http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/building-robot-mcdonalds-staff-cheaper-8044106
News Weird News Robots
Building robot McDonald's staff 'cheaper' than hiring workers on minimum wage
10:18, 25 MAY 2016 UPDATED 14:07, 25 MAY 2016
BY JESSICA HAWORTH
The worrying forecast could threaten jobs at the fast food franchise, a former CEO of the company warns
A former McDonald's CEO warned that robots will take over staff jobs at the fast food empire - because it's cheaper than employing humans.
Ed Rensi has said that buying highly skilled robotics is a cheaper alternative than employing people on minimum wage to work in the company's worldwide restaurants.
He warned that huge job losses are imminent, and commented that it would be 'common sense' to replace humans in the workplace.
This comes as a study into the future of human employment has predicted a surge in machine-led work such as robotic counsellors, body part makers and virtual lawyers.
>we were born just in time to get our min wage jobs stolen by robots but too soon to have basic income
>>28812534
Since the labor is cheaper, will the food be cheaper?
>>28812534
Jokes on you, I already know a trade
>>28812534
holy shit i can't wait to go to robot mcdonalds
>Walk in, order what I want without having to talk to a human
>no more, "Can I getta"
>no more, "Hows' it goin ill GET A BIG MAC MEAL"
>no more worrying about spit or human debris in my food
>clean, robotic big mac meals
im stoked
Yes, I know, machines will replace everything. The minimum wage doesn't matter, it will happen no matter what. It's just a matter of time. The only solution which will work is to institute a greater level of socialism. Personally I'd like to see a left wing coup/revolution in the US. Our entire political structure needs to be changed to a parliamentary system, and the Bill of Rights and Constitution could use an overhaul, including some socialism measures which couldn't be removed by the parliament, supreme court, or the executive.
>>28813311
Hahaha, you think that makes you safe from this shit? That's cute.
Because of this I'm boycotting fast food. It's not a bad thing is it? I mean I'm doing something positive for myself because the people running these companies are a bunch of cunts. Win win imo.
If I were Bernie I'd come out and say I would give huge tax hikes to companies that do this. He's probably not going to win though so I'm looking forward to avoiding fast food like the plague. The food I cook for myself is better anyway.
Also another thing, half the time when I go to McDonald's they can't even keep the goddamned shake machine up and running. Can't wait to hear about a fully automated McDonald's or even a semi automated one having a catastrophic failure at lunch time. Can't wait until their Internet connected hardware shows up on shodan and I rape it after reading the manuals. I'll find out which restaurants are the busiest using their press releases and do the autism smash on them.
>>28813390
Yes, yes I do. Construction equipment will always need operators
>>28813012
No, it'll be even more expensive because Richard McRichberg needs to be able to afford more private jets.
Enjoy your $15 Big Mac instead of your $15 wages.
>>28813424
>If I were Bernie I'd come out and say I would give huge tax hikes to companies that do this.
>Pay burger-flippers twice what they're worth
>Or pay huge taxes to have their extremely easy job automated
I get it, you want to shut down fast food. No need to be coy about it, just tell the truth.
>>28813424
I honestly can't tell if you're being facetious right now. If you're not do you also boycott the auto industry? Because they've automated half their jobs since the 70s
>>28812534
cant wait for someone to figure out a way to hack them
>>28813512
>Internet connected
Yeah, no. That's not how it works.
>>28813424
So you'd give the same tax hike to farmers that use labor saving equipment? The fuck, you want us all to be Amish?
>implying this is a bad thing at all
>shitty minimum wage jobs get phased out by robots
>people find jobs that pay slightly more that require human skill
McDonald's is a rapidly failing enterprise anyway
>>28812941
>basic income
keep on dreaming kek, the elite will massacre us before giving out free moniez
>>28814995
>shitty jobs not existing somehow increases the amount of nonshitty jobs
Aside from the technician on standby maintaining the robots everyone is fucked. Good thing America has guns for mass murdering the rich, OH WAIT leftists actually hate guns because they're controlled opposition.
>wagecucks: "haha delusional NEETs, this will never happen!
>it happens
>wagecucks are now in damage control mode
>>28814383
yeah, but not necessarily human operators
>>28813424
M8, I support this totally
But I wish you wouldn't wait for this to happen to do it. These entities shouldn't exist. They poison the populace and externalize the costs of that onto us. They clearly hate their own workers. They participate in the cruelest institution ever, which is factory farming. They are drivers of the most environmentally damaging human activity ever, which is animal agriculture.
Opt out entirely, and enjoy your sense of integrity and improved health.
>>28813424
>not boycotting fast food for the shitty food and pink slime it serves, contributing to the obesity epidemic
>>28815039
No, everyone whose sole skill I'd breathing is fucked. Good, you dipshit speds don't deserve a job anyways. Can't even fucking remember "NO PICKLES" no matter how many times it's shouted at you.
KEK tradies are gonna get BTFO in the next 10 years when they also automated out of a job. like hoe hard could it be to make a robot that welds without crying for more wagies and longer breakies :^)
>>28815170
>falling for the pink slime meme
Besides, look at where you are, most of /r9kk hates themselves and hates their lives.
Who cares about healthy food? Healthy body? My shit is already fucked up, I wish born with a disease.
Long life? Kek, I'm not even 30 and I feel like 1000. Plus, I'm an omega male, I won't have a wife or children, ever.
I think I'm going to Popeye;s later, now that I think about it.
>>28813390
You are fucking wrong. They said the same thing when CNC was first introduced.
T. Machinist
>>28815259
Not that guy, but even if you don't care about the health of your food, why do you want to prop up a system that grinds you up alive like so many male chicks?
These people don't like you. These people want you to have poor health (or at least, they are completely indifferent to causing you bad health). They are your enemy. Don't support them; they hate you.
>>28815251
Pretty hard, since robotic welded have been around since the 60s. Still can't replace proper humans. Robots are good at doing menial, repetitive tasks, that's not gonna change in our lifetimes.
>>28815259
>hates themselves
Yet try to improve themselves all the time. A change from a shitty diet to a good one. Just a switch has been shown to have health improvements, which leads to better quality of life, which leads to increased self-confidence, which leads to being less depressed.
>>28815297
>They are your enemy.
You know who else is my enemy?
>invite millions migrants to take the jobs because the local population cant fill them out
>use robots to make millions of jobs obsolete
what are the jews playing at
is a civil war about resources their next step in the kalergi master plan?
there wont be a pan europa to rule because everyone will be dead
>>28815372
You may think I'm your enemy, but I'm not in any slightly more objective sense.
I don't do things to hurt you just to take your money, nor would I. These people actively fight against your interests only to make money off of you.
If someone were doing something against me in order to get something, I wouldn't willingly give it to them.
>>28812534
This along with liberalism will lead to totalitarian regimes.
We are fucked...
>>28813365
Honestly what the fuck is wrong with you senpai
>>28815588
Honestly, that dude is 100% right.
This shit is happening regardless, and unless we take back the means of production, we will all be on the dole (only to pacify us) while our corporate masters own literally everything
>>28813424
>The food I cook for myself is better anyway.
This is bullshit. I tried so hard and I could never make anything that tastes better than mcnuggets or mcfrench fries.
>>28814471
>Enjoy your $15 Big Mac instead of your $15 wages.
I ain't gonna have no job, so I ain't gonna be buyin no 15 dollar hamburgers.
>>28815810
Try a little sugar. That's the secret.
it's already happening, all the mcdonalds near me have these kiosks you can order from and only 1 cashier that isn't even at the front most of the time
>>28815810
How is what he said bullshit? Have you eaten anything he's made?
>>28815440
Yep, unless the right can offer an alternative other than "brah just git gud at life brah you deserve to lose your job!" we're going to get that.
A future with robots doing work sounds good, but what will people do with less work available?
It'd be great if people just didn't have to work anymore, but that won't happen. Money will always be required to get things, and free money won't be a thing.
This is the future. Welfare or basic income recipients will be the lower class, minimum wage increases alongside barriers to employment and the middle class will become "anyone with a job." No more entry level, suck it losers.
Upper class will remain the ownership class as always.
>>28816173
We need to nationalize the robots
not even kidding even a little
>>28815624
Maybe you should try having any valuable skills at all.
>no longer have to deal with living people in the service industry
Sounds like a Godsend to me
It'll be even better than the self checkout
>>28816173
>free money won't be a thing
It already is a thing and it will be a bigger thing in the future. Sooner or later everyone, or at least everyone that isn't working, will qualify.
>>28816263
M8, you have to understand that this is going to happen at higher and higher levels. Obviously it would, as that is exactly what is happening now. The robots are just a further extension of simpler machines. Obviously, this is going to continue to the "valuable skills" jobs.
>>28816285
You'll have to deal with them through increased taxes, riots, mass crime, etc.
>>28816372
This.
Corporatists think that welfare is for the poor. No, it's so the poor don't kill you.
>>28816391
Yep. Most people who hate welfare aren't in the position to be considered "safe" if society broke down. The middle class will be fucked just as much as much as the lower class.
>>28815033
Massacre us with what? The military sure as shit won't be helping them when they're going to be replaced by combat drones relatively soon as well.
Private militias composed of people who used to work jobs that were taken over by robots?
They're all gonna hire blackwater?
Keep dreaming retard. Once people start starving in the street because there literally are no jobs and welfare can't support the system this country will either enter civil war, open revolt, or just fail completely.
>>28816562
I can't wait
God, I want full on class warfare so bad. like violent
>>28814924
Sorry to tell you robot, but that is how it works.
Even as we speak, damn cash registers at stores are connected to the headquarters so they can remotely operate the software and/or install new software in case it breaks and the on-site tech person is too retarded to figure it out
t. Technology intern at a retail group
>>28816263
Even doctors, the people in school for the longest amount of time, will be replaced by robots more and more. First ones to go will be GPs which are the majority.
Mathematicians were the first ones to be replaced by computers and that's a very hard degree.
The only ones safe from this are engineers until AI is created. Basically everyone else will be jobless by the turn of the century.
I fucking hate people who eat fast food unironically and don't even know what a healthy diet is. The whole industry should just crash already.
>>28816646
Fuck off back to /fit/ normalfag cockroach.
And cut back on the memes. No one eats anything "ironically."
>>28816601
Modern registers run on a computer after all. The point of sale system is just a software and your support guys can take it over ezpz like remote desktop.
>>28816662
But I'm a robot. Really.
>>28816646
There is l i t e r a l l y nothing wrong with eating fast food.
You're an idiot.
>>28813343
Yeah and no fucking messed up fast food.
