Fight for $15. (Fast food protest)

[Exorcet]

If you seriously think a computer can maintain and repair itself without outside help from a human being, I'd sure love to see you create one. By all means, go right ahead.

That something does not yet exist doesn't mean it can't exist. Total automation is some time away still, but I wouldn't consider it outlandish.

Perhaps evolving algorithms with human defined starting points will get us there.





Competition has shown some power results in simulations, and of course there is the real world example in biological evolution.

 

[R.S]

So, the product remains crap & the employees can't do anything to make it better. You only make a stronger argument for why it's absolutely unnecessary to increase their pay.

So you associate base wages with product quality - a property that is out of the employee's hands. This mentality makes no sense in the context.


Product quality is irrelevant until you go beyond minimum level job, where specialised education or skill is required.

If you're expect to pay them based on product, don't pay hourly rate, pay them a share of each sale and give employee ability to improve of product quality and range (impossible in fast food chain).

If you want to pay them hourly rate, think about paying them per time worked, regardless of the product you have them produce.


Anyway it just boils down to whether you want your society to expect an adult to receive a living wage for any full time job. Burgers and quality etc is irrelevant. It's just about ideology.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Depends on the job. I use data acquisition software in my job and it's updated every year even though our testing hardly changes. Software improves, you can't tell me it doesn't.

I work for a company that makes DAQ hardware and software and we also make embedded systems designed specifically to run for months or even years without human intervention. Just because what you're using requires human intervention doesn't mean that the technology doesn't exist.

 

[CodeRedR51]

I work for a company that makes DAQ hardware and software and we also make embedded systems designed specifically to run for months or even years without human intervention. Just because what you're using requires human intervention doesn't mean that the technology doesn't exist.

Yeah, designed to. BUT, when something breaks or doesn't work right, a human is right there to fix it no? That's my point.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

So you associate base wages with product quality - a property that is out of the employee's hands. This mentality makes no sense in the context.

No, we associate base wage with skill required.

Product quality is irrelevant until you go beyond minimum level job, where specialised education or skill is required.

Why? Why is product quality only taken into consideration beyond that level?

If you're expect to pay them based on product, don't pay hourly rate, pay them a share of each sale and give employee ability to improve of product quality and range (impossible in fast food chain).

It's certainly not impossible to get a burger out that doesn't look like it was stepped on.

If you want to pay them hourly rate, think about paying them per time worked, regardless of the product you have them produce.

That'll work swell; there's no quality control, and people all get the same wage. Definitely sounds like the sort of environment that encourages good work.

Anyway it just boils down to whether you want your society to expect an adult to receive a living wage for any full time job. Burgers and quality etc is irrelevant. It's just about ideology.

Who defines "living wage", again?

Yeah, designed to. BUT, when something breaks or doesn't work right, a human is right there to fix it no? That's my point.

That's great. The point you're failing to take into consideration is that there are definitely systems out there that are designed (and function) with far less need for human interaction than others. While there will undoubtedly will be some need for humans to fix things, it'll become substantially less as time goes on.

You said it yourself: software improves.

 

[MidFieldMaven]

If you seriously think a computer can maintain and repair itself without outside help from a human being, I'd sure love to see you create one. By all means, go right ahead.

Robots are already being created that can repair themselves. Humans will eventually not be needed to maintain and repair anything.

Here's a self-sustaining robot that can forage for its own fuel, from 2012: http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2012/04/start/do-not-feed-the-robot

Here's a fully-automated, self-sustaining and water-free solar panel cleaning robot: http://www.triplepundit.com/2014/11...tics-platform-cleans-pv-panels-without-water/

Can robots be programmed to learn (how to maintain and repair themselves?): http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/robot-learning/

Damaged robot can heal itself: http://www.livescience.com/50988-damaged-robot-heals-itself.html

From 2006, nearly 10 years ago, at Cornell University: Robot adapts to injury: http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2006/11/cornell-robot-discovers-itself-and-adapts-injury

Robots that can adapt like animals: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v521/n7553/full/nature14422.html

 

[Famine]

That's great. The point you're failing to take into consideration is that there are definitely systems out there that are designed (and function) with far less need for human interaction than others. While there will undoubtedly will be some need for humans to fix things, it'll become substantially less as time goes on.

