Robot Replaces Workers At Fast Food Restaurant

ha, Very good news!

 

And good paying work at that. If I was 20 years younger I'd be opening a business specializing in robotic repair and maintenance. There are thousands of them out there and theres $ to be made programming and maintaining them.

 

Unless the robot is Hepatitis-C-3PO. Then you might want to use an extra glob of hand sanitizer.

 

So what?

Correct.

It enables the government to have purchasing power that didn't exist before. How do you think socialism is always financed?

I agree, but that only happens with government jobs. Jobs that serve no purpose other than to "give people something to do" don't happen in a free market. Every job serves a purpose in the free market.

No, government is not mismanaging it because people are stupid. Once you understand how government is ruled by the top 1% of rich elite in this country, you'll realize that it is actually a very efficient, finely tuned machine working for their benefit by exploiting the middle and poor classes. The only people that are stupid are the ones who elect politicians like Bush and Obama, who were bought by the elite and their sole purposes were to serve them.

Sorry, but I wouldn't trust you to respect our Constitutional rights if you came to power by unconstitutional means. Dictatorships never have respect for individual liberties. Society cannot function efficiently without respect for those.

 

But you're not understanding. This would not happen without government intervention. No small group of people could ever control those kinds of resources without government privilege. It would be a product of socialism only!

Aside from that major flaw in your argument...if robots are farming thousands of acres of farmland that are all controlled by the top 1%, the bottom 50 percent are not going to buy it because they would not afford it. They would begin growing their own food, which would create a demand for more labor/jobs and more help to feed everybody else. The robots would be made uselsess because the 1% wouldn't be profiting if 50% of the country can't afford to feed themsleves, let alone buy things they want.

 

This works on anything!

 

The top 1% wouldn't need to make a profit. All they'd have to do is produce all the goods they wanted among themselves. That's like saying that 99% of the people are going to go back to living in the stone ages. I disagree with your opinion that government can't control those resources. It is probably the only way to control that much resources. Do you trust the top 1% with that kind of wealth? Maybe the robots would even control where wealth goes.

 

The free market has plenty of jobs that are worthless to society. Even though it is making money doesn't mean it is helping society.

 

Humans will be free to do more useful work, and, as productivity increases, humans who produce a lot will be taking more time off. There's a reason you get a 36 or 40 hour work week rather than sunup to sunrise in a field.

How else are you going to get across your social and economic agenda if not through the use of your police powers once you are appointed dictator? Do you think that your orders will be followed because it's a nice thing to do?

 

The sooner this comes to New England, the happier I'll be. I love self-checkouts, and whoever came up with Stop & Shop's Scan-It system deserves a Nobel Prize. No more long lines, no more waiting for a stoned HS dropout cashier to deign to notice me, no more messed-up bags. I can check out a full load of groceries in less than three minutes.

 

Let's examine that statement with logic. What is "society" other than a conceptual label for an aggregate of individuals? Considering that, what would be your objective measure of "benefit to society"? One individual benefits, more than one individual benefits, or perhaps 50%+1 individuals benefit?

For any given job in a free market, it's apparent that at least two people are benefitting. The person performing the work who voluntarily exchanges his labor for something that he perceives as more valuable than his labor, and the person who hires that person who trades his money (or other goods) for labor he perceives as more valuable than the money. Certainly there are no losers in a free market employment transaction, unlike a government transaction where the wealth must first be extracted from someone who did not voluntarily give it up. So, if two people that benefit from a job is not enough to benefit society, how many must benefit?

 

I just need to put money in the right places and stop wasting it. That doesn't require any police powers. Robots can do everything a human could do and could do it better. We wouldn't need human workers. Humans could do whatever they wanted. Is this so hard to understand? Does anyone have an imagination?

 

Yes it does. But think about this point. I think Henry Ford was the originator of it.

If there are no jobs there are no customers.

 

well like barack obama says, we better get rid of ATM's and computers.

 

You know we should take it one step further. No more modern forging processes, blacksmiths for everything. No more automated sawmills, all lumber can be cut by hand.

Those and a few more adjustments and everyone can have a job. Of course, everything will cost a lot more, but at least we'll have full employment.

 

From where are you going to obtain said money?

 

I've been arguing for a while that the best way to save the economy, short of a nuking a state or two, would be to hire a million people and have them tear down Hoover Dam and rebuild it armed with nothing but spoons.

 

That's not a bad idea. That would give lots of people jobs.

 

Millions of jobs. We'd all be rolling in wealth again!

 

From taxes. Is it that hard to understand?

 

Except your energy bill would be millions of times higher, or the people would be working for a lot less. So overall wealth would be a lot lower. Any more brilliant ideas?

 

no, you could pay them all $100 an hour

 

Most people I know don't want to work at the job they are at or don't want to work at all. Why should they have to work to survive if we had robots that could do all the work? Why would I need an objective measure when my subjective measure is right? No wonder nothing ever gets done. Everybody has to pick a side and blindly follow everything that side says. No one has a plan for our long term future. I couldn't give a rat's ass about the problem's people are having today. They brought it on themselves. Maybe if they had a long term plan 30 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in. Socialism in a robotic society is the only option. Capitalism works best only if you have retarded leaders. The better leaders you have, the better socialism is compared to capitalism, though capitalism would obviously improve because of good leaders, too. Almost every leader in history was retarded. I'll give you that. The solution to all of our problems is very simple: invest in science and technology. Science and technology is the only real way to improve the economy.

 

Then, instead of your energy bill being $200 in today's terms, it would be $200,000.

 

Then they are disgusting human beings with no motivation and should be cast off as dead weight in our society.

It is a CIVIC DUTY to have gainful employment in America.