Soggy fries and hard tendies will be no more just FRESH N CHEEP food for our future
>>28816646
only reason i don't eat it is because it's expensive
i'm not paying $10 for a fucking burger and fries. do you know how many beans i can buy for $10?
>>28816611
>>28813365
>>28815624
See >>28816263
What the fuck is wrong with you autists? You can't replace some things that humans see charm in, I sell shitty knives for over 100 bucks a piece, and higher quality chefs will probably always be humans because people don't think robots are as charming as someone who fucks up constantly. Your mechanic will always be human and your barber will always be human. Get a trade.
>>28815033
Massacre? im all against basic income but you must be retarded
Basic income is not enough to save, but it's enough to spend.
It's like the state shifts money to Retails and Companies using us
If i was walmart i would be pushing really hard to pass basic income once i get robots
>>28816750
>do you know how many beans i can buy for $10?
Why don't you tell me, Bean Counter?
>>28816860
a lot
and it's healthy and nutritious
muh rice n beans
>>28816820
What the hell are you talking about? Why would my mechanic be a human if a machine can do it? That is to say, why would it be that way forever? Sure at some point it wouldn't be as "charming" but are you so limited that you can't even imagine us getting to a point where it didn't matter? We are already there, only with different "trades"
>>28816820
>I'm a college dropout woodworker
Well that explains everything. Yeah, you starving artists will always be starving artists. Robots can't replace you until sentient AI, but I would really qualify that as a skill you can learn.
>Chefs will always be human
Nope. Maybe one chef will design meals for a company's robotic chef software and they will just get an instruction set for it.
>Your barber will always be human
There will likely always be human barbers around, but chain barbers like great clips and shit will employ robotic barbers as soon as they are able to. Maybe a human or two in the store to do the stuff the robot doesn't have the dexterity for yet.
>Mechanic will always be robot
Fucking lmao. You know nothing about fixing cars, huh?
Trades will also be heavily replaced by robotics. Humans will be on staff but it will see heavy reductions in human employees. Soon enough even the oil rig or train conductor meme autist jobs will be roboticized.
>>28816891
Keep giving your money to the fast food jew
>>28816820
You sound old and stupid (the two don't have to go together, but in your case...)
The younger generations want less human contact, not more. People spit in your food. Human mechanics fuck you over on the bill. Dipshits try to sell you crappy 'handmade' knives for $100.
Humans will always be the weak point in any transaction.
>tfw independent furry artist
>>28816916
This scares the NEET
doesn't know how a car works when you need to fix one part.
We don't even have the technology to make an iPhone en masse without people.
Thinks people will hire nigger robots for their prestigious positions like brewer of spirits and high chef or lawyer.
Just autisms around about AI which isn't possible wits the current computer system.
>>28816988
i'm trying to make hentai games for money
if i could draw furry i would
>>28816957
>go to France to get different robot food
>>28816916
Welp, time to study mech and robotics so I can get paid to fix these fuckers when they break
>>28816957
>Degreeless NEET scared of losing minimum jobs
>U R AN STUPID AND OLD I don't like people so nobody likes people...)
>>28817034
>doesn't know how a car works when you need to fix one part.
So you are a college dropout. Fixing one part is the domain of machines we have TODAY. Machines put the cars together and you think they can't replace a single part? Do you have any idea how much mechanics rely on machines to do their jobs already? Ever had your tires aligned or rotated by hand? Ever have a tire replaced by hand?
>We don't even have the technology to make an iPhone en masse without people.
iPhones are 90% created by machines. People at foxconn don't actually put the phones together you dumb fuck.
>Thinks people will hire nigger robots for their prestigious positions like brewer of spirits and high chef or lawyer.
They will hire a team of human brewers to design the new menu, alcohol, etc, and then send an update out to their robots so they can now brew or cook that food themselves. This is how software works.
Lawyers, as in the ones that go with you to the courtroom, won't be robots until sentient AI. General legal advice type shit will be roboticized.
GPs will be replaced by robots as well because it's not hard to identify common ailments. Not even by a robot.
>Just autisms around about AI which isn't possible wits the current computer system.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Kill yourself with one of those knives.
>>28817266
Sold out, making an axe and hammer right now ;)
Why the fuck are people buying this shit it's like they don't even know robots are better than me doing the same thing?
Why do people even work at the iPhone factory if it's all machine? Why are little shit kids making shoes?
Mechanics aren't enterprises either, you probably won't see those guys with enough cash to get a machine because some people have to buy things, not their mom.
>>28817266
Holy fuck this asshole thinks AI and the singularity is real. TELL US ABOUT QUANTUM COMUTERS JEFFERY!
>>28817378
Surely, at one point in time, you could have asked those same questions about every other process that is now automated, right?
its baca use humans are cheap and versatile. A machine would have a shit fest is all it did was cop pepperoni and you handed it a lemon. Some things you need people for. That's why we have plumbers and janitors. Why aren't those gone?
>>28817130
he's right you retarted fuck. i never deal with people unless i have to.
>I'M OLD AND THINK EVEYBODY WANTS SHIT TO BE LIKE IT WAS WHEN I WAS 12 GET OFF MAH LAWN WAAAA
>>28817495
You forget where we are. What about chads and not mora you wierdo?
>>28817529
More of* weirdos* sorry I'm on a mobile shitposting device;)
>>28817415
What? I didn't say anything about the singularity. I said most jobs will be done by robots by 2100.
Quantum computers aren't anything special unless you care about cryptography or computer science.
>>28817378
>Sold out, making an axe and hammer right now ;)
>Why the fuck are people buying this shit it's like they don't even know robots are better than me doing the same thing?
Some people like the sentiment of handmade items. You're an idiot if you think that industry holds a candle to mass produced knives, axes, and hammers. Like I said: artists will always be around because people like art and it's the one thing machines can't do.
>Why do people even work at the iPhone factory if it's all machine? Why are little shit kids making shoes?
Quality control? Picking out the broken shit that machines can't recognize? Ever seen the inside of a factory before? Hardly anyone actually puts anything together. They either just throw shit on the conveyers or take shit off.
People make shoes in China because it's cheaper to pay a Chinese person to make shoes than to buy a robot to do it. It's not the same case in America hence why we have issues with illegals, Americans being replaced by imported third worlders (Intel just fired 10,000 Americans so they could import people on H1-Bs for less pay), outsourcing, etc.
>Mechanics aren't enterprises either, you probably won't see those guys with enough cash to get a machine because some people have to buy things, not their mom.
There are no mechanic chains? Are you retarded?
>>28817573
Oh, do you not have Ricardo and Pablo automotive in your autism compound?
So there are people who like art? Wow! That means some people think quality chefs are artists.
>>28812534
>Thousands more mechanic and electrical repairman jobs open up
>>28817691
They are trades. Talent scares socialists in a true rand world.
>>28817573
Don't sweat the dumbass. Even Gates thought 640K was more than enough for a computer at one time, fuck, old man Watson thought IBM would only sell maybe 2-3 computers.
There's always people who are convinced technological changes won't happen. They do regardless.
>>28817746
>Rand world
I was going to respond to this >>28817655 but after reading that I know I have been trolled.
Good job. 7/10. You need more work on addressing all the points in the post. It makes it more convincing.
>>28817802
Scared of shitposters and jobs at the same time;) thanks knowing people like you exist brings me here!
I love watching the American pundits go all "we can't afford to pay people $15/hr!!! We can't afford universal healthcare!! We can't afford free college!!!!" Like there aren't a bunch of other countries that already have all those things and they're doing fine.
Also robots won't be taking jobs until everyone born like pre 1975 is dead because old people just cannot deal with technology. I went to a store with my mom last night and all the regular checkouts were closed and just the self serve open. She flat out refused to use them because they're "taking jobs" and "hard to deal with" and demanded the people open a new lane just for her. People like my mom are proof this will not happen any time soon.
>>28813365
>parliament
Nice try Canada
Fuck off
>>28817842
Just as an aside, you know Rand used those horrible government funded creations called roads and spent the latter half of her life fighting for more benefits for people, right? And she collected social security and Medicare?
>>28817958
>doesn't know roads are based on a toll and ticket system, or that roads are good for developing towns.
>doesn't know that people had to build private roads for a long time
>just masturbates to Bernie's banter
>>28818008
Not that guy, but Ayn Rand was an actual idiot. Reading her as she tries to grapple with analytic philosophy is hysterical in how embarrassing.
If you are basing anything you think on anything she wrote, you should know that she was a hack who didn't understand philosophy at all.
>>28818059
All I care about from her is that if you're good at something, get paid for it. INCLUDING TRADES
>>28812534
>robotic counselors
>body part makers
>implying there's lots of human body part makers that will go out of business
>virtual lawyers
>FUCKING ROBOT LAWYERS
What the fuck? Can someone explain this shit to me?
>>28818139
lol
You keep saying "trades" as if things that are automated now weren't once trades
They were. There used to be people who made parts. Now they are made by machine.
What do you think is so special about the term "trades"?
>>28813390
can robots wire a building? how long until this happens
>>28818210
of course they could?
you'll be long dead by then, fampai
>>28818162
Most of what lawyers do is paperwork.
How the fuck iam I supposed to get a job in the future?
>>28818172
Weren't you dying degrees like medicine will be phased out?
>>28818210
as if modern technology hasn't boosted the productivity of construction workers.
https://youtu.be/rwvmru5JmXk
>>28818238
You aren't. Welcome to the glorious NEET future.
>>28818239
Saying* it's my socialist autocorrect machine:( soorrryyyy
>>28818239
I didn't say anything like that. I would (will) say that it is already happening.
WebMD is a perfect example of this. Also, I have a sister in law who is a doctor - she tells me that they use youtube vids to guide them through surgery.
I am more inclined to go to McDonalds now
No dumb nigger to fuck up inputting my order
I want 20 NUGGETS NIGGER
TWENTY
T W E N T Y N U G G E T S
>>28812534
80% of jobs can be fased out by robots and should be to allow for more people being able to advance science:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacque_Fresco#The_Venus_Project_and_later_career
>>28818234
so in other words I am "safe from this shit" as the other anon says
>>28818274
You're related to Reddit?
>>28818238
If you want to remain middle class you must remain employed / employable. The NEET are the vast lower class of the future.
Get valuable job experience NOW before it's too late. Oldfags with Experience and Training are given tremendously preferential treatment in employer selection. Future workers will be highly competitive and must possess good working skills. No more half assed entry level jobs. 2 years minimum experience required.
>>28818316
I wonder how much of your day is spent thinking about reddit?
honestly, I have no clue what the fuck you're talking about
>>28818337
:3 0 hours a day pal
>>28818237
Not really. It depends on the field of practice obviously, but there's an essential human element to being an attorney that I can't possibly imagine a machine is anywhere near replicating.
