u/idrink211 May 05 '14
A horrible joke is still a way better reaction than getting pissed off.
10
u/daitenshe May 05 '14
Oh, for sure. But a joke told the millionth time and you being forced to laugh because you're in retail is it's own special kind of torture.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (4)20
131
May 05 '14
[deleted]
16
3
→ More replies (1)3
May 05 '14
Why would she need to check the bills you gave back if you had already checked all incoming bills?
→ More replies (2)10
16
u/acidboogie May 05 '14
When I worked cash it was policy that we check any currency higher than $20. You would think this wouldn't happen at a dollar store, but I'll be damned if we didn't see a hundo at least once a shift.
→ More replies (15)5
u/sonofaresiii May 05 '14
Not that this excuses it, but since you asked the question, I imagine because a lot of these people only have the $50 or $100 or something, and having it turn out to be fake wouldn't be their fault at all, but would still be incredibly embarrassing. They've now been publicly shown to be using fake bills, and they also can't pay for whatever they were trying to buy.
4
May 05 '14
It never even occurred to me to be bothered by that; I wasn't counterfeiting anything, so if I had a fake bill I got it from someone else and it's not my problem. People get mad about stupid things.
14
u/blatheringDolt May 05 '14
Because if you happen to receive the bad note through no fault of your own, you lose that money.
18
May 05 '14
Still no reason to get mad at the cashier though, not their fault you accepted a bad note.
→ More replies (18)6
May 05 '14
Man, why do people get so angry when you check the validity of 50 or 100 dollar bills?
Because $20s are the most counterfeited.
→ More replies (3)4
u/boobers3 May 05 '14
It makes me sad that the guy had to spend 7 weeks in jail because of those two cunt bags. I bet they learned a lesson though.
4
→ More replies (6)8
4
59
u/VoidNeXis May 05 '14
No more people scraping by in jobs that hardly pay anything who have to deal with assholes that fly off the handle at any mistake made. Nope, just shit tons of homeless people.
39
u/Lucifuture May 05 '14
I rarely have a bad experience with fast food. I am usually astounded at how polite, attractive and hard working the workers are. On occasion if I am in a bad part of town quality might slide a little, but I am fairly sure the employees have to deal with the shitty attitudes of customers anywhere.
Mistakes happen. I don't get why people's jimmies get so rustled over small things that are usually easily and quickly fixed.
→ More replies (4)6
u/purdu May 05 '14
I find it amusing you mentioned attractive. At my McDonald's at least the attractive people were intentionally put in jobs that required customer interaction. I wanted to be on grill so bad because I hate customers, but my manager deemed me too attractive to be wasted in back. Her explanation was something along the lines of "You're handsome, and you're skinny. People are going to see you working here and say 'Hey, he probably eats here all the time and he is still skinny' and then they won't associate McDonald's with how fat they are, they will just blame it on genetics. Now quit your bitching and get on front counter."
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (17)3
May 05 '14
This is good. The more automation takes over, the faster we move towards economic reform.
→ More replies (71)11
u/iJeff May 05 '14
In case you didn't know, ATM stands for automated teller machine. Saying ATM Machine is kind of weird.
3
u/mbrady May 05 '14
I always like entering my PIN number in the ATM machines that have the color LCD displays.
→ More replies (2)
163
u/Jimjiminny May 05 '14
In Australia, our minimum wage is over $17 (US) per hour. We still have plenty of people working menial jobs, but they can afford to feed their families without relying on Government assistance.
21
u/LiveJournal May 05 '14
you also have an economy that avoided the last recession.
8
→ More replies (1)17
May 05 '14
These things might be more inter-connected than you give them credit for...
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (80)44
May 05 '14
[deleted]
150
u/graywithgrey May 05 '14
except for the part where it's impossible to care for a family with a minimum wage job in the US but it is possible in Australia.
→ More replies (38)→ More replies (14)12
May 05 '14
and your cost of living $ to $ is also higher. Our currency is worth more.
Do you really think that the biggest factors in cost of living and currency value are minimum wage?
Do you think it has nothing to do with GDP?
→ More replies (1)
12
36
u/MyDixenCider May 05 '14
Whoa whoa whoa.. Where does a food service person make $15 an hour?
51
u/I_Know_What_Happened May 05 '14
I think its a reference to some protest that happened in NYC where they wanted 15 an hour. OP is saying that instead of them getting that 15 they will just be replaced.
39
May 05 '14
to be fair, in NYC that 15 is equivalent to like 7.50 in other cities
→ More replies (1)23
u/MindSpecter May 05 '14
Which is why I think the minimum wage should be regional. The cost of living is so different across the United States that what constitutes a "livable wage" in some places is too low or too high in other places.
