[Winder]

It's cool, but scary. How do we know these robots can't be programmed to poison half the population of the US on a given day... .

How do we know the high school drop-out currently making your hamburger isn't spitting on it? Does he have Hep-B? The Flu?

[GeneV]

Anything that empowers people to be more productive and generates less waste or consumes less resources is a good thing for society.

Aside from the dubious nature of any sentence stated in absolutes, is there some indication that this machine consumes less resources and generates less waste? Doesn't experience teach us the opposite is sometimes true? Often, when we manufacture something with less human effort, we tend to value it less as a society and waste more of it. A machine is left on by accident churning away. A machine is used at less than its capacity, so it is run more and the excess product is packaged and transported, using more resources. It will be interesting to see if there is a savings in resources.

[Winder]

Aside from the dubious nature of any sentence stated in absolutes, is there some indication that this machine consumes less resources and generates less waste? Doesn't experience teach us the opposite is sometimes true? Often, when we manufacture something with less human effort, we tend to value it less as a society and waste more of it. A machine is left on by accident churning away. A machine is used at less than its capacity, so it is run more and the excess product is packaged and transported, using more resources. It will be interesting to see if there is a savings in resources.

Sure if the machine is left on by accident, but the same could be said of human workers. Machines don't steal or give free food to friends. Both require management and supervision.

How much gas does a crew of people burn driving to work every day? How much smaller can you make a kitchen area if you don't have people running around? How much do you save on heating are cooling a smaller space? How much do you save on construction costs for a smaller space? How much does a company spend on uniforms for employees? How much time does management spend on training new hires in a high turnover job like food service? How much time is spent on scheduling for workers every week and balancing vacations, calling in sick, and people who just quit without notice?

McDonald's has a 130% turnover rate. McDonald's tries to keep workers from flipping jobs - Chicago Tribune

We don't know the price of the machines yet, but technology is making them better and less expensive while the opposite is happening with human labor. We don't know how much volume a restaurant needs to do to justify the cost of the machine, and it is true that today it might not provide a cost savings today in a small resturant, but what about tomorrow? The company that makes the machines is opening their own chain of restaurants, so they much feel pretty good about the cost of overhead.

I was doing interior marketing shots for a $3.5 million dollar spec. home many years ago when I saw my first plasma TV. It was made by Pioneer and was around 50". It cost $10,000 back then and was a total luxury item. Today Plasma is the budget HDTV and new technology is considered a luxury. 10 years ago I would have paid a fortune for a printer with the quality of my Canon Promark 9500II and there were no cameras that could match the quality of today's sub $700 Pentax K-30. Technology makes goods cheaper and better if they are freely exchanged.

[Winder]

Doesn't experience teach us the opposite is sometimes true? Often, when we manufacture something with less human effort, we tend to value it less as a society and waste more of it.

The value we place on goods and services is determined by what we have to give up in order to attain them. It does not matter how important these goods and services are to our well being. What I think you are bringing up is called the Paradox of Values. In the first world, clean water is so cheap and plentiful we literally waste it, and yet diamonds are of no real value to our everyday existence and we will spend thousands on a rock. This is the Paradox of Values. Why is water of no significant value when you can't live without it, and yet a shinny stone is worth thousands on the open market?

If a resource/good/service is scarce people will value it. If the resource that has been scarce suddenly becomes readily available or free, then the first generation of people will still place a high value on the resource because they remember when it was scarce. Each generation from this point on will value the resource less than the previous generation because they don't remember when it was scarce. Values change over generations and any window shorter than 30 years is pretty much a waste or time, and for some work 50 years of data would be considered an minimum.

What the machine is designed to do is:
1. Produce more product for the business owner at a lower cost there by producing more profit for the owner (no competitive advantage).
2. Allow the business owner to take the money that he/she would have used on labor and instead spend it on higher quality ingredients in order to provide a superior product at the same price (providing a competitive advantage - quality)
3. Allow the business owner to provide the same quality at a lower price for end users (providing a competitive advantage - price).

In a diverse market we will see all three options being employed by different competitors and probably a combination of those three options. I don't see how this machine would cause people to value hamburgers less.

[GeneV]

What the machine is designed to do is:
1. Produce more product for the business owner at a lower cost there by producing more profit for the owner (no competitive advantage).
2. Allow the business owner to take the money that he/she would have used on labor and instead spend it on higher quality ingredients in order to provide a superior product at the same price (providing a competitive advantage - quality)
3. Allow the business owner to provide the same quality at a lower price for end users (providing a competitive advantage - price).

Or not.

It could just raise the cost of entry in the market to the point that the small burger stands are eliminated, and the world belongs to McDonalds. Time will tell.

[monochrome]

Does the OP understand that all of the purported savings come at the expense of the formerly-employed laborers, who, it is surmised, are less productive than a machine and more costly than the capital required to buy the machine? It is further surmised that to the business owner the former employees have no more humanity nor value than the machine which replaces them.