After thinking about it and doing a Google search, I think that ops article is just over exaggerating since the only thing I could find on the subject was online legal counsel, aka "virtual law firms", but those are run by actual human lawyers who just talk to clients over Webcams or chat instead of face to face (which is really fucking stupid imo)
>>28818239
No, that was me, and I said certain kinds of medicine will die out BY 2100.
I mean shit they even have robotic surgeons right now. They are LITERALLY better than human surgeons, and human surgeons even use the robots in manual mode to do really intricate shit.
>>28818345
30 hours a day?
I feel like that's not possible, yet somehow it's true
>>28818356
You pinkos run together. How's the job?
Architect/Analog Draftsman here
>tfw seven years of school all anyone ever did was talk shit about how drawing is dead in Architecture
>tfw spent the better half of a decade grinding on my trade skills, eschewing social life, bitches, the respect of my professors, peers, and to the frustration of my family
>work my way into a niche position at a firm that respects my hand, because this idea of a 'web' not a 'ladder' makes a lot of fucking sense today
>tfw entered a single drawing into a competition and immediately won first fucking place because historicist nostalgia jockeys think my drawings represent something that we all lost along the way
>robots come along
>tfw all my fucking idiot peers and professors who can't draw to save their lives and spend 8 hours a day wage cucking in AutoCAD to copy paste toilet stalls get replaced by algorithms
>tfw I have the freedom to think critically and realize my dreams with a set of complex skills I worked my ass off to make
>Anon, did you do this with a brush and water color?
>no I did that with a pencil
>how?!
Glory to tradesmen. The New Sovet Man is alive, his heart beats in our chest, brothers.
are we closer to robot gfs though?
>>2881837
0_o it IS disabled! you can't read?
>>28818210
New buildings? Yes. We're already working on modular construction where wiring and plumbing is built right in as part of all the smart building stuff.
Old buildings? Probably going to be safe for while.
>>28818413
Sorry>>28818373
It's my glorious Chinese machine?
>>28818320
Good thing I had job experience when I was 16. 18 now and thinking about joining the milatary to save me from being a NEET. Is milatary experience any good?
>>28818466
Yeh and it give you a free house
>>28818348
>>28818237
Never mind, I did more research and they're actually trying to make robot lawyers. That's insane. I can't imagine the technology being able to outdo a real lawyer in court until we create robot overlord level AI, at which point were all fucked.
>tfw work as a bouncer/security guard
my job is thankfully safe still
drones won't take over my job until they figure out acceptable power sources, autonomous computers capable of taking in a lot of different, subtle visual and audio cues, capable of processing in very different social contexts, and all sorts of other shit I'm sure only DARPA have even started to look at
and even then it's the kind of tech they're going to have to rollout to the military and government first for years, maybe decades before it ever affects my wagecuck job
wew
>>28818315
Yeah. Electricians and plumbers are going to be safe for awhile.
>>28818607
Brilliant option
I mean, most of us will be safe for most/all of our lives, but you're cool until they perfect robot ai to such a degree that they can be allowed to be violent - which is probably never
>>28818694
>most of us will be safe for most/all of our lives
Actual wagecucks, and by that I mean people working for anything less than $15/hr, will not be safe for most of their lives. Maybe another 10 years max before they can't work warehouse or fast food anymore.
>>28818466
Military can be a great start for youngfags, the pay's good for what's basically a dumb kid's job and they give you tons of training and benefits and shit. Employers also generally love vets since they're like a 'government certified worker.'
On the downside it's a commitment and you can't quit as easily as most jobs. You can't really do drugs either and have to exercise sometimes. Maybe a lot. It seems pretty strict, too strict for an oldfag like me at least.
>>28812534
>Virtual lawyers
SHUT IT DOWN
>>28812534
>tfw robotics engineer
>>28818466
honestly I wish I had
choose a job in the military which gives you some experience in a civilian skill and you have a backup plan while you pursue tertiary education, as well as valuable references for any job you look at
save the pay you get, don't waste it, and you get out of the military with at least a 100k in pocket, quite possibly more
free food, accommodation, medical, dental, you're guaranteed to leave the military healthier unless you get in an accident or get your knees/back fucked
quite possibly better life habits, more discipline etc
don't be me, if you can get a sweet deal out of your country's military, do it
This was gonna happen regardless.
>>28818838
caution: you will also become a brainwashed, living slave
>>28818868
you'd have to be a dumb person in the first place for that to happen
plenty of cynicism and black inappropriate humor in the military, I'd put good money on an average person going through a 4 year contract in the military still being less brainwashed than a 4 year arts degree in some liberal university
>tfw was about to swear in for 35P and got PDQ because of scars on your arm from when you were a stupid edgy 12yo.
>>28812534
Will the robot scream sexual harassment if you touch her touch screen boobie chest?
>replace every unskilled labour position with robots
>massive unemployment, angry young people and riots
>socialist revolution
>mfw
do it, McDonalds. do it for Lenin!
So what will be done with the leftover humans after these drivers, counselors, lawyers, stockers, cooks, farmers, cashiers, factory workers, surgeons, doctors, analysts, mathematicians, construction workers, and various craftsmen are replaced within the next ten years?No, your profession will not survive.
Surely there's enough space in the trades for tens of millions of swiftly unemployed young people?
Surely the masters of these robots will be happy to forfeit 85% of their income to people who contribute nothing?
Surely there will still be a consumer base for a nation that no longer pays its citizens to work?
>>28819059
Thank God we won't have to endure this shit much longer as capitalism eats itself
Deliver us, inexorable flow of time!
>m-muh free market!
fuck off, libtards. capitalism isn't sustainable. soon, the red flag will wave again.
> It's another; "lol just learn a trade bro" meme post
> Implying that plumbers and welders won't be among the first jobs to be replaced
>>28819059
>drivers, counselors, lawyers, stockers, cooks, farmers, cashiers, factory workers, surgeons, doctors, analysts, mathematicians, construction workers, and various craftsmen
>the next ten years
I can tell you right now that doctors, surgeons, analysts, lawyers, mathematicians (as in the ones who design the Jews money managing software), and probably actual chefs will still be mostly human in the next 10 years. The only jobs that will dry up within the next decade are fast food, factory, clerk/stocker, and warehouse.
>>28812534
What did these retards think would happen?
>we'll lobby for double our pay!! yeah!!! it will be legally mandated!!!! that means every single one of us is going to have the same job, the same hours, the same responsibilties, but get paid twice as much!!! the only thing that will change is that we will get paid two times what we were getting paid before!!!
Did they really think this would fucking happen? They didn't foresee the very obvious job losses, cuts, and replacements that would happen? Are entitled progressives really this fucking short-sighted and stupid?
>>28819220
Honestly, this needs to happen. We have to face this reality of capitalism. Do this en masse.
Give me a fucking reason, piggie
>>28819195
plumbers are here to stay lad. too many old houses with all kinds of fucked up and random piping. too many variables. robot plumbers, much like electricians, will only be a thing when housing becomes universally uniform, or significant advances in AI are made.
give me my basic income already so i can live as a glorious NEET forever
>>28819255
Or people figure out you can youtube anything
>>28819220
Liberals honestly and truly believe that behind every single local franchise owner, there is a large pot of money that he hides away for himself and uses to buy himself a 5th vacation home. They believed that a mandated minimum wage increase would force their "greedy, evil, corporatist who doesn't pay his fair share" to sacrifice his 6th vacation home in the tropics to increase their pay.
>>28812534
This is inevitable.
There are already robots able to sort little things and put them in box (not like those automatons in car industry, they can learn new gestures and recognize the parts, so you don't need a different one for every piece), even to make simple surgery acts. They'll just get better and cheaper.
It's kinda like washing machines: our grand-parents had to wash things themselves, and nowadays we are all using machines.
It makes no sense to have a big Warehouse full of temporary workers if you can have a robot making the job better, faster and cheaper.
> Also if you're yuropean, Robots are rarely on Strike
>>28819267
do you think most people have the tools or are willing to buy the tools to do plumbing?
do you think most people are going to want to snake drains?
>>28816173
>and free money won't be a thing.
basic income is going to be tested in Ontario Canada in september, which intends to give everyone unconditional 1000 dollars monthly, taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. With the increased use of robots, the amount would be greater because of the rich are richer
>>28819137
I don't care if it's "sustainable". If you don't have the abilities to survive, you die. It has been like that for millions of years. The only thing that isn't sustainable is keeping inferior people like you alive for no reason. We need less people on this earth, not more.
>>28819299
I don't know about most, but the number is going to increase, I would imagine.
>>28819321
>I don't know about most, but the number is going to increase, I would imagine.
As someone who worked as an assistant to a plumber for a few years I can tell you with absolute certainty that people DO NOT EVER want to touch their pipes.
Ever. They will pay $100/hr if it means they don't have to touch where their shit goes or their water comes from.
>>28819345
As someone who has looked up more and more processes that I would previous not have done due to ignorance, I can tell you that I wouldn't pay you shit for something I can do myself.
>>28819319
>dumbfuck who doesn't realize that he would be purged too if this were to happen.
The point of civilization and technology is to be better than "the natural way."
I bet you're the Randcuck from earlier, too, pretending to be someone else.
>>28819319
>posting on /r9k/
>believing yourself to be suprious to anything
keep chasing that american dream, anon. maybe if you keep working that till in Walmart, some rich CEO will drop by one day and give you his position.
>>28815389
Automation is coming. Most people, ITT or real life, don't quite understand the scope, and many of the elites are too old to care, but some important people do. What happens when you push 10% of the population (at first) out of the workforce, with no prospects? Dissension, eventually revolution. Bringing a massive amount of foreigners helps to dismantle national unity (see any study on trust and multiculturalism), and serves as a scapegoat for the anger of the masses.
>>28819250
>thread opens with counter argument to raising minimum wage, which is the simple real-life fact that employers won't pay someone more than what he generates in revenue
>you: "PROVIDE JUST 1 REASON!!! 1 REASON FUCKING PIGGIE!!!!!!!!!!"
The reason was already provided. It's called real fucking life, imbecile.
And as for this strange edgy anti-capitalist garbage you're softly touching on, could you propose a better system?
You want us to move to a socialist system that is inherently inefficient and pays people more than what they deserve? That sounds like a great way to stagnate innovation and inspire rampant, widespread loafing and leeching. Why would you want to change from an efficient system to a system that has in-built inefficiencies?
>>28819319
>We need less people on this earth, not more.
start by offing yourself
>>28819409
>more than what they deserve?