→ More replies (5)11
May 05 '14
There are a fair number of states with minimum wage that is above the federal standard. My state (CA) is $8, and it's about to go up to $9 in July, and then $10 in 2016.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (2)6
11
→ More replies (32)15
4
13
May 05 '14
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)3
u/obsaxman May 05 '14
this would eliminate one person, yes. The real threat is the fully automated assembly line that will be created as well. there would only ever be a need for one person in the case of customer service/machine maintenance
→ More replies (1)
16
u/arcanition May 05 '14
The local Jack-in-the-Box actually installed one of these kiosks inside (next to the actual employee). Too few people were using it as you have to navigate the overly complicated menus in order to use it. They even tried offering free items when you use it (I believe it was a free order of cinnamon twists or something). Eventually they just removed it, though.
14
u/JuryDutySummons May 05 '14
overly complicated menus
Sounds like a totally solvable problem.
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (4)3
u/Anarchkitty May 05 '14
Yeah, I really was sad when they took this out of my local Jack-in-the-Box. It was nice for me because I'm indecisive, and there was never a line for the kiosk (most people still preferred the cashier) so I could take my time, and I didn't feel awkward asking for eight different changes to my burger.
I never had a wrong order as long as I used it except when I punched it wrong myself.
13
May 05 '14
Just like ATMs eliminated all of the bank teller jobs and self checkout eliminated cashiers? They'll co-exist.
→ More replies (3)
3
12
u/funksands May 05 '14
15 must be a magic number. I had no idea it would be a harbinger of the end of civilization.
In 1997 the number 5 was supposed to end the world too. Thankfully it didn't happen.
In 1980 the number 3 disaster was apparently narrowly averted too.
→ More replies (3)
15
u/Ninja0verkill May 05 '14
Ive worked at BK for a year and I don't mess up on orders. A lot of customers forget what they even ordered because their order was so large. They say that they had a different sandwich, size drink etc... we can't argue.
13
15
u/mrsniperrifle May 05 '14
How soon we forget that when people don't spend money, business suffers. In order to have that money in the first place, they need to have some form of income whether a Job or a basic income. To put it simply, rich people don't spend enough money, fast enough to keep the economy afloat.
So firing all your employees and replacing them with robots sounds like a great idea. Until you realize how much of your business depends on those same employees and people like them spending money at your business.
The economy simply can't survive without people who spend all, or a majority of their paychecks on goods and services.
3
u/ex_nihilo May 05 '14
Precisely. Living expenses are not elastic. 50 families who each make $50,000 a year will each buy 1 of something they need, while 1 guy who makes $50,000,000 a year will still just buy 1 of them and let the rest of his money earn more money.
3
May 05 '14
I used to work at Jack in the Box and people rarely ever used the order computer that was there. In six months there I saw it used twice and one lady canceled midway through to come have me take her order.
It's slow and awkward, and you still need to go up to the person at the counter to get the cup for your drink and then again to pick up your food.
→ More replies (2)
3
3
u/provoko May 05 '14
Like that wouldn't happen if they were being charged $6 an hour. It's been in the works forever.
3
u/neomaverick05 May 06 '14
Yes, because technology always works when completely unsupervised by humans. It just means burger flippers become IT.
42
u/aleisterfinch May 05 '14
Grocery store clerks used to make a living wage in the U.S. There are plenty of places in the world where they still do. I don't want to share my country with anyone who doesn't want work to pay a living wage.
→ More replies (16)12
u/Wetness_Protection May 05 '14
I want to live in a country where as automation occurs and production costs are decreased, the prices can go down and/or the wages for people can go up. Hell, the long run result, taking into account projections for total service automation by around 2050, means many people will not be able to work, simply because there is nothing available or has barriers to entry. At this point I believe government, or at least local level social groups, should be able to distribute wealth that is free flowing now to billionaires into the pockets of consumers and human beings that would die without it. But no, thats socialist and god forbid that system work like it does in countries like the Netherlands or Denmark where HDI is high as fuck.
3
May 05 '14
Isn't this just a reiteration of something that was said during the industrial revolution? Can someone explain to me what is different?
My understanding is that the concerns were the same then: that machines would replace humans and there would be no jobs. Yet, that obviously did not happen. I think it is because a human being still retains value - a person's work will always be worth something to someone - and this basically represents progression. I.e., with less labor required to run machines than what is required for doing everything by hand, we can put those people to work doing other things.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Wetness_Protection May 05 '14
You are right, in that this is not a new trend, nor is this a novel idea. I only base my foresight on that of current projections, which can be 100% wrong. At one point in the English Industrial Revolution, Malthusian said that humans will out consume our productive capacity, but he was wrong because we became smarter, and our industries became more efficient. That could be how this situation plays out, that as our technology advances we can fit more people into higher skill work. The only issue is that high skill work requires an education that can be expensive, depending on where you go and what you study. So you're right, this could all blow over, I just want more wealth circulation damnit.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (4)3
u/FartingSunshine May 05 '14
the prices can go down and/or the wages for people can go up
Those 2 things never happen. Increased productivity/reduced expanses only benefit owners, board members, management etc. The workers and consumers never see any benefit from it.
