McDonald's Opens First Largely Automated Location

[Sand Dancer]

At the grand old age of 62 I find this distinction for most people to be irrelevant and meaningless. (Says someone whose working life included a job that required a higher education qualification). Most people don't do one sort of work for the whole of their working lives. The idea promoted to young people of "aiming for a career" rather than "settling for a dead end job" is mostly dismissed or forgotten about or leads to bitterness in the long run.
"I worked hard at school, went to college and then uni and where did it get me?"
"I messed around at school, got no qualifications, learnt on the job with my dad's mate and now I live in a big house with a posh car."

Well, it isn't a cut and dry thing, especially since gen xers tend to prefer jobs to careers, supposedly. Also, many folks don't use their college degrees. Mea culpa.

 

[Secret Chief]

I've been hearing about all this increased leisure time technology will provide, since my childhood in the 1960s, so how come I still can't afford to retire?

I think leisure time might be a euphemism for structural poverty.

 

[Secret Chief]

Well, it isn't a cut and dry thing, especially since gen xers tend to prefer jobs to careers, supposedly. Also, many folks don't use their college degrees. Mea culpa.

I agree it's not a cut and dry thing but by and large society sells the idea as a cut and dry thing.
A further point: A decade or three ago there was a big push in the UK to put lots more people through university. A veritable explosion of graduates. Great for the overall education level of individuals and the country but given there was no similar increase in jobs requiring a degree from a work perspective it simply meant there were now plenty of graduates doing non-graduate jobs. Let's hope they enjoyed their time at uni, despite them possibly not being academically up to it.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I agree it's not a cut and dry thing but by and large society sells the idea as a cut and dry thing.
A further point: A decade or three ago there was a big push in the UK to put lots more people through university. A veritable explosion of graduates. Great for the overall education level of individuals and the country but given there was no similar increase in jobs requiring a degree from a work perspective it simply meant there were now plenty of graduates doing non-graduate jobs. Let's hope they enjoyed their time at uni, despite them possibly not being academically up to it.

We push it here too, which is ridiculous. It's become a money making scheme.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

More & more people will cost more than they're
worth, thereby becoming unemployable. They'll
go on the dole.

Or maybe go work for the government, I guess, if jobs look more available in that direction. So then I guess, AI will do all the work, and maybe we'll have a huge military?

But really, I think what has to be done would be earlier training for starter jobs. A hundred years before, not going to college was not a problem, and that was because the state trained you to at least be able to be ready for a job, when you were released from basic education. So in other words, I think the state should be responsible for making people ready for tech jobs once they graduate high school, and that can be the new coal mining. Far more advanced jobs, then, like building space ships, can be what college people get.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Yes.
Fans of a greatly raised minimum wage are greasing the skids.

I'd be more open to criticizing the folks in the business making more than enough money to kive comfortably but unwilling to invest more in the company to allow their workers a livable wage while keeping prices low.

 

[Revoltingest]

Or maybe go work for the government, I guess, if jobs look more available in that direction.

"Make work" programs are another possibility.
But government would tend more towards bloating
than the UBI.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Wasn't it Star Trek who envisioned a society without money, Imagine being able to travel, read, ride bikes, talk, anything you wanted.

Carpe Diem, I'm a fan of embracing technology, believe it can lead to a higher quality of life for all.

Futurists used to envision a utopian society where technology would remove the need to work and people could live comfortably and toil in creative and academic pursuits. Obviously, there's a dystopian side to that as well, but as @Revoltingest wisely suggests, minimum universal income may allow for folks to continue to toil (cause there's value in that) while allowing industry to use automation.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'd be more open to criticizing the folks in the business making more than enough money to kive comfortably but unwilling to invest more in the company to allow their workers a livable wage while keeping prices low.

We won't be able to prevent people from wanting
ever more. Expecting them to pay more simply
out of a sense of charity isn't feasible.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

We won't be able to prevent people from wanting
ever more. Expecting them to pay more simply
out of a sense of charity isn't feasible.

Same with the folks wanting livable wages. The difference is they have far less and are fighting for life.

 

[Revoltingest]

Same with the folks wanting livable wages. The difference is they have far less and are fighting for life.

People who are too poor to afford a car
must "fight for life" without one.
It's unfair, but no one has the right to own
a car. And we shouldn't stop trying to prevent
AGW just to help poor people afford cars.

 

[Shaul]

It could be worse. They could use self check out like the grocery stores and Walmart.

 

[Father Heathen]

It could be worse. They could use self check out like the grocery stores and Walmart.

I loathe self-checkout. It's fine if you only have a small handful of items, but very tedious if you're buying one or two weeks worth of groceries, and other shoppers tend to be extremely slow with the process, which holds up the line.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

People who are too poor to afford a car
must "fight for life" without one.
It's unfair, but no one has the right to own
a car. And we shouldn't stop trying to prevent
AGW just to help poor people afford cars.