I don't think anyone deserves less than the amount necessary to live on.
>>28819409
What are you even talking about?
Did you just not understand what I was saying? I was saying, just give me a reason to string the rich faggots up. I'm more radical than most, but if you get a thing going, I would love it.
This is the reality we need to face. The interests collide violently.
The better system is violent redistribution and liquidating the fat.
>>28819392
I wouldn't. I don't need handouts from anyone.
>hurr durr, the point of civilization is that people give me their money because it isn't fair that I don't have any skills at all :(
Fuck you.
I'm not btw.
>>28819397
I only come here to stare and point at you people.
I'm not American, I have 400k EUR in the bank and NONE of that was given to me. Keep blaming your surroundings for being a failure and wallowing in selfpity. See where that gets you.
>>28819430
Nah, I like living.
>>28819559
>literally speaks the exact same way, down to the insults, as the randcuck from earlier
>claims not to be the randcuck
Neck yourself retard. Ancaps are the only ones that need purging.
>>28819559
>None of that was given to me
So on top of hating the superior system that strives for a post-scarcity society, you're a robber as well.
>yfw co-ordinated anti tech terrorist attacks fry our tech and send us back to the Victorian Era
You asked for this. At least we might get real steampunk out of the affair.
>>28819724
>imblying Muhammad 1 through 17 is capable of organizing something like that in a post-911 world
>>28819599
I'm not.
>>28819631
I have skills and I work. It's not rocketscience.
>>28819724
anything is better than this
>>28819755
maybe it would be some disaffected NEET
>>28812534
This was inevitable. We need to figure out what to do with all these people who are about to be automated out of their jobs in the next ten years. We've been propping up the economy with endless war and easy access to consumer credit, and soon we're going to have 50% unemployment no matter what we do. We have to start a lot of fucking soul searching and look at what the labor market really is, what a Fiat currency is, and who we are as a society.
>>28819779
Fiat currency is here to stay forever. Sorry Ron Paul.
The labor market is slavery. Everyone, even the elite, knows this. They're just enjoying the ride for as long as they can.
>>28819828
>enjoying the ride for as long as they can
which suggests an end, so it's probably not here forever
>fear mongering to scare employees to accept shit wages
kek I hope wageslaves don't fall for it
>>28819433
Why? People pay you based on the value you provide. If you can't figure out a way to create any value higher than bare minimum wage, why should the government force people to pay you more than what you are creating in value? You want the government to force people to pay employees $15 when they are only generating $7 of value for the company? That's how you kill small business. By the way, employers WON'T do that, they will simply get rid of that person, so before he was making $7 and now he's making $0. Zero dollars is "less than the amount necessary to live on," the last time I checked.
What you're saying only sounds nice. I almost said "it sounds nice in theory," but I can't even say that. It doesn't sound nice in theory. It sounds evil in theory. To force someone by law to pay people an exorbitant amount "just because they were born and deserve it" is evil. That's a soft form of stealing from a business or franchise owner.
I don't buy the idea that just because you're born, you deserve free shit. This world is not "fair," but the capitalist system is surprisingly fair. If you are a lazy piece of shit who drags his feet at a menial labor job, you get paid accordingly. If you work hard and create a great product that many people want, you will get paid accordingly.
Even if you work menial jobs right out of high school, you will start climbing the ladder after some years and get pay raises and promotions, if you are a good worker. Being a good worker opens doors to new opportunities. There are only 2 ways to be poor and stay poor for life, in the USA:
1. not work
2. have a child out of wedlock before age 18
I've studied this issue for years and those are the only 2 ways someone can maintain an income level below the poverty line for their entire lives. Study after study confirms it. Even if you work the shittiest of available jobs possible, bare minimum wage with low hours, you can start climbing the ladder and raise yourself above the poverty line.
>>28819828
>The labor market is slavery.
No it isn't you retard.
>>28819848
Kill big business and small business at once
Shit is happening no matter how you REEE about it
>>28819755
It'll be white men who do it, just like literally anything significant in this world. "Brilliant and misunderstood"
>>28819777
>yfw you have to tap out the captcha in morse and if you want to post an image you have to actually post it, that is send it through the mail
I just hope we revive Passenger Pigeons before we EMP ourselves.
>>28819848
capitalism is fair when it works, right now it isn't working
there are no fucking jobs. people are swarming out of colleges with no opportunities, employers demand 5 years of experience for entry level positions.
>>28819848
>Why?
Because "purge the weak" is a stupid sentiment to live by. I fully agree that the people who can work, but don't because they're lazy, should be kicked in the ass and forced to work. Their welfare should be cut and whatever else. Welfare should have more reviews per year, more testing to see if you're actually as autistic as you say you are, etc.
But to just let people die because they can't work (for example, an "autistic" (I'll use that instead of mental illness because you seem the type to discredit mental illness in general) person who simply has no hopes of ever passing an interview with any employer). That's barbaric, and we should have long since moved on from that.
>why should the government force people to pay you more than what you are creating in value?
Well they shouldn't. They should pay you what you are actually creating in value. A person who loads trucks in a warehouse (I used to do this, and the trailers were regularly valued at millions of dollars worth of merchandise) gets paid a pittance for the value he creates. Right now, people are paid MUCH less than what they are generating for the owner. Profit margins shouldn't be 1,000% if it means that people are stuck in poverty because you don't want to pay them enough.
>to pay people an exorbitant amount
A living wage provided to every person who cannot work would not be exorbitant. Welfare/neetbux regularly pays people over $1000/month and the system isn't crashing yet. If you were in the military you can get upwards of $3000 for PTSD related disabilities. You think I want everyone to have a 6 figure salary per year. I don't.
>This world is not "fair," but the capitalist system is surprisingly fair.
Tempted to stop reading here but I won't. The point of civilization and government in general is to make life more fair. Otherwise everyone would just be an ancap and rape and pillage when it suited them more than cooperating.
>Even if you work menial jobs right...
Stopped reading.
>M-Muh basic income!
So how will that be paid for?
>The rich and super wealthy!
The rich already pay the vast majority of taxes, how are they going to pay so much that everyone has their own free income?
>I-It needs to happen! THE FUTURE!!!!
Confirmed retards.
>>28816611
>I study lutheran theology at a german uni and will be a pastor in the german lutheran state church of bavaria.
I think I am pretty safe, unless I mess up my studies. Robots cannot fake human interaction (pastoral care) or convincingly preach about internal psychological matters of humans.
>>28820028
>So how will that be paid for?
Didn't even read your post past this
You're one of those idiots that jumps into a discussion with no clue
>>28820059
Wow, let me guess. The government will print this money. It's like you people never took high school econ.
>>28820028
>how are they going to pay so much that everyone has their own free income?
Perhaps by lowering themselves to a "lowly" multi-millionaire status instead of multi-billionaire.
How horrible for them!
>Confirmed retards.
Whether you believe it or not, something drastic is going to happen when shit starts getting automated and unemployment starts climbing. The current welfare system CANNOT support that many unemployed people.
Either the gubbermint will purge the poor, or the more likely scenario: the poor will forcibly remedy the situation. It has happened COUNTLESS times already throughout history.
Google the fucking French Revolution if you don't believe me.
>>28819930
>right now it isn't working
Due to over regulation, which caused stagnation and loss of jobs
Johnson's war on poverty and institution of the minimum wage increased Black poverty rates by astronomical levels when before that time, Black GDP and other markers of success had been climbing steadily over decades
if you want market growth and job creation then de-regulate.
>>28820083
google it, that question is so basic and has been answered hundreds of times
>>28820059
?? No I really want an answer to this.
Not him but how do you suppose the government will pay for basic income of all people? Do you think that children should get a basic income? At what age should you get a basic income? Who will determine what is the cost of living and determine if the basic income meets that mark? A basic income for someone living in a small rural kentucky town might be sufficient, but that same dollar figure is nowhere near sufficient to live in an urban environment, and urban people are usually the ones that need assistance from gov't to live because they're so poor.
>>28820093
>if you want market growth and job creation then de-regulate.
Please kill yourself.
There is no reason to even respond to this seriously.
>>28820142
Don't respond because you can't. I understand. I win.
>>28816880
No amount of beans tastes as good as a burger and fries.
As I am not a wagecuck, it doesn't worry me the slightest.
>>28815039
>Lefties hate guns may-may
The fuck are you on about? Leftists have always looked for ways to arm the working class in glorious socialist revolution.
They just put them back in their rear donut hole when they're done murdering bourgeois fuccbois.
I can't wait for crime rates to go through the roof. Then there's the hackers who will find a way to destroy this
>>28819828
Well for a segment of the population, we'll have to accept that they won't be generating labor value in the traditional sense, and they will be having children. What should we do with them? I'm a lefty too, I'd like to dedicate them to making the human race better instead of grubbing for scraps.
What if we cut taxes to companies who pay minimun wage instead of forcing globaly by law
>>28818509
As someone working in the field of AI and robotics, until we reach a major breakthrough in AI, you will likely see 2 things happen.
1. Grunt work searching for precedent completely eliminated by AI. A much needed and appreciated tool for human lawyers. No human can know every case that is relevant to them but an AI can.
2. Natural language processing for simple requests for legal advice. I have X business, what legal steps do I need to take to do Y? Essentially an improved version of what google already does for you.
t. roboticist
>>28820156
Not him. Grow the fuck up.
>>28820141
>Not him but how do you suppose the government will pay for basic income of all people?
see >>28820085
>At what age should you get a basic income?
Whenever you are living on your own and supporting yourself. If you parents are supporting you then you get nothing.
>Who will determine what is the cost of living and determine if the basic income meets that mark?
This is the hardest part of this. The answer is that it is going to vary based on where you live, both state and urban/rural. I live in a major city and you could get by on $1200 a month fairly easily with some left over. $1200 a month in California or New York will see you homeless or starving.
As for how much people would receive, it should be calculated based on analysis of how much a person needs in a given area to
>pay their rent
>pay for their food
>pay for insurance, car as well as medical if you own a car
>pay for their bills
>have some left over.
without resorting to things like eating rice and beans every day, living in a car, using medicaid and foodstamps, etc.
Yes, it's not that simple, but this is just a rough idea.
>>28819216
Yes but many of those professions will be robot assisted which means a single surgeon/etc can work much more productively meaning we will not need as many.
>>28812941
Switzerland is voting for a $2500/month basic income
ids habbeding
>>28820219
Yeah remind me why that other guy doesn't need to "grow the fuck up" but i do? If I make reasoned arguments citing specific evidence that you can look up in an encyclopedia, I need to "grow the fuck up" but if I just tell someone he's dumb and I won't respond to his well-reasoned argument, I'm perfectly mature?