That kind of productivity increase is the veritable textbook definition of the cause of deflation.

[Winder]

Or not.

It could just raise the cost of entry in the market to the point that the small burger stands are eliminated, and the world belongs to McDonalds. Time will tell.

If the machine is not affordable then it will never be sold and will have no impact on the economy. McDonald's has their own in-house automated technology that they are working on. If the cost of the machine is that high people will just continue to use human labor and there will be no disruption. The small burger stand will continue to do just as it always has.

In what industries has advancements in technology raised the cost of entry? When I see a industry where the bar is being raised it is usually do to government regulations or there is a professional cartel (AMA, ABA, Real Estate) that controls the licensing standards.

Has technology made it more expensive to become a professional photographer? The K-30 is a better camera than my $2,300 Canon 5D was and for a fraction of the cost. I paid $300 for each my Canon ProMark 9500II printers and while slow is more than capable of matching lab quality. What i hear from other photographers is whining because the opposite is true. More people are entering the field than ever before.

1GB of storage in 1980 was $193,000.00..... Has technology made it more expensive or less?
The internet has lowered the cost of entry to thousands of businesses who can now advertise and sell on-line.

[Winder]

Does the OP understand that all of the purported savings come at the expense of the formerly-employed laborers, who, it is surmised, are less productive than a machine and more costly than the capital required to buy the machine? It is further surmised that to the business owner the former employees have no more humanity nor value than the machine which replaces them.

That kind of productivity increase is the veritable textbook definition of the cause of deflation.

McDonald's has a turnover rate of 130% annually. Those employee's don't give a rat's butt about McDonald's. I'm not sure why you have some romanticized view of relationship between employer and labor. I'm willing to bet 99% of minimum wage workers that McDonald's employ don't go to work every day simply because of their love and devotion to the brand. The show up for ONE reason. They want to get paid. When McDonald's ceases to be the best option that is available to them, they will quit and most will never give a notice.

Do you understand that every time technology and society have moved forward jobs have been lost and new jobs have been created. That does not mean that the new jobs will be created in the same place or that the same people will get the new jobs.

Should we stop developing clean energy so we can save the jobs in the coal industry? I hope you will answer "NO" to that question because you understand that the benefits of developing cleaner, cheaper energy outweigh the lost jobs in the coal industry. But if you really believe that these deflationary technologies are bad then maybe you would prefer we continue to use coal.

http://www.uctc.net/access/30/Access%2030%20-%2002%20-%20Horse%20Power.pdf
IN 1898, DELEGATES FROM A CROSS THE GLOBE gathered in New York City for the world’s first international urban planning conference. One topic dominated the discussion. It was not housing, land use, economic development, or infrastructure. The delegates were driven to desperation by horse manure. The horse was no newcomer on the urban scene. But by the late 1800s, the problem of horse pollution had reached unprecedented heights. The growth in the horse population was outstripping even the rapid rise in the number of human city dwellers. American cities were drowning in horse manure as well as other unpleasant byproducts of the era’s predominant mode of transportation: urine, flies, congestion, carcasses, and traffic accidents.Widespread cruelty to horses was a form of environmental degradation as well.

The situation seemed dire. In 1894, the Times of London estimated that by 1950 every street in the city would be buried nine feet deep in horse manure. One New York prognosticator of the 1890s concluded that by 1930 the horse droppings would rise to Manhattan’s third-story windows. A public health and sanitation crisis of almost unimaginable dimensions loomed. And no possible solution could be devised. After all, the horse had been the dominant mode of transportation for thousands of years. Horses were absolutely essential for the functioning of the nineteenth century city—for personal transportation, freight haulage, and even mechanical power. Without horses, cities would quite literally starve.

By your logic we would be better off today if we still used horses, because cars and public transportation destroyed thousands of jobs for people. What happened to they guy who got paid to walk around and clean horse crap off the street? He lost his job. Think of all of the people who were employed in the feeding and maintaining the thousands of horses needed to keep the city functioning. They all lost their jobs.

If you don't understand the difference between price deflation created by advances in technology and price deflation created by the manipulation of the money supply then we are wasting our time. The though police wont let us talk about that aspect of it anyway, so lets stick to the non-political price deflation created by advances in technology.

Maybe you can give me a specific example of price deflation that was created by technology (like the falling price of computer memory), but show me how it was a net loss to society?

[fisheye freak]

At the end of the day, you can only consume what you produce. If a machine can produce something extra for people to consume, then new industries will eventually soak up the burger flipper jobs to produce something new. The Luddite argument falls over here in that innovation simply produces more. In days of old excess labour was soaked up with grand constructions like palaces and pyramids. They seemed wasteful at the time, but in the very long run became tourist attractions and part of the culture.
There are so many areas that are screaming for attention, so burger flippers will eventually find new and most likely more rewarding careers.

