Will Fast Food Workers Be Replaced By Computers?

Will there be a tipping point after which those displaced/unemployed will outnumber those with jobs? Will those who displace workers have any obligation to those displaced? Will there be so few people employed that not enough "products" can even be sold? Will those left employed be paid enough to keep this economic/capitalist system going? Where is it ALL heading? What's the point? To whom will companies with their slick, efficient machines installed and humming along, sell to when viable,paycheck earning human resources are not needed?

 

We may all be like dogs, fighting over a rib bone.

All these inexpensive devices we have are purposely designed to be mass produced as cheaply as possible, with planned obsolescence. Our current system REQUIRES that a certain number of the population be below poverty in order to make things as inexpensive as they are. The middle class should be the largest, but it takes many people that are dirt poor for every person who is ultra rich. Makes sense to me, there's only so much money and not everyone gets to have some if a few people wanna hog it all. The dollar isn't really worth anything really.

What is something worth and how does one come to define the value of any particular thing. I somewhat know how this works in economics, but what is something "really" worth. Why should material things be "worth" anything?

 

The answer to that is China, India, and Dubai.

Domestically yeah USA economy would see the middle class return to being a myth or it would be really small.

 

Hasn't that already come to pass?

Should they have? Based upon what rational reasoning?

Not likely.

As long as those who are paying government taxs and accepting government to pile on more debt for future generations to deal with, YES.

Down hill, in my opinion.

More government control and dependency.

Those who work for a living AND those who government provides support of.

 

When you ask about material things having worth, are you excluding people?

 

Yes, in my post I wasn't intending for people to be included in the category of material things. By material things I mean, well, in the context of the post basically most things besides stuff such knowledge and understand or ideas which certainly couldn't be considered material. These things don't naturally exist in nature, you can't grow ideas. And by "what should x-item be worth", I am referring to monetary value, not the real or intellectual "value" it may have to people.

 

But both people, ideas, and knowledge DO exist, and are a basis from which most things which do not exist naturally in our world are brought into existence. While a value cannot be placed on an 'x-item', without knowing what it really is, even then its' value may differ greatly from person to person. One mans trash can be another mans treasure. Many things come into play having effect on value, need, want, supply and demand, primarily in my opinion. What we refer to and use as money differs greatly in value to one another, and sometimes our wants exceed our needs, leaving our needs unfulfilled.

If you've ever been to an auction, you might notice that of the things put up for bid, some persons place no bid at all, while often others will compete with each other raising the price they are willing to pay until only one is left. If you were a cattle farmer, would you be willing to trade one of your cows with a chicken farmer for one of his chickens. More likely you would place a higher value on one cow than you would on one chicken, but might you be more likely to select a pound of chicken meat for a pound of beef, or an equivalent amount of money for the same choice?

Workers are employed as tools of production, not adopted by employers. Employees are free to go elsewhere and work at a moments notice, should not employers be allowed the same freedom?

Maybe a solution would be for employers to employ workers for a set contractual time period and wage. Initially, a new employee could be guaranteed employment for a short, but set period of time, giving both the employee and the employer opportunity to evaluate each other, and at the end of the time period a new contract could be bargained for based on the employees worth to both the employer and the employee, increasing/decreasing the wage/contract period to something acceptable to both.

 

What you propose is what Unions do to an extent already.

There are other factors to consider: workplace safety, and workers injury compensation, etc...

---

In modern technological society, no I don't think employers should have that right because in practicality rather than theory, employees do not have the right to up and leave one job for another because certain level tier jobs aren't looking for their skill set and there aren't enough openings in the open market for them to switch jobs.

So no I reject that counter argument that employees and employers are exercising the same "right" to begin with.

Now if the employee is insubordinate, rude , and not doing the job described in the job description....okay sure they should lose their job.

But I'll ask this rhetorically; how often have you worked a job and then while there your boss tells you to pickup a task that's someone else's responsibility with the lingering threat that you'll get fired if you don't? Employers move the goal posts, employees generally do not do this.

 

Hardly the same as what I just proposed.

That's another subject entirely.