>>28819286
what robot can perform simple surgery acts?
>>28820199
>and they will be having children. What should we do with them?
Institute an income based law that restricts the amount of children you can have.
>homeless? can't have kids.
>poor but not destitute? you can have one.
>rich as fuck? have as many as you want.
Also require all prospective parents to submit to a parenting test to get a permit for having a child.
>>28820272
You realize what a 2500$ monthly income means in expensive as fuck switzerland, right?
It is kinda as trying to live off of 700$ in the US
>>28820272
i doubt it will pass
>>28820085
>Perhaps by lowering themselves to a "lowly" multi-millionaire status instead of multi-billionaire.
>How horrible for them!
Oh boy it's the fun leftist game again! They love to play this game, it's called "playing god!"
This time we aren't deciding what qualifies as life and destroying anything that doesn't fit our definition! No, we're saving that for tomorrow!
Today, we're playing god by deciding how much money a person deserves! Why do we get to decide this? Just because, we're playing god!!! See how that works? We don't need a reason or evidence or logic, we don't need fairness or morality, we're just playing god! Watch:
"If you make more than an arbitrary amount of money, I'm now declaring that you make too much money and need to have the rest stolen from you! We'll give the stolen money to other people who've done nothing for it."
See! Isn't Playing God fun? It's my favorite leftist game! Let's do it again some time!
>>28820303
>what robot can perform simple surgery acts?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot-assisted_surgery
tl;dr: they use them for roastie surgeries and heart surgeries sometimes.
>store relies solely on self checkout
>alienates all the elderly customers who can't figure it out
>alienates all stupid people who can't figure it out
>shrink sky rockets because a machine is easier to trick than a cashier
>store relies on robostocker3000
>customers see no humans around, much less scared to shoplift around robots than humans
>robot can't have any physical security measures because there could accidentally mistake a normal customer as a shoplifter and could hurt them
>more aggressive customers are much more likely to harm or disrupt a robot than a regular employee, and will easily disable the robots while in camera blindspots
>shrink sky rockets because there is a smaller human presence in the store
I want robots but I just don't see it working out.
>>28813343
>"What sauce would you like with that?"
>The bag contains no sauce
Can't come quick enough. It's fucking teenagers anyway, they don't need money.
>>28820350
Where in the US? In the middle of nowhere midwest that's a hell of a lot better than what a fast food job will get you unless you're working 24/7. I make $700 and rent a 1 bedroom house with a big yard and eat all the overpriced convenience foods I want. The dude who lived here before me did all that on $600/m and still managed to buy two ounces of good weed each month.
>>28820316
>Also require all prospective parents to submit to a parenting test to get a permit for having a child
Considering this hasn't been implemented so far, what makes you think it will ever be?
>>28820377
>first 10 words contain leftist
>post consists of arguments about subjective morality and how "stealing" money from people who make billions is somehow worse than "stealing" from low wage earners despite the amount of profit they generate
>arbitrary amounts of money argument
Just kill yourself.
I'll give you this one though: Anyone can live lavishly for the rest of their natural life on 1 million dollars. Multiple millions instead of billions will not impact these people's lives.
Keep in mind I'm talking about PERSONAL wealth.
>>28817868
All those other countries don't pay for a fucking military you moron.
I would assume once a society becomes completely automatized for low level jobs, the welfare state would pick up the slack as well as taxing these robo-corps higher amounts to pay the difference
>>28820377
>>28820377
>"If you make more than an arbitrary amount of money, I'm now declaring that you make too much money and need to have the rest stolen from you! We'll give the stolen money to other people who've done nothing for it."
Either these robots get destroyed/hacked/looted by poor people or people get some kind of basic income. What you fuckservatives don't consider is that poor people will justifiably commit crimes at a MASSIVE rate when this happens. It won't like today where you can just lock up niggers because all you need is to jail every black male aged 16-25. You will need to jail like 100 million persons to make your automated society safe
>>28812534
Robots literally do it for free. Along with No bitching. No asking for vacation days. No sick days. No stealing. No slacking off. No lunch breaks. No spitting/pissing/jizzing in the food and drinks. Always polite. Can be there 24/7.
Honestly, what the fuck do wageslaves have to offer?
>>28820468
It's already gradually becoming that way desu, all this riots and civil unrest, police scandals and orwellian government.
>>28820428
>Considering this hasn't been implemented so far, what makes you think it will ever be?
If the amount of children being born and abandoned becomes a greater burden on the welfare state then it's a logical answer. Don't let people who aren't mentally capable of taking care of kids have kids. Once you are guaranteed a source of income the only influencing factor for abandoning children would be capability to parent.
>>28820510
>Honestly, what the fuck do wageslaves have to offer?
A smile :)
>>28816820
>sell shitty knives
>valuable skill
See, you're the cunt who needs to lose his job and learn something useful. Instead you "earn" your keep by shilling useless products that somebody else is doing better. You think you can downtalk your own effort and simultaneously convince everybody else you're doing something worthwhile? You're a joke.
>>28820403
this is what the cuntservatives don't get. This isn't Japan where everyone is a low test beta male who will just sit there and take it. We have a fairly large and well armed population. You robots will be shot, hacked, robbed, etc. It won't even be nogs doing it but simply working class white males
>>28820468
Also they can be programmed for any occupation there. Hell, they can be their own register and do the math all at the same time without any help.
>>28820519
They can build/program a smile on the robot.
>>28820510
Call centers are a classic example of computer automation.
People just like dealing with other people. If nothing else just so they can vent their anger at a PERSON rather than ranting impotently at an uncaring machine.
>>28820518
Do you think everyone that has children is capable of properly raising them?
>>28820570
Lips don't make money but they come free on a human worker
>>28820580
>Do you think everyone that has children is capable of properly raising them?
No, that's why we need the parenting test/license.
It won't happen until the amount of kids becomes an issue, but it should.
I guess Colleges will have to give people actual working/job experience if this becomes a thing.
>>28820570
>Also they can be programmed for any occupation there.
Also they can get hacked pretty easily. Again America is a country with a long history of war and an armed population. This will not happen without widespread chaos
>>28820576
Call centers are a different beast altogether. If the dumbfucks would give me enough options to choose from when I call them then I wouldn't spam 0 or garbage when I have to do something on the phone.
When those automated operators work they are wonderful because I don't have to deal with incompetent third worlders with accents to pay my fucking bills.
>>28820661
>Also they can get hacked pretty easily
Do you have a citation for that? A lot of stores are run by computers and they're not hacked easily right now. Why would it change with robots?
You all fucking retards deserved it, in my country people working for 15$ per DAY or even less. And you can't get your ass up, now there's niggers, spics, chinks and robots.
>>28820685
>in my country people working for 15$ per DAY or even less
Your cost of living is probably 10x less than what it costs to live in America.
>>28820377
>If you get more than an arbitrary amount of money
They don't make or earn those ridiculously overvalued figures.
Guys, people can still work. We will need SOMEBODY to manufacture/fix/oversee/program the machines.
>>28820685
>we've been buttfucked by our corrupt government and no one wants to change anything for me
>I can't believe YOUR lives are better, whats wrong with you?
>>28816611
>Mathematicians were the first ones to be replaced by computers and that's a very hard degree.
Its hilarious how this sentence basically tells everyone that you don't know what you're talking about. Employment prospects for mathematicians in private industry are getting better and better, and have been since computers came about.
Computer don't do mathematics. They do computation and plug and chug away at algorithms.They're absolute shit at math.
Will there be security robots in these McDonalds? Because all it will take is a nigger with a fireaxe and he's eating all the nuggets on the line.
>>28820441
>is somehow worse than "stealing" from low wage earners despite the amount of profit they generate
You're vaguely referencing a chart produced by the EPI. Unfortunately for you, the chart you're referencing is not right. It's simply not true that productivity of workers has been increasing and their wages have remained the same (thus leading to your meme that rich people are "stealing from low wage earners"). It's just a meme, it's not true. As productivity increases, wage increases.
The narrative of the left seems to be:
"workers of today are creating soooooooo much more money per individual than they used to! There's a lot more money being made than in previous times! The Greedy Top 1% are just stealing all the extra money for themselves!"
And this narrative is not true. It is based largely on the chart produced by the EPI and the narrative has been constructed and championed by lovely people like Elizabeth Warren.
To produce the meme-chart, which you only seem to be vaguely aware of (because you obviously saw it twice on FaceBook, accepted it uncritically without analyzing it, can't name the organization that created it or their methods), the EPI used roughly 60% of the work force to calculate productivity of the entire work force. They did some other data manipulations as well, to make the chart look scarier.
I've attached an accurate, unbiased chart to this post that calculates productivity CORRECTLY.
Next time you see a young liberal female share a chart from the page "We Love Hillary!" you really ought to check out what the chart means, how it was made, who made it, and why.
>>28820734
Im sure the security industry will see a small boon, but nothing to compensate for all of the lost jobs.
>>28820685
It's not the minorities and robots faults that white people are so lazy and expect triple to quadruple digits of bucks an hour for doing nothing but text on their new iphones.
>>28820753
but that chart clearly says compensation is going down while productivity is being forced to go up. we're not living in the 90's anymore. if you look at your calendar you would notice we're actually at the end of that graph
>>28820705
I'm sure you can easily live in the USA for a minimum wage. The only problem in your west countries is that you can run out of cocain.
>>28820753
Not reading your post because your second sentence was "Unfortunately for you, the chart you're referencing is not right. It's simply not true that productivity of workers has been increasing and their wages have remained the same..."
That chart clearly shows, that starting in ~2008, wages began to stagnant and productivity kept increasing at the same pace as before.
>>28820537
>simply working class white males
Those still exist?
>>28820685
>in my country people working for 15$ per DAY or even less.
>we deserved to be fucked because we won't live in cardboard boxes and slave for Vlad Thundercock
>>28820840
>I'm sure you can easily live in the USA for a minimum wage.
You can't. Minimum wage is $7,25/hr. Assuming you work 40hr weeks, you're making 1160/month gross. About 80% of that is what you will take home even as a single male living alone (You will get everything you paid in taxes back as a return, but that's besides the point).
So you get ~930 dollars to live every month. Depending on where you live (New York, for example), you will be homeless on that amount.
Okay?
Less labor is better.
>>28820706
>They don't make or earn those ridiculously overvalued figures.
........Obviously they do, though. That money is coming from somewhere. Where does it come from? It comes from their business. The CEOs get paid that much money because obviously their business is making that much money.
If "they don't ACTUALLY make or earn that much money" then where does their salary come from? Thin air? Generous donors?