[ihasa]

If more attractive alternative careers actually are available, why don't the burger flippers just quit and go for those jobs anyway? I can't see how the invention of a burger flipping machine will magically open up new job markets elsewhere on the economy. It has generally been the case that as manual jobs have disappeared, service jobs have come along to replace them (or many of them at least). Is that guaranteed to continue to happen in the future, or could the balance of mechanisation reach a tipping point where service sector jobs can't keep up?

As an aside, is lowering the price of burgers even a good idea in the first place? They are temptingly cheap already, as my waistline will attest.

[Winder]

If more attractive alternative careers actually are available, why don't the burger flippers just quit and go for those jobs anyway? I can't see how the invention of a burger flipping machine will magically open up new job markets elsewhere on the economy. It has generally been the case that as manual jobs have disappeared, service jobs have come along to replace them (or many of them at least). Is that guaranteed to continue to happen in the future, or could the balance of mechanisation reach a tipping point where service sector jobs can't keep up?

As an aside, is lowering the price of burgers even a good idea in the first place? They are temptingly cheap already, as my waistline will attest.

Someone has to build these machines. Someone has to design, service, install. Someone has to write the code that drives these machines. If the machines do become commonplace it will create a new industry, and those jobs will pay a lot more than flipping burgers.

At one point in history all food and and textile (cotton) crops were harvested by hand. Should we go back to that in order to provide more low paying jobs? Would society be better off? Why didn't those fieldworkers "just quit and go find better jobs"? That is the same question that you are asking.

Production drives the economy. Throughout history it is the economy that can increase production that has moved ahead. No economy has ever advanced by reducing it productive capability. If someone can think of one please let me know.

Production jobs have not been historically "replaced" by service jobs. Service jobs are build on top of the productive base. As a country becomes more productive it frees up labor to provide services. Once the productive base starts to decline, those service jobs start to collapse. In the 1950's Detroit was the productive symbol of the country with Ford, GM & Chrysler. When the productive industries started to crumble, those service jobs didn't replace them. The service jobs collapsed without the production jobs to support them. Detroit is one step away from being the first major industrial ghost town. Half of Detroit property owners don't pay taxes | The Detroit News | detroitnews.com

When productive capacity is increased labor is displaced, but under these circumstances that labor has been freed up to provide services to the now more productive (hence wealthier) producers. When productive capacity is lost or destroyed then the productive base becomes poorer and they are no longer able to support the added cost of a large service sector.

The hamburger flipper is synonymous with entry level unskilled labor (at one point fieldworkers were the entry level). The simpler the job the more likely it is that someone will invent a machine to do that job. The more expensive it becomes to hire/train/insure employees, the more competitive automated systems will become. Technology is making automated systems faster, better, smaller, & cheaper for simple repetitive jobs. People at the very bottom of the economic ladder will have a harder time finding a job where they can learn basic job skills like good customer service, sanitation, counting money, and a dozen other skills that most of us take for granted. We are pricing them out of the job market.

If the hamburger machine actually works and can produce more at a lower cost (fewer resources) then it will make the economy stronger and wealthier. Productive capacity is real wealth and it always will be. Anything that increases a countries productive capacity will always make a country wealthier, assuming what is being produced is actually needed.

One important aspect of this is that these automated technologies will also bring jobs back to this country. They will allow robots to perform many of the production jobs that we have exported. When the production does return it will bring with it jobs for the people who have to design, build, maintain and program these robots as production needs change. These jobs will pay much better than the jobs that have been lost.

[Winder]

Chinese Restaurant Owner Says Robot Noodle Maker Doing “A Good Job!” | Singularity Hub

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

[reeftool]

I've been a truck refrigeration mechanic for over 40 years and have worked in and around the food industry for all of it. One thing I can say for sure is that while they may be popular with a certain line of thinking in the fast food business, food customers have a general dislike for automated food. The robot will indeed come to fast food, for better or worse but they will never replace a good cook. I avoid fast food joints because everything is the same, all the time. OK for a quick pit stop, nothing more.

[Winder]

I've been a truck refrigeration mechanic for over 40 years and have worked in and around the food industry for all of it. One thing I can say for sure is that while they may be popular with a certain line of thinking in the fast food business, food customers have a general dislike for automated food. The robot will indeed come to fast food, for better or worse but they will never replace a good cook. I avoid fast food joints because everything is the same, all the time. OK for a quick pit stop, nothing more.

People will come to accept automation. Look at all of the machines that are currently used in food production today. Mixers, slicers, ovens with moving belts, soda machines..... you probably don't thing twice about all of the automated process that you see today. Just as robotic welders and painters are now common in production of cars, robotic food prep is coming to fast food.

"Food is the next frontier of 3D printing"

[reeftool]

Of course people will accept it. They just aren't going to like it anywhere near a meal that's been cooked to order. That's why people call out for pizza rather than pop a frozen one in the oven.

Maybe that's not the best example because I've had pizza that the box with ketchup on it would have been better but those places won't be in business long anyhow.