And while two hundred computers (or one computer and 200 robots) can replace 200 humans, you only need 1 human to maintain the computer(s). That reduces the number of available jobs by 99.5% - and they're all skilled jobs.

 

[Dotini]

The experimental drive toward a $15 minimum wage in Seattle (currently at $11) appears to have hit a speed bump, as several prominent restaurants are laying off or closing down in an otherwise thriving business environment. Whoops.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

I was going to write a detailed response but the others pretty much covered it.

 

[CodeRedR51]

That's great. The point you're failing to take into consideration is that there are definitely systems out there that are designed (and function) with far less need for human interaction than others. While there will undoubtedly will be some need for humans to fix things, it'll become substantially less as time goes on.

"Far less human interaction..."

But still some, right? Yes. Not to mention you need humans to build these things in the first place. Somewhere down the line there are a lot of humans that participate in jobs to create these so called "self maintaining computers". From mining the materials to constructing the robots.

I don't see why this is an argument, it's pretty clear really.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Automation of simple tasks means fewer and more skilled jobs in those fields. Full stop. I don't see why this is an argument either.

 

[Garage13]

Let me ask you guys a simple question.Based on base pay who do you think should earn more? an enlisted soldier or some guy who flips burgers.Because at $15 an hr that guy working at burger king is making roughly DOUBLE what that soldier who is risking their life(especially combat arms like myself) day in and day out.

Also who will pay for that increase? Either the customer or the place closes up shop
If you do that your operating costs go up roughly 40%,your selling prices roughly $20% and you're going to have to find an additional 20% in sales to operate at the same level as before.

 

[Danoff]

Let me ask you guys a simple question.Based on base pay who do you think should earn more? an enlisted soldier or some guy who flips burgers.Because at $15 an hr that guy working at burger king is making roughly DOUBLE what that soldier who is risking their life(especially combat arms like myself) day in and day out.

Also who will pay for that increase? Either the customer or the place closes up shop
If you do that your operating costs go up roughly 40%,your selling prices roughly $20% and you're going to have to find an additional 20% in sales to operate at the same level as before.

Whoever creates more value should get paid more, and that includes how easy it is to find someone else to do the job.

 

[Garage13]

yeah but WHY should a SOLDIER get paid LESS than someone flipping burgers?.
I would think THE SOLDIER who would have MORE SKILLS than some guy out of high school working at burger king.the reason why I know is because I WAS A SOLDIER

 

[Danoff]

yeah but WHY should a SOLDIER get paid LESS than someone flipping burgers?.
I would think THE SOLDIER who would have MORE SKILLS than some guy out of high school working at burger king.the reason why I know is because I WAS A SOLDIER

No reason. Legislating it to be that way is obviously silly.

 

[MidFieldMaven]

As a veteran myself, you must understand that, although the pay is low at first, by the time you're an E-4 or E-5 which should only take about two or three years, you're making a good amount, especially if you're married. And when you get out (if you don't choose to stay and get a sweet pension after 20 years of service) then your entire Bachelor's degree will be paid for with the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Not only does the government pay for your tuition, but they give you a housing allowance for as long as you're attending classes, which is more than enough to pay rent. Beyond that, you also get veteran's health benefits, and when you go to purchase your first home, you get approved for a bigger loan, and you don't have to pay a down payment or private mortgage insurance.

 

[FoolKiller]

Why does a human have to do that? And software can quite easily stay the same if the function of the system doesn't need to change.

I think that we are ignoring one very important aspect of business: It must change and evolve. Without new products and services a business will stagnate. It will only take one competitor to put forth the money and effort to do something new to start a chain reaction of everyone trying to do something different.

I'm old enough to remember when a salad wasn't an option at fast food places. A burger machine would have a hard time determining a salad is a great new idea, how to make one without all the ingredients available to it, or prep one without the specific tools necessary as part of its hardware.