If they didn't run a business that made huge amounts of money, obviously they wouldn't be getting paid huge amounts of money.
But because they do head a successful business that makes lots of money, they have a salary that is lots of money.
This is basic 5th grade reasoning.
I'm being somewhat facetious though. I know what you're REALLY saying is that "it doesn't seem fair that a guy sitting at a desk is making $500/hour while a guy down in his factory is making $25/hour for much harder physical work." Ok, I can kind of see your point there.
But it only SEEMS unfair. What you don't realize is that the CEO is juggling decisions that will either propel the ENTIRE COMPANY towards success, or towards total failure, stagnancy, and collapse. You're also not remembering that the CEO created the business a long time ago and built the business himself until it became the powerhouse that it is today.
>Normalfags will steal our NEETism because of this.
>Hello sir, can I take your life, money, wife *khhm* I mean order?
>>28820681
>A lot of stores are run by computers and they're not hacked easily right now.
Stores get hacked ALL the time. Target,Walmart,etc. Hackers use cash registers to steal credit card info all the time
http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/19/technology/security/target-data-hack-settlement/
>>28820973
>anecdotal article
>It happens like, ALL of the time, really!
>>28820823
A small trend in the very final 5 years. You'll still notice that the value is only a few percentage points away.
Even arguing from the point of biggest difference, this shows that the leftist narrative is simply untrue. It's not true that there are "enormous piles of money lying around that only super rich people take for themselves rawr!" This analysis shows that workers are generally compensated the same, minus a deviation that is not statistically significant (it's less than 1 s.d. away).
You'll also notice that for most of the past, workers have generally been paid MORE than their productivity. That doesn't even slightly challenge your world view that "evil shitty capitalism sucks GRRRR"???
>>28820944
>then where does their salary come from?
Depends. If you have to report to other people as a CEO then they determine what arbitrary amount you get. If you run your own company, then you just decide to take whatever you want as personal income."
>What you don't realize is that the CEO is juggling decisions that will either propel the ENTIRE COMPANY towards success, or towards total failure, stagnancy, and collapse.
This isn't really fair. CEOs have tons of advisers and other people to help them make these decisions. It's not like he's just sitting there doing this alone unless his company is small, which leads to the next point.
>You're also not remembering that the CEO created the business a long time ago and built the business himself until it became the powerhouse that it is today.
If this is the case, then you deserve to make a lot of money if you're making correct decisions. That's fine. This is probably only the case with smaller businesses however, where the owners aren't making millions and millions of dollars per year in personal income.
We're talking about people who rake in billions per year. Those people do next to nothing. They hoard money and abuse tax laws to keep as much of it as possible so they can use it to make even more money.
The fact of the matter is that you don't need 12 billion dollars. For any reason. I don't know what the "correct" amount of money someone should have as a maximum should be, but it is certainly less than 12 billion, and probably less than 1 billion as well.
If you reduced all these billionaires to 1 billion dollars you would have more than enough to give everyone $3000 a month and more, and the people you are "stealing" from would not suffer even the slightest bit.
Good fucking riddance.
I worked at a mcdonalds for 2 years when I was in college. The managers don't care about you, corporate just sit there and circlejerk over numbers, new employees take a while to train and it doesn't help when you're shortstaffed constantly, or your coworkers walk out for no fucking reason. The customers treat you like shit and belittle you over the smallest fucking thing. If you so much as disagree with them, they'll start having a fucking aneurysm.
In the two years I worked there, things just kept getting worse. And if you have to close, chances are you'll have to deal with retards that that get asshurt because they can't get a big mac at fucking midnight.
Fuck that noise.
>>28821013
except it does
It's a common and easy thing to do. When automation leaves billions out of work globally it'll basically become like the common cold
http://www.hngn.com/articles/40068/20140823/cash-register-hack-affected-over-1-000-u-s-businesses.htm
>>28821119
>That doesn't even slightly challenge your world view that "evil shitty capitalism sucks GRRRR"???
Only idiots say capitalism ALWAYS sucks. Capitalism is great when it works. The problem is that we are reaching the limit of capitalism functioning for everyone, and nearing the time where it really only functions for the very wealthy.
As memetic as it is, this is really an issue regarding the "1%," or even the 1% of that 1%.
Accept it faggots, the robots will build a better civilization than you filthy humans with muh feelings.
>>28812534
Thisthread has been up for a long time.
>>28818757
>getting bullets fired at you is a good start for youngfags
>no more niggers, spics, or Indians touching my food
Let's do this
>>28821456
obviously don't join the army during war, or as the dumb infantry guy unless that's your thing and you like it.
>>28821203
>The fact of the matter is that you don't need 12 billion dollars
Why do you get to decide that? Nobody "needs" 12 billion dollars, but to suggest that because they don't need it, we should steal it from them and redistribute it equally to everyone, is evil.
But you know what, fine. Let's cut down the billionaire with 12,000,000,000. Let's take 100% of his money because he's been rich for too long! He already has a big house, what does he need more money for? So let's just take all of his money and then redistribute it fairly to everyone!
Alright, let's redistribute this evenly to everyone in the U.S.A.! Ok, I did the math, and I'm proud to announce that we're going to save Murrika by giving everyone....... thirty seven dollars and seventy four cents. That will last 1 trip to the grocery store. Wow, I'm really glad we saved Murrika by stealing from a rich guy!!
Meanwhile we killed a business that was making good products, pissed off all business owners nationwide and made them paranoid we'll do the same to them, inspiring them to flee the country, raised the price of goods, made all people scared to create a business for fear of becoming a target, destroyed the economy, deleted hundreds (or thousands of jobs), and committed the immoral act of stealing from another human being, all while convincing ourselves that we're good people.
How many times do we have to steal 12 billion dollars from 1 guy, and re-distribute it to 318 million people so that everybody gets forty dollars, before the country is saved and all poverty is deleted from the nation? We can do this 50 times, giving everyone in the nation $2,000 which is good for maybe 1 month. And that's at the cost of jobs, businesses, startups, livelihoods of people that were working there, etc.
>>28821574
>will go NEET for any circumstance in which he earns less than $2billion
>expects the respect of his fellow man
>>28821522
a limp wristed robot would probably get put into supply and logistics. its obvious at first glance that none of us should be on a frontline
>>28821574
>Why do you get to decide that? Nobody "needs" 12 billion dollars, but to suggest that because they don't need it, we should steal it from them and redistribute it equally to everyone, is evil.
But it's not evil to hoard that money while other people are suffering because they were dealt shitty cards at birth or some other reason out of their control? You're on this board, so surely you don't believe in the Just World Fallacy shit. Why is it okay for one person to hoard money and pay people a pittance that forces them to live like shit, but not okay to take money that the hoarder isn't using except to make more money and give those suffering people better lives? Because he started a business that created shitty jobs for people to live just barely above the poverty line for?
Not everyone should be entitled to the basic income or whatever you want to call it. If you are already working a job that would pay you more, then you don't get any. If you're not working a job you could be because you don't want to, then you don't get any. If you aren't working a job because you either can't, or there are not jobs for your skillset, then you are entitled to it.
And before you start talking about "just get the skillset to work a better job then!" you have to realize that it's not always possible to do that. People who are born poor and grow up in shitty households with single mothers probably won't be able to get the grades necessary, solely as a result of their awful home life, to get a free ride to school. If you skipped university and decide you want to go to trade school after working a few years wageslaving, that's not always possible. If school was free then you would have a point with this sort of argument, but it isn't. Sometimes you just get fucked when you're born and you either fold your cards early, or you try to deal with it and live the best you can. If the best you can live is destitute or homeless in the fucking US, then there is clearly a problem.
>>28821738
>But it's not evil to hoard that money while other people are suffering because they were dealt shitty cards at birth or some other reason out of their control?
No, it's not evil to have money. By your argument, it's evil to have any amount of money at all. As long as there is 1 homeless guy on the street who can't eat tonight, anywhere in America, YOU PERSONALLY are evil for not sending a $500 check to him right now. At what point does it then become evil to have money? What dollar figure, exactly, is it? Is it when you have $50,000? Is it $49,999? What is the exact dollar amount that you have to own to qualify as evil for not sharing it?
>Why is it okay for one person to hoard money and pay people a pittance that forces them to live like shit
Why is it okay to legally mandate that people be paid more than what they are producing? We've already established that people are paid according to their productivity. If you aren't productive, unfortunately you don't get paid. If you have a disability then we ALREADY DO pay you because we realize it's not fair to let disabled people die for no reason. That's not an issue on the table. The issue is able-bodied, average IQ people working. You get paid what you produce. That's that. A rich person having money has no relation to another person's life. It's not "evil" to have money while another person does not. The rich person has nothing to do with the poor person not having money. If the poor person wants more money, then he needs to find a way to produce more.
>If you are already working a job that would pay you more, then you don't get any.
This is a great way to crash the economy, as the average man earning barely above the basic income will quit his job in favor of doing no work at all and getting paid nearly the same, which causes myriad businesses to totally fail, leading to a depression worse than the 20s.
this got me paranoid about my wage whenever i got back to work. i'm in the safe but i need to go back and find another job in the company.
>>28812534
>working at mc dicks
>eating at mc dicks
cmon now
>>28821997
>not wanting to eat dick
what are you, gay?
>>28821367
>the robots will build a better civilization than you filthy humans with muh feelings
ROBOFUS WHEN
>>28821934
>No, it's not evil to have money. By your argument, it's evil to have any amount of money at all.
Where did I say this? All I said was that no one needs 12 billion or even 1 billion dollars. I don't know what the amount of money one should be allowed to have is, but I do know that having more than 1 billion is too much for any one person. I certainly don't support this narrative you're making up where every single person must give until everyone is equal.
>Why is it okay to legally mandate that people be paid more than what they are producing? We've already established that people are paid according to their productivity.
We haven't. You posted a chart that clearly shows that since 2008 people are being paid less than what they producing, and that gap is only becoming larger.
>The issue is able-bodied, average IQ people working. You get paid what you produce.
Yes, I agree. Pay people in accordance to what they produce. That's not happening right now.
>If you have a disability then we ALREADY DO pay you because we realize it's not fair to let disabled people die for no reason.
If you knew anything about disability payments, you would know that most people on it get less than $1000/month, which we both know is not enough to live on unless you get section 8 housing, which has a years long waiting list, and foodstamps in the max amount, which you don't get because they cut them when you start making any income.
>It's not "evil" to have money while another person does not.
Agreed.
>The rich person has nothing to do with the poor person not having money.
Disagreed. The rich person responsible for paying the poor person a wage that isn't reflective of his contributions and necessity to the functioning of the company is directly responsible for that poor person's poverty.
