Humans Need Not Apply: Fast Food $15 Minimum Wage Strike Edition

[C0ckney]

also, at the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, it will be very hard to sell all the shiny and pointless baubles that robots will produce, if a significant proportion of the population doesn't have the means to acquire them.

[The Mad Monk]

Yes, that goes without saying.

[The Mad Monk]

I think I really need to address this now: the top cause of inflation, bar none, is a swelling of the money supply, but the main modifier of this, locally, is the demand for real estate. As long as there is plenty of cheap land out there in the boonies, building and resource extraction there will be cheaper, and that has a knock on effect for everything else. Transportation used to be a bigger factor, but modern transportation systems have mostly wiped that out.

So what drives the demand for land? Toss that around for a bit, and I will give my own views on that tonight.

edit: or not. maybe sometime in the next week.

[C0ckney]

Yes, that goes without saying.

you'd think so but if we look at the political debate and indeed the wider political context around this issue (i mean the issue of how to handle mass unemployment in general rather than citizens' income in particular), we can see that this crucial point is often not acknowledged, never mind accepted.

[Sava]

They're over 400 miles away.

If it makes you feel better I'm broiling a couple steaks tonight. Medium-well of course. I hate it when it has a red center.

You know... I can deal with the politics. I can deal with the economics.

BUT FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY IN THE WORLD

You need to sear the outside on the grill, leaving a warm pink center (slightly red even)

What are your available cooking options?

What kind of steak? Where'd you get it?

If we ever meet at a poly meet, I'll treat you to some awesome steaks. Prime aged bone in ribeye... lightly salted and peppered. Maybe a fried egg.

twice baked potatoes with bacon and cheese

green beans and/or a spinach salad

bread


fuck, now I'm hungry

[Sava]

I said red, not pink; pink is fine.

okay... I didn't read this post before replying

that's acceptable

[regexcellent]

If robots take over our jobs stuff will become cheaper and people will still be able to afford things. So the argument of "not being able to afford baubles" is ****ing retarded on its face. Try again.

[regexcellent]

Someone please come up with an example for me of where goods becoming cheaper led to people being unable to afford said goods TIA

[N35t0r]

Um, them not having jobs at all. That's why you'd guarantee a BI, which would probably be comparatively less than now for a similar quality of life.

[regexcellent]

People will find things to do when robots take over their jobs. That has happened with every new piece of machinery. Total wealth goes up because products become cheaper to produce--therefore, people will spend money on other things, increasing demand for things that still employ people.

Consider: food production used to employ 100% of the population. That means the agricultural sector has lost, as a percentage of population, 49 out of every 50 jobs.

[MRT144]

People will find things to do when robots take over their jobs. That has happened with every new piece of machinery. Total wealth goes up because products become cheaper to produce--therefore, people will spend money on other things, increasing demand for things that still employ people.

Consider: food production used to employ 100% of the population. That means the agricultural sector has lost, as a percentage of population, 49 out of every 50 jobs.

Like I said before though, the efficiency implications of such a product are nowhere near the same level as several agricultural advancements have been. We're talking about a machine that makes one type of foodstuff, albeit a popular foodstuff, slightly cheaper (in the longrun, maybe).

[Kidlicious]

People will find things to do when robots take over their jobs. That has happened with every new piece of machinery. Total wealth goes up because products become cheaper to produce--therefore, people will spend money on other things, increasing demand for things that still employ people.

Consider: food production used to employ 100% of the population. That means the agricultural sector has lost, as a percentage of population, 49 out of every 50 jobs.

Yes, but we need jobs for idiots that can't figure out change.

[N35t0r]

People will find things to do when robots take over their jobs. That has happened with every new piece of machinery. Total wealth goes up because products become cheaper to produce--therefore, people will spend money on other things, increasing demand for things that still employ people.

Consider: food production used to employ 100% of the population. That means the agricultural sector has lost, as a percentage of population, 49 out of every 50 jobs.

Well, but people not always find stuff to do; or the stuff they do doesn't have enough demand (or the people who would demand such products have other, more pressing, needs)... Otherwise there would be virtually 0 unemployment, which there isn't.

Very probably, people will still find something to do: people tend to want more, and a basic income will only provide so much...

[C0ckney]

it's perhaps not surprising that reg hasn't comprehended the argument, or even that the numbers he’s made up are wrong, but i find his bland dismissal of the likely effects simply bizarre. people do not always find something (else) to do; if they did, we wouldn't have unemployment. moreover, the industrial revolution completely changed society, the communities, the economic, political and social relations which made it up, were dissolved and remade. a similarly seismic change may happen again, in the not too distant future.

even if it doesn't, we are already seeing the effects of mass unemployment and the responses to it. part of it is the usual right wing nonsense blaming the poor/unemployed for their own situation and making 'welfare' more punitive and humiliating. another, even more pernicious part, is the casualisation of labour, and the erosion of protections and security. this is creating a growing class of low skill workers (or higher skilled workers forced into low skill occupations) who have little to no security. zero hours contracts, false self-employment, and chronic under-employment, are symptoms in a UK context. this obviously affects buying habits; few are going to make big purchases when they don't even know how much they are going to make each week or month.

it's an interesting dichotomy. one the one hand less and less work available, and on the other hand harsher measures for those who cannot find work, and worse conditions for many of those in it. it's somewhat reassuring that some, even on the right, realise that in a future with less work available, some means will have to found to support those who cannot find work.

[C0ckney]

to add a little to that, there is an implicit recognition of this last point already. that is why we have various means tested benefits for people in work, and obviously a large part of the right-wing argument for a basic income is about replacing those kind of things with a single payment in the name of efficiency.