And unless these companies are designing their own proprietary machines, they might have to go back to the manufacturer before they can redesign the machine in any way. No company that makes burger machines will make it so that after they sell one machine that restaurant will never need their services again.

Ultimately, you can automate everything that goes on inside the restaurant on a day-to-day basis, but the stuff that happens beyond that will need human involvement. We can probably build a machine that can "taste" but culinary science is not 100% objective. Just ask any parent trying to cook healthy meals for multiple kids and adults.

 

[Exorcet]

We can probably build a machine that can "taste" but culinary science is not 100% objective. Just ask any parent trying to cook healthy meals for multiple kids and adults.

When I think of "art vs science", I think it's a case of poorly understood vs well understood. A tasting machine in the present won't be very good, but given enough time I don't see why we couldn't build one that could match the subjective preferences of every individual on the planet. We just need to know more. Those subjective differences between us are probably coded in DNA somewhere, for example.

 

[FoolKiller]

When I think of "art vs science", I think it's a case of poorly understood vs well understood. A tasting machine in the present won't be very good, but given enough time I don't see why we couldn't build one that could match the subjective preferences of every individual on the planet. We just need to know more. Those subjective differences between us are probably coded in DNA somewhere, for example.

That isn't feasible for a commercial use for a very long time. And even then it will have to also be able to cope with constantly changing market trends.

Can a robot be the trendsetting head of a company or magazine?


EDIT: For example, a robot could know people like cakes, and which ones are more preferred, but would it then make the leap to a bakery that solely exists on the now insane trend of cupcakes?

 

[MatskiMonk]

That isn't feasible for a commercial use for a very long time. And even then it will have to also be able to cope with constantly changing market trends.

Can a robot be the trendsetting head of a company or magazine?


EDIT: For example, a robot could know people like cakes, and which ones are more preferred, but would it then make the leap to a bakery that solely exists on the now insane trend of cupcakes?

If it had a module that looked for trending posts about cakes, perhaps. But it would depend on whether or not the robot was upholding simply money generating principles, or if the robots human commisioner had a holistic view of of a different kind of cake.

 

[Exorcet]

That isn't feasible for a commercial use for a very long time. And even then it will have to also be able to cope with constantly changing market trends.

I can only see this being a problem with current limits on technology. Data used to read market trends is just data, as long as a machine can read that data, it can make use of it.

You can imagine a simple Facebook scanning bot that looks for popular trends if you want a close analogy with current technology. I'd see something very similar happening with the cake example you provided.

Can a robot be the trendsetting head of a company or magazine?

Human interactions and emotions are based on brain chemistry, it's only a matter of knowledge to figure out how it all works and then you can apply it how you want. Assuming no one places limits on robot design, they could create identities for themselves that people will latch on to. It could go as far as having a unique artificial human shaped body that is completely indistinguishable from a real person on the outside. Again, some of that isn't possible now.

 

[Dotini]

It seems that Earth could be a far more rational, orderly, enjoyable and profitable place if humans were almost entirely replaced by AGI robots. Uh, can a robot be programmed to experience joy? Anyway, that all sounds okay to me (I'm old and almost dead anyway), unless anyone could persuade me otherwise. The only remaining question would be how quickly this could be accomplished, and really if any humans at all are still needed.

 

[Exorcet]

Uh, can a robot be programmed to experience joy?

A tricky question without fully understanding consciousness. I have little doubt that a robot could perfectly mimic a human in expressing feeling. Will it experience that feeling? I wouldn't know how to do that, but given that biological machines (humans) can, artificial machines probably can as well.

if any humans at all are still needed.

We aren't needed, but we shouldn't feel the need to be needed. We all get a life without consent and because of how we're built, we tend to want to see it to the end despite all the trouble that comes with it. Might as well make the most of it if you can right? That would be the point of automation. In the end it will lead to more options not less. If you're particularly attached to the 20th/21st century, then why not let civilization advance to the point where you can live whenever you want? I'm not talking about time machines, but perhaps virtual reality. Live forever in 2000 in your ideal life. You can't do that now.