>This is a great way to crash the economy, as the average man earning barely above the basic income will quit his job in favor of doing no work at all
Then give them a percentage of it.
>>28822066
>Where did I say this?
....You said it's evil to hoard money. At this point I showed you how dumb that argument is by way of argumentum ad infinitum. If it's evil for someone to "hoard 12 bil" then is it evil for a guy to hoard 11 bil? What about 10 bil? 9 bil? 1 bil? 1 million? Is it evil for a guy to hoard $50,000? At what point does it become "evil" to have money while other people (people you're not related to in any way) have no money?
>We haven't. You posted a chart that clearly shows that since 2008 people are being paid less than what they producing, and that gap is only becoming larger.
Ok, we'll agree to disagree then. I showed you that the amount paid is less than 1 standard deviation away from the amount produced. That means the amount of difference is not statistically significant, yet. If this trend continues then we will have a problem, but the trend won't continue because people quit jobs when they aren't getting paid according to what they produce, the amount paid will quickly increase to entice workers back to the job, and the problem is eliminated. This is why the two values have so closely mirrored each other throughout the history of the country.
>>28822265
>argumentum ad infinitum
Which isn't a valid argument tactic...
>At what point does it become "evil" to have money while other people (people you're not related to in any way) have no money?
I'm not going to keep repeating this. Learn to read.
I don't know what the maximum amount people should be allowed to have is. All I know is that NO ONE needs or should have more than 1 billion dollars. For any reason. Any amount of money less than this is fine to me, although I'm sure others would support a much smaller number.
>but the trend won't continue because people quit jobs when they aren't getting paid according to what they produce
Americans quit jobs for this. The company then imports people who will work for less. See Intel's latest firing of thousands of Americans so they can import people from India and other countries and even admit it's because they can pay them less with their explanation being "it helps the economy."
There will always be someone willing to work for less than you. That doesn't mean that you or that person are being paid according to what you produce or fairly at all.
>This is why the two values have so closely mirrored each other throughout the history of the country.
Yes, I agree, but as you can see the trend right now is a decrease in wages and an increase in productivity. This isn't the first time this has happened, and the result is always the same.
>>28812534
as someone who is currently getting payed $15 an hour, I'd be pretty activated if minimum went up to that
>>28822365
>Which isn't a valid argument tactic...
Sure it is. It simply means to apply the logic of your argument infinitely, in a series. I did so by asking, "if it's evil to have 12 billion dollars, is it evil to have $11,999,999,999?" I showed that it's ridiculous to think that someone magically becomes evil the moment they get their 1 millionth dollar (or whatever $ amount you decide is "evil to hoard").
>Americans quit jobs for this. The company then imports people who will work for less.
And then the Americans apply for a new job with intel's competitors.
See, this is the thing about Murrika. When you leave people to their devices, these types of things tend to sort themselves out. Intel has many fierce competitors, and I'm sure someone with a highly specialized skillset is valuable to many different companies that compete with Intel. Those companies know about Intel's recent firings and their attempt to reduce payroll. They can make a killing by hiring all the talent that quit from Intel by simply offering fair wages. Also, if you don't think it's a big deal for a company to lose the entirety of their work force in favor of foreigners who don't speak english well, and that things will just move on smoothly as if nothing happened, you're crazy.
>Yes, I agree, but as you can see the trend right now is a decrease in wages and an increase in productivity.
And like we've already established, that difference is not yet statistically meaningful in any way.
>>28822766
>And then the Americans apply for a new job with intel's competitors.
Intel doesn't have any competitors my man. AMD is a joke and certainly isn't looking to hire 10,000 displaced Intel workers.
>When you leave people to their devices, these types of things tend to sort themselves out.
Then why would we even be having this conversation? Even normal people are getting aggravated about wageslaving and income disparity. Much more than ever before.
>Intel has many fierce competitors
Are you serious?
>They can make a killing by hiring all the talent that quit from Intel by simply offering fair wages.
You're serious. Okay, tell me who the competitors to intel are? Where are all these computer architecture specialists and other extremely specialized people going to go? Apple? They don't compete with Intel. They don't need more computer architecture specialists. They already get top pick of the talent pool. Google? Same thing. AMD? They can't afford it, and Intel surely didn't let go of their best workers, so hiring these displaced ones wouldn't make AMD successful again.
These people are going to have to go do things that are going to pay them less. Working at Intel is one of the best jobs you could possibly have, and these people just got replaced by Indians.
>Also, if you don't think it's a big deal for a company to lose the entirety of their work force in favor of foreigners who don't speak english well, and that things will just move on smoothly as if nothing happened, you're crazy.
I do think it's a big deal. I think it's completely retarded, just like outsourcing, to increase your profit margins slightly at the cost of an inferior product. Intel is essentially a monopoly though, so it doesn't really matter for them. Whether the product is 100% or 90% people will still buy it because they don't really have a choice.
>And like we've already established, that difference is not yet statistically meaningful in any way.
Fine. We'll wait to see what happens.
>>28822923
>Intel doesn't have any competitors my man. AMD is a joke and certainly isn't looking to hire 10,000 displaced Intel workers.
There's no other place these highly specialized workers can find work? Not a single place?
Look, human beings are shitty. Yes, a company can fire 10,000 workers and try to hire a bunch of new people to save money on their payroll. Alright, that's a shitty situation. But what are YOU proposing we do to stop it? What is your new policy or law that will stop this from happening? I'd like to hear it?
The point is, a business is supposed to make money. If the business feels they'll make more money by firing 10,000 people who work for too much, and hiring 10,000 new people who work for less, then they should do that. A business has to do whatever it can to make more money. That's what businesses do.
Intel deems some contracts too expensive, they terminate those contracts. What new law are you proposing that will stop that from happening?
>>28823039
>There's no other place these highly specialized workers can find work? Not a single place?
They can, but they're going to be paid less than what they should be earning working at Intel because Intel decided they wanted to hire Rajeesh for half their salary. Like I said, working at Intel is like working at Google. You won't find a better job.
>What new law are you proposing that will stop that from happening?
>What is your new policy or law that will stop this from happening? I'd like to hear it?
I'm not proposing any new law. This is just a shitty aspect of capitalism.
I brought this up simply to counter your point that people quit their jobs and then find better jobs that pay them accordingly if they're not being paid enough. This doesn't happen. If they quit, foreigners are brought in to replace them for less money or the same pay that the American quit for. Sometimes they're just shafted for foreigners because the company DOES NOT WANT TO PAY THEM FAIRLY and they have no choice but to accept a lower income.
It is not some universal truth that people quit their jobs that aren't paying them in accordance to their productivity and then find jobs that will. That doesn't happen anymore. If you quit, you are replaced. You are not important. There will always be someone from another country who will work for MUCH less than you're asking for, and the company is basically doing you a favor by employing Americans at all. They expect you to be happy with being just above the poverty line.
>>28823178
>They can, but they're going to be paid less than what they should be earning working at Intel because Intel decided they wanted to hire Rajeesh for half their salary. Like I said, working at Intel is like working at Google. You won't find a better job.
You keep using words like "should," which imply a morality that doesn't exist.
People "should" not be paid any certain amount, except for what they agree to work for, offered to them by an employer.
Yeah, you're not going to find a job that pays more than working at Google, but if you didn't want to get fired from Intel or Google then maybe you should have produced more value than what you were being paid. If you produce a lot of value compared to what you are being paid, your employer will do everything in their power to keep you, because firing you represents a loss of profit to them.
I don't get anything from a story that 10,000 people were fired and replaced by cheaper workers, other than the a feeling that the work the previous 10,000 workers were doing was being overvalued and now that employer is paying closer to what the work actually produces in value. How could Intel afford to fire 10,000 people otherwise? If all of those 10,000 people were truly good for the company, doing work that justified their pay check, then none of them would be fired.
>>28823276
>then maybe you should have produced more value than what you were being paid
Here we go again with this shit. You think those people were fired because they were shitty employees? You think this is the real reason, and not that shareholders that control Intel simply wanted to make more money?
>If you produce a lot of value compared to what you are being paid, your employer will do everything in their power to keep you, because firing you represents a loss of profit to them.
Very, very few people are this valuable to any company. You better be top of your fucking field if you want this kind of protection, and that's just unreasonable to ask everyone to be that. There are limitations on the best any given person can be.
>other than the a feeling that the work the previous 10,000 workers were doing was being overvalued and now that employer is paying closer to what the work actually produces in value.
I think we should just stop having a conversation at this point. You are clearly a delusional amoral ancap and there is no reasoning with you.
If you don't see the issue with firing 10,000 employees to import Indians and Chinese people when the company admits to the only reason being that they can pay them less, then there is no reason to continue this.
>>28820350
If a few NEETs pooled their 700 dollars, they'd have a pretty comfortable life.
I'd take that over working some fast food job for even three times that amount.
>>28820377
>Doesn't even understand that the way money is created, regulated and loaned means the value of money is ONLY arbitrary
>Doesn't even understand that the concept of property is manmade and thus artificial in the first place
>Doesn't even understand that almost every economy in existence has been regulated far more heavily than it is now, or that there has NEVER been an economy based on MONEY that existed without states and laws and everything that goes with them
>wants anyone to take him seriously
These bootlickers are hilarious, though.
>If I say enough good things about massa, he might gimme some more table scraps!
>>28820753
>didn't even read the notes to his own chart
>sources the fucking Heritage Foundation of all things
L M A O
>>28812534
don't forget robots get hacked, can't stand wet/humid conditions, and won't stop niggers from dirtying up the place. I guarantee you people will spit and smear shit all over the touchscreens and throw water on the robots.
>>28824505
I can't wait for the videos of niggers robbing automated McDonald's. They'll have to make those fucking buildings the equivalent of a literal nuclear bunker to stop niggers from looting it.
I can just imagine the riots when niggers realize they can just jump over the counter and take what they want.
>>28816844
>im all against basic income
What alternative do you propose? At a certain point unless you're some sort of intellectual, your job will be replaced by a robot.
>>28824602
>thinking there will be a counter to jump over
>thinking it won't look like a pharmacy with the shield down and a small window that opens for the robot to dispense food with a few kiosks somewhere else in the building to order food from
>thinking the door won't be like a pharmacy door with a code lock on it that only the manager and service technicians would know
>>28812534
FUCK THIS SHIT.
WE'RE COMING BUCKO!!!
>>28823538
What part didn't I read?
What's wrong with the heritage foundation?