People have a right to access the infrastructure of the communities they are a part of. That is the legacy of humanity. We build communities to support each other.

 

[Revoltingest]

People have a right to access the infrastructure of the communities they are a part of. That is the legacy of humanity. We build communities to support each other.

They have the right to access it.
But driving is a privilege.

There are some better ways to address the high cost
of owning a car than preserving cheap IC engines for
the poor to pollute our air....
1) Live near where one works.
2) Bicycle & walk.
3) Urban design that's friendlier to pedestrians
& cyclists, eg, Netherlands.
4) Car pool.
5) Motorcycle.

I've done 1, 2, 4, & 5.
Hitchhiking too...but that's no longer done apparently.

 

[Heyo]

How far into the future do you think a AI could do the job of a plumber, machanic, electrician, construction worker, you know those jobs that a lot of today's youth look down their noses at?

You don't need AI to replace most manual work. In fact, it has already be done. Give 3 workers a set of power tools and they can do the same work as 30 workers without. 90 % of all people used to work in agriculture, now it's about 1% - no AI involved.
The 89% went to do other work, more intellectual, planning, R&D, management, accounting. Those are the jobs which will be taken over by AI.
How far in the future? According to Ray Kurzweil, who has a very good track record with such prediction, general AI, i.e. one "smart" enough to replace an accountant or a lawyer, is 5 years away.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

You don't need AI to replace most manual work. In fact, it has already be done. Give 3 workers a set of power tools and they can do the same work as 30 workers without. 90 % of all people used to work in agriculture, now it's about 1% - no AI involved.

This is probably the best point to keep in mind, when it comes to modern economics and politics. Thanks for putting it so succinctly, and I wonder how many people really get it.

Technology and people: the great debate of our time is this: is technology facilitating us to be more productive, or is technology actually doing more of the work we used to do, giving us more leisure. The former thing, of it making it so we get to do ever more work, seems to be what society pushes, in my opinion. The car doesn't make it so you get somewhere faster, instead it facilitates your punctuality, so you now have to get somewhere faster.

The computer doesn't make it so you can outsource a whole bunch of people who work in tabulation, so they don't have to work, it makes it so you have to figure out something more you can do with the computer. And the power-tools make it so that you don't get to rest after finishing the building quicker, but they make it so you have to make more buildings, in a shorter amount of time.

So it's almost like technology is running us, as opposed to us running it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I don't go to McDonalds, but I will never go to any restaurant that is fully automated.

Their 'food' now tastes like sewage anyways.

Your not missing anything at all.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

They have the right to access it.
But driving is a privilege.

There are some better ways to address the high cost
of owning a car than preserving cheap IC engines for
the poor to pollute our air....
1) Live near where one works.
2) Bicycle & walk.
3) Urban design that's friendlier to pedestrians
& cyclists, eg, Netherlands.
4) Car pool.
5) Motorcycle.

I've done 1, 2, 4, & 5.
Hitchhiking too...but that's no longer done apparently.

True, and I don't disagree. But there are times when a car (or better public transport) is nearly a requirement to survive. Here in Maine, public transportation is either haphazard or non-existent, and in the majority of Maine, living by where you work is impossible. One could move, of course, but that takes money and could result in leaving resources like family and friends behind for uncertainty. Often, this means cobbling together rides, which many of us have to do.

If you contribute to the community it should not leave you without the resources you need to participate just so folks can profit beyond even extravagant comfort.

 

[Heyo]

This is probably the best point to keep in mind, when it comes to modern economics and politics. Thanks for putting it so succinctly, and I wonder how many people really get it.

Technology and people: the great debate of our time is this: is technology facilitating us to be more productive, or is technology actually doing more of the work we used to do, giving us more leisure. The former thing, of it making it so we get to do ever more work, seems to be what society pushes, in my opinion. The car doesn't make it so you get somewhere faster, instead it facilitates your punctuality, so you now have to get somewhere faster.

The computer doesn't make it so you can outsource a whole bunch of people who work in tabulation, so they don't have to work, it makes it so you have to figure out something more you can do with the computer. And the power-tools make it so that you don't get to rest after finishing the building quicker, but they make it so you have to make more buildings, in a shorter amount of time.

So it's almost like technology is running us, as opposed to us running it.

Yes, we currently do have more technology than is good for us and we tend to focus on science and technology where philosophy and politics are required. We think we can achieve post scarcity in the future with more technology when we could have done it decades ago with another political/cultural approach.
So, is that what we should predict? More of the same? People still needing to work 30+ hours, just to get by and only the owners of the means of production getting the benefits of the increased production?
While I see the possibility and the recent past is indicative of such a development, there are limits to how much stuff can be usefully produced, bought and purposefully owned. Technology may push us towards the change in philosophy we need.
But it surely would be better if we thought about it before we are forced to.