If an employer has need for an employee, ahouldn't the employer have the right to employ the most capable employee he/she can find? One person may lose their job but another will take their place. And if an employee is no longer necessary, should the employer be required to keep him/her on the job anyway?

They are both exercising their needs.

They should indeed, but even that is not always easily accomplished.

Never, but I have been asked to perform work which had nothing at all to do with my job description, and more often than not I was rewarded quite well as a result.
Having employed and been an employee, I've experienced both good and bad bosses and good and bad employees, and many more of the latter than of the former.

 

Jersey Girls don't pump gas


Well, if you are thinking how a mindless reality show, shout-out made it into an otherwise intelligent thread...............................................



There IS a reason. Self-Serve Gas is Illegal in New Jersey.

The State needs the payroll tax contributions. Self Serve was defeated for this reason.

Oh yeah, they care about jobs, but tax revenue is paramount.

So hurrah for New Jersey keeping these people employed, despite technology that makes self serv possible.

 

Yeah too many self-serving idiots spilling gasoline on the ground.

 

I had the epiphany years ago that gasoline would be a good investment. A large tank of gasoline purchased for under a dollar per gallon before Bush was in office...would be worth a lot more now!

 

I don't think it would be worth anything now.
Gasoline doesn't store well, even with stabilizers it's only good for a year or two max.

 

Perhaps trading futures was the intent? Not taking possession and storing the gasoline.
But there are many other investments which would have paid much greater dividends, or produced greater returns than gasoline over the same period of time.

Really,this thread should contain simple responses of "yes" or "no", and perhaps an additional question could be asked "SHOULD fast food workers be replaced by computers?", leading to responses of why or why not.

Actually I don't think "computers" will replace fast food workers, but new and improved technology will over time, and not just fast food workers, but many different types of jobs as well.

A Vietnamese friends son was able to pay his way through 4 years at Georgia Tech by working at McDonalds, and obtain a job earning more than $30,000 per year afterwards, and is debt free, now married, and living quite well. I might note that he came to the U.S. as a teenager, beginning his U.S. education in the 10th grade. Maybe Viet Nam provides a better education from grade 1 to 9 than does the U.S.?

 

People all thought the self check-out lanes in grocery stores would replace all store clerks and baggers.

Yet every time I go to the grocery store, I see more people standing in line to get serviced by an actual person. While the self check-out lanes are totally deserted.

 

That could easily be resolved by making all the lanes self check-out, or at least reducing the lanes serviced by an actual person. Or, how about adding a charge to use the lanes being serviced by an actual human, with that charge being applied to his/her wages? Would you be willing to pay, say $0.35 per minute for the time it takes to provide human service at the check out?

 

I might, depends on the size of the purchase and how long it takes to check out

How bout a proportion of the revenue generated by those machines goes to each of the workers instead of all goin to the company. If you think about it, a lot of companies seem like a pyramid scheme. Why can't revenue be split more fairly?

 

that didn't seem to be the intent they way the post was written.

you aught to know by now thats not how it works around here.

I ain't buying that he paid his way just working at micky d's ..First of all, immigrants from country's we damn near bombed and defoliated into the stone age get special grants and loans for allkinda things...guilt money I figure. Lotta Cambodians here in MT, same deal. No interest land loans too. We fucked up their country for no good reason so I've got nothing against helping them out.
And so what, the kid makes as much as an average truck driver, what was your point again? Oh that Vietnam has better primary school? Maybe he was just a naturally driven, smart kid...Debt free and married doesn't necessarily equal the American dream either.

 

Then you do support the freedom to make your own choices?

A portion of the revenue goes to the persons who created the machines.
Employees are paid a wage that both they and their employer agree to. Should employees have their wages cut when business is poor? Usually companies might downsize their workforce when business is bad, but seldom do you see employees willing to have their wages reduced in order to keep their workmates employed, do you?

 

To the first question: of course!

And to the second: in that situation the company will be less likely to give raises or promotions, and more likely to find reasons to hire "lesser" employees. It's always the lesser employees that are most vulnerable to market volatility while the ones at the top will do whatever to keep their income and profits at the expense of others.