jason1637 said:
Well there would be less health risks if there was a robot preparing your meal compared to a human. |
That's debatable. A robot isn't likely to identify foreign materials that might get into the system, the way a human can.
Ultimately, this is the eventual path of the fast food industry. And that's fine. The issue is that we have no plan for what happens when a lot of the less human-necessary jobs are replaced with machines. It is eventually going to be completely unreasonable to expect people to work for a living, as there simply won't be enough jobs to even come close to providing everyone with the necessary work.
That's why we need something like the Guaranteed Minimum Income. Then, people who don't want to work, and are happy to live on a minimum income, can do so. The result would be a dramatic change in the amount we pay for various things - sports stars would end up earning less because so many more people would have the time to train towards sports (let's be honest, a lot of people would want to be sports stars if they didn't need to be concerned with making a living along the way), while those in particularly "undesirable" fields, such as cleaners, etc, would be paid a lot more.
All that said, the argument of "we shouldn't be paying our fast food workers more, because otherwise it becomes more economical to replace them with machines" is just ludicrous. People aren't going to accept buying from McDonalds if, instead of employing many workers, they just buy expensive machines, which are likely themselves made by machines. Society won't accept it.
But I'm guessing this is why he's "former" McDonalds USA CEO.