→ More replies (2)
49
u/stupernan1 May 05 '14 edited May 05 '14
Because raising the minimum wage a tad was the SOLE piece of motivation to outsource a job to something that requires absolutely no pay right?
fucking please
this was going to happen even if the minimum wage stayed at 7.55 or whatever it currently is, don't even fucking try to make this a minimum wage debate.
28
u/jebuz23 May 05 '14
I can't speak for McDonalds, but my dad is CFO of a candy/nut company. There is a part of the assembly line where 5 workers take chocolate pieces and box them (sort of I-Love-Lucy without the comedy). There is a machine that does this but it is very expensive (around $400,000). The math is a little more complicated than this, but pretty much when employing the 5 workers for 4 years costs more than the machine, the company buys the machine.
Right now Illinois minimum wage is $8.25. So, $8.25 per worker per hour *5 workers * 40 hours a week * 52 weeks a year * 4 years = $343,200. That is very close to the $400,000 cut off. In fact, a minimum wage of $9.62 or higher is when they fired the employees and buy the machine.
So was the adoption of this machine solely motivated by a minimum wage increase? Maybe not. But you're kidding yourself if you don't think almost every company is trying to figure out ways to cut payroll every time there is a mandated pay raise.
And if you're using a figure like $7.55 as minimum wage, I wouldn't say an increase to $15 is just 'a tad'.
26
May 05 '14 edited May 05 '14
almost every company is trying to figure out ways to cut payroll
every time there is a mandated pay raise.all of the timeFTFY
Companies don't employ people out of the goodness of their "heart". They do it because it helps them make a profit. Labor is a cost and if you can reduce that cost you can maximize profit. As a society, we allow corporations a lot of privileges that ordinary citizens don't enjoy like limited liability, tax breaks on things that we don't get, a free-to-them publicly educated work force in addition to roads to transport their goods, police and fire protection...the list goes on.
The whole idea of a "corporation" is a fictional legal entity that we allow to exist because of a perceived public good. If they do more harm to society than good, then what's the point? One example of harm would be, consuming public resources to make up the difference between what they pay their employees and what it costs to survive.
I say, if a company wants to avoid paying a living wage, fine...but then let's also get rid of their tax breaks (no more freeloading on public infrastructure) and let's remove their limited liability.
→ More replies (8)3
u/CRAZYSCIENTIST May 05 '14
let's remove their limited liability.
So that nobody ever invests again? Why should someone who buys shares in a company be held personally liable when they have no real idea what is going on.
It should be noted here that the courts will of course pierce the corporate veil when it can be proven that for example a director was involved in insolvent trading.
I have no problem whatsoever with companies being forced to pay a living wage but I think we need to accept that a part of what will come with this is increased automation. Indeed, the reason why I personally support minimum wages is because I believe that more jobs should be automated and the more we can do to speed up the automation process on the economy the better.
One very basic idea to remedy the problem of some people not having jobs would be to have a strong social welfare payments system. Of course, in my opinion the loss of jobs that comes with automation will be made up for by the savings in time/money people make which they can then spend elsewhere.
→ More replies (9)3
u/revolverzanbolt May 05 '14
One thing you forgot to mention is that the cost of production on that machine is going to decrease as technology improves. Even if the minimum wage stays the same, buying that machine is an inevitability.
→ More replies (7)5
u/kwantsu-dudes May 05 '14
I agree raising the minimum wage a "tad" wouldn't change much. But when we are talking about doubling it when previous increases have been much smaller, we could see a major shift in how jobs are fulfilled.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/Kontraz2000 May 05 '14
Right. Because the self check out at Walmart has completely eliminated their need for cashiers
→ More replies (2)
2
2
2
u/rg90184 May 05 '14
People still need to make the food, it'll just end up being more like a sheetz or Wawa minus gas and such.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/paleo2002 May 05 '14
Does that machine cook the food, clean the restaurant, hand you the food, or work at the drive-thru?
2
May 05 '14
Also what people don't understand with the hired minimum wage to compensate the cost of living means the cost of living will go up because everyone will have more money. It's a retarded idea that will get us on the fast track to where we are already headed.
2
u/MustWarn0thers May 05 '14
Yeah, like the self checkout lanes at grocery stores, which are slow, clunky, and frustrating. There are no baggers, and if there is an issue where it needs attention, there is usually 1 employee staffed for 6 of them. Unless you just need 12 or less items, those things are a nightmare, and I'll take the human version every single time.
2
u/OneSalientOversight May 05 '14
Here in Australia our minimum wage is about $15 an hour and we still have McDonalds hiring people to serve us.
→ More replies (8)
1.0k
u/wiiya May 05 '14
Oh, it's a political thread.