>>28823389
>shareholders that control Intel simply wanted to make more money
Yes, and why does firing people make more money? It's because the fired employees were too expensive compared to the work they were doing. They hired different people to work for less. That's how they made money. If all the employees were inherently valuable, good workers, they wouldn't have gotten fired.
>Very, very few people are this valuable to any company.
That's understandable. Then don't demand a wage greater than what you offer.
>and that's just unreasonable to ask everyone to be that. There are limitations on the best any given person can be.
OK, yeah, I agree. There are limitations on what an employer can pay you, too. An employer is limited by how much money you make for him. If you don't make a lot of money for him, he obviously can't afford to pay you more than that. You and I both just agreed that some people just aren't that great at the work they do. So why should *everyone* get a wage increase to a minimum level that employers can't afford, when some workers don't deserve that much pay?
>If you don't see the issue with firing 10,000 employees to import Indians and Chinese people when the company admits to the only reason being that they can pay them less
No, I don't see anything wrong with that. You're a "feelings first" type of guy, I can tell. You don't like it because it "feels" bad to you, and you assume there's something morally wrong with it on that basis. But at the end of the day, it's a company making a decision that they think will make them more money. It might pay off, it might not pay off. Personally, I think it's a huge risk to fire that many working employees and bring in all foreign ones and still assume that your business will run with the same efficiency.
Again, what is your proposoal? What is the law that you propose to stop this? For right now, you're just whining about it. What's the point? Either propose a solution or stop whining.
>>28812534
Will they get my order right, that's my main concern. Because as it stands the dumbass workers can't piece together a proper fucking order everytime I go to mc dicks.
>>28826219
Only one solution lad.
>>28826219
>It's because the fired employees were too expensive compared to the work they were doing. They hired different people to work for less. That's how they made money. If all the employees were inherently valuable, good workers, they wouldn't have gotten fired.
Never heard of layoffs or paycuts before buddy? You think Intel is struggling or something and needed to cut the pay of these people in order to stay afloat? You think that Intel of all fucking places hired these people for a given salary and then later decided that they were paying them too much, fired them, and imported Indians they pay half the salary to because "that's what the work was worth?" You think is more likely than the shareholders just demanding more money?
If you do, then you're delusional.
>Then don't demand a wage greater than what you offer.
I might just ignore your next post if you say this again. You believe in some "Just Work" fallacy or something where everyone is paid what they're worth to the company.
>You and I both just agreed that some people just aren't that great at the work they do.
I said nothing of the sort. I said it's unreasonable to ask people to be top of their field and be so good at what they do that firing them would be a huge hit the company. I don't know how good these people are at their jobs, but considering they landed a job at Intel, they're probably pretty damn good at what they do. Intel doesn't hire retards.
>An employer is limited by how much money you make for him.
We've already discussed that this doesn't happen anyway. See my warehouse truck example. I earned $130 a day before taxes loading up trucks that were worth millions.
>No, I don't see anything wrong with that. You're a "feelings first" type of guy, I can tell.
I'm not a feelings first type of guy, I just have emotions and can see beyond "how much money can I make if I fire these people and replace them with Indians?"
>>28826219
>Again, what is your proposoal? What is the law that you propose to stop this? For right now, you're just whining about it. What's the point? Either propose a solution or stop whining.
You want my solution? Ban outsourcing and importation of foreign workers in large numbers. There, done. No more Rajeesh replacing you for half the pay because half of what you earned is still 1000x what he earned in India.
>>28826219
>supports globalism despite obviously being from a first-world nation
>Sees nothing wrong with exploiting the poor of two countries simultaneously to enrich shareholders that do absolutely nothing but "own" a piece of an abstracted enterprise
You're a "boot licking" type of guy, I can tell.
>>28826498
>globalism
Shit mate you are much more eloquent and better at arguing than I am.
Teach me how to be like you.
>>28826449
>Never heard of layoffs or paycuts before buddy?
LMAO!!!!!!!! AND WHY DO THOSE HAPPEN? Because the company assesses the situation and thinks that the worker is getting paid too much for the work they are producing! Let me remind you again, none of this shit would happen to a diligent worker! Is a company really going to paycut or lay off their hardest worker who does 50% of the work around the office by himself? NO! If you don't want to get laid off or get a paycut, then stop DRAGGING YOUR FEET IN THE WORKPLACE AND BE A BETTER EMPLOYEE.
>You think Intel is struggling or something and needed to cut the pay of these people in order to stay afloat?
It doesn't matter if Intel is struggling or not! Their job is to make the maximum amount of profit possible! You don't try to break the world deadlift record by 2 grams and say "welp that's enough I'm going to quit now." You try to break the limit and go as far as possible! A company isn't going to just say "welp we've made enough money, time to stop now!!! Lol!" They're trying to make as much money as humanly possible and they're going to do anything in their power to make sure that happens! That's what a company DOES! That's not a bad thing because that's where innovation comes from!
>I might just ignore your next post if you say this again
The only reason I keep saying it is because you seem to think that people "deserve" to be paid much more than what they provide for a company! How does that even make sense? Who will mandate this? How will companies keep their doors open? Why do you believe that all people, regardless of their work ethic or ability, "deserve" $15/hr?
>>28826498
>durr globalization bad! I know because hollywood tell me so!!!! durr!
Alright buddy. Enjoy the non-existence of the next i-phone, 500% price increase on all your computer parts, and $45 basic T-shirts of low quality.
Good. This is a step towards automation and a better future.
>>28826850
>Let me remind you again, none of this shit would happen to a diligent worker! Is a company really going to paycut or lay off their hardest worker who does 50% of the work around the office by himself?
Kek. My dad was senior software architect for a fortune 500 company and they layed him off too. Worked there for 15 years getting raises and suddenly they couldn't afford to pay him anymore. "They get too much for what they do" is not the only reason people get shitcanned.
>Their job is to make the maximum amount of profit possible!
There is a certain point where you need to step back and say "I could do this, and increase my profits marginally, but it would be terrible for my employees. I could also not do this, keep things as they are, and continue operating at a huge profit, but not be a horrible person to my employees." If you decide on the former, then there is something wrong with you, and you're probably an amoral ancap like yourself. Like the other anon said, exploiting the poor AND fucking over your employees for some extra dollars when you're already raking in 35 million dollars in profit per year. Why do something horrible for a few extra thousand? Would you push someone on crutches down if you were both going to pick up 20 dollars? That's what Intel did to their workers. Sure, he can get back up, and he'll find another way to get 20 dollars, but why would you do that for 20 dollars?
>That's not a bad thing because that's where innovation comes from!
Innovation does not depend on outsourcing and foreign exploitation. Innovation does not depend on making as much money as possible regardless of whether their actions are amoral or not.
>Why do you believe that all people, regardless of their work ethic or ability, "deserve" $15/hr?
I don't. I don't support a $15 minimum wage because it's retarded. I support paying people what they're worth. People who work at McDonald's are probably getting paid what they're worth. Other people? Probably not.
>>28812534
>TIME TO LEARN A TRADE ROBOTS)
Lol as if. I've tried advocating for people on here to learn a trade whenever wagecucks cry about not being able to make more than minimum wage.
>get a trade
>still be a robot
>make loads of money
>get to enjoy work
>instant and ultimate job security if no felony or DUI and can pass a drug test
>be not stupid as shit and make supervisor no problem
>>28827024
You can't English, dude.
It's "laid" and "immoral." Those are the words you were going for.
>>28827245
I don't give a shit about laid vs layed.
Amoral is a word. Not immoral, that just means you're not following moral standards. Amoral means a complete lack of morals, which is what I'm talking about.
What about forbidding giant chains from using robot servers?
>>28827024
It's 35 billion a year, not 35 million
>>28827492
Oh I didn't see the "all numbers in thousands." Thanks. That supports the point even more.
This in why I support minimum wage hikes. We should raise it to $20. We just have to be sure and cut all food stamps and social spending too. Then we'll live in a perfect white society with robots, flying cars, and no poor people.
meanwhile all higher end auto manufacturers have phased out production robots for everything but some heavy welds. they were more expensive and less mutable than highly paid german laborers.
there is no way in hell engineering, building, installing, powering, cleaning, maintaining, and constantly reprogramming robots would be cheaper than people at $15/hour.
maybe for a large mcdonald's vending machine, but that isn't comparable and wouldn't net anywhere near the same.
also the workers at mcdonald's are more important to business than their entire ad budget. they put a happy face on the product that defines consumer perception and they catch routine customers for that strange relationship.
>>28813343
I'd pay double gladly if they would just construct my burger right. How is it they shack the 3 pickles perfectly but with two buns, two patties, and two cheeses they can't get even two of the six lined up.
>monday. mcdonald's announces completion of human to robot trasition
>tuesday. denny's new ad slogan: "come over for a human smile"
mcd btfo
>>28827288
No, "immoral" is the word you were looking for.
Something that is "amoral" has no bearing on morality whatsoever. A blade of grass is "amoral" because a blade of grass has nothing to do with morality. It is not a moral agent.
You want the word "immoral" because you are saying that an unscrupulous businessman shafting many workers is an evil. You're not saying that an unscrupulous businessman shafting many workers for marginal profits is completely unrelated to morality in any way, much like a blade of grass. That's not what you're saying, so "amoral" is not the word choice you want.
>>28828898
No, I'm saying unscrupulous businessmen shafting workers without giving a second thought to the morality of their actions is amoral, because that's what it is: completely lacking morality. It does not influence their decision at all.
Why are you hung up on 2 words instead of addressing the content of the argument?
>>28828974
The word really does not have the connotation that you think it does. The word "amoral" is used to describe animals, babies, rocks, sticks, and other things which are not capable of comprehending morality.
It's a really poor word choice. Trust me, I'm an editor of a large newspaper.
>>28829073
I posted the definition earlier. Read the second one. It's okay to describe a person as amoral, but a businessman is suddenly poor word choice when "lacking moral standards, restraints, or principles" is exactly what I meant?
>>28813365
this guy is completely right about everything
>>28816173
This is the great thing about capitalism. It doesn't discriminate against the rich and poor. The poor don't have money? The rich won't be able to sell anything and go bust. If basic income doesn't exist the rich are going down with the poor.
>>28812534
The retarded leap in logic here is that they'll get the same sales with a robot crew. If people don't support that move, it is no longer cheaper.
Mr. Former CEO needs to learn what a stakeholder is.
>>28813365
A nation for the proletariat awaits all those who would join the cause.
>>>/leftypol/
>>28829635
All I care about in fast food is the price. If I can get a full meal for $5 with desert, I'll do it regardless of the employees economic practices. Anything else is wasting money.
This is the one reason why I avoid McDonalds. It's more than double the price of competitors in my country.