 

[A2K78]

Let me ask you guys a simple question.Based on base pay who do you think should earn more? an enlisted soldier or some guy who flips burgers.Because at $15 an hr that guy working at burger king is making roughly DOUBLE what that soldier who is risking their life(especially combat arms like myself) day in and day out.

the example of an soldier versus a hamburger flipper is an oxymoron seeing how one is by de facto an employee of the state(the soldier) compared to another which is an privately employed individual(hamburger flipper).

A better example would be 2 janitors...now assuming the idea of an minimum wage or equal pay-for-equal work didn't exist, in a free market economy where the price of labor hasn't been fixed by law the market would favor not just the most experienced individual, but also most productive.

 

[Danoff]

the example of an soldier versus a hamburger flipper is an oxymoron seeing how one is by de facto an employee of the state(the soldier) compared to another which is an privately employed individual(hamburger flipper).

Somehow you're making the assumption that the government doesn't participate in the free market when hiring a workforce. Not sure how that makes sense.

 

[jimipitbull]

It seems that Earth could be a far more rational, orderly, enjoyable and profitable place if humans were almost entirely replaced by AGI robots. Uh, can a robot be programmed to experience joy? Anyway, that all sounds okay to me (I'm old and almost dead anyway), unless anyone could persuade me otherwise. The only remaining question would be how quickly this could be accomplished, and really if any humans at all are still needed.

An analogue robot can be built for joy. For digital, experience is memory so joy comes from the RAM slot.
Three minutes, and you'll only need a human hand if the batteries run out.

Theoretically, McDonalds could be more profitable selling only Bacon and Egg McMuffins and Chocolate Thickshakes. One person using a small grill and an esky could easily sustain $15/hour from a hotdog kart.

 

[Garage13]

A2K yes being a soldier is a state employee but considering the FACT that a E2 makes HALF as much as some kid working at burger king who ISN'T risking his or her life doing their job is insulting!.MOS for MOS you take a janitor who's an E2 and a worker at Burger king and the result is still the same.The ranking system is universal reguardless of job in the enlisted ranks in the ARMY.An E3 in the infantry gets paid the same amount as a cook who's an E3 in the Dining Facility

 

[Northstar]

A2K yes being a soldier is a state employee but considering the FACT that a E2 makes HALF as much as some kid working at burger king who ISN'T risking his or her life doing their job is insulting!.

Pay wise they make less, benefits wise on the other hand favors the soldier (until the point BK starts paying for health care and college of all employees that is).

 

[Garage13]

yes this is true but just comparing pay for both without subsequent benefits.

 

[FoolKiller]

I can only see this being a problem with current limits on technology. Data used to read market trends is just data, as long as a machine can read that data, it can make use of it.

You can imagine a simple Facebook scanning bot that looks for popular trends if you want a close analogy with current technology. I'd see something very similar happening with the cake example you provided.

There once was a market trend that said that a horseless carriage would never catch on. They built one anyway.

Market trends and what people say about an idea before trying it are untrustworthy indicators of what can be teh next big thing. That is why they focus group products first.

One example is clothing trends. No trendsetting fashion designer (that would be one that creates the first of a new trendy fashion) looks for a trend on Facebook of people saying, "I wish they made shoes that look like X. They'd look so cute on me." Nope, multiple fashion shows happen every year. A handful create the style everyone will wear next year, and those people won't know they want it until they see it.


Same with food. Taco Bell breakfast sounded insane. To this day I know people that don't know White Castle makes breakfast and have a weird reaction when they find out. But both do well enough to make a profit. What machine would create Hot Dog pizza crust? I personally wonder what sane person would, but it happened.

Hundreds of new ideas come out of each industry every year. They get focus group tested and maybe three to five make it to market, and then maybe only one will actually be a success. Too much human element is involved on determining success to automate the process.

That isn't to say that an emotion-chipped, bio-interfaced AI could do it. But can that be called automated anymore than having humans do it?