I think the CEO is ignoring that people expect a human touch in their dining experience... even in low end dining experiences. There are also many complex tasks that robots can not perform because the tasks are not consist or depend on complex human factors. Yes, you can have a robotic arm at the fryer to create French fries, but how do you handle the customer who wants no salt on their fries while asking for two sauces from behind the counter to dip the fries in -- when someone wants to have it their way. There are a few restaurants around the world who tried out robots as wait staff and to perform other work. People flock to see the robots as a novelty for a few months and then business drops off sharply. Usually the robotic restaurant lands up closing within two years due to lack of business.
Why one man thinks the US government should pay citizens $1,000 a month One former union boss has a bold idea on how to ensure economic stability in the U.S. — give every citizen $1,000 a month. While the idea of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) is not necessarily a new one, Andy Stern believes his plan is important now because of "tectonic shifts" in the labor market that will see more and more workers replaced by robots. "In order to make sure that everyone has a floor — something they can't fall below, that we end poverty once and for all — let's give everyone a check," the former president of the Service Employees International Union said in a recent interview with CNBC's "Power Lunch." Income inequality continues to be one of the urgent topics in the public discourse. There were 46.7 million people living in poverty in 2014, according to the latest data from U.S. Census Bureau. The poverty threshold was $12,331 a year for an individual under 65 and $15,871 for a two-adult household during that time. Still, there is wide disagreement about how to alleviate poverty, whether the government should redistribute income to address it — or whether it's really a problem in the first place. Economists at the libertarian think tank Cato Institute recently argued that the income gap was being 'misperceived" by a range of factors that are being misinterpreted by the public. Yet Stern, who is a senior fellow at Columbia University and author of "Raising the Floor," argues the debate is being shifted by concerns about the rise of artificial intelligence and the displacement of workers. The World Economic Forum projects more than 5 million jobs in 15 leading countries will be lost by 2020, thanks to disruptive labor market changes, including the increased use of robots. Additionally, according to a 2013 Oxford study, 47 percent of U.S. jobs were at risk of being automated in the next two decades. "A tsunami of change may be coming and we would be crazy to not look at the warning signs and figure out a plan," said Stern. "I'm not betting my kids life that this time is going to be the same as ever before. I'm not sure that's true." However, critics have called UBI a "terrible idea" that would wither the U.S. social fabric bytying Americans to the government. The idea was also rejected in Switzerland earlier this month, when voters decided against a basic income plan. It was the first country to hold a referendum on the issue, but others including Finland are examining similar plans. Stern, however, is undeterred, and has an answer for those who are concerned about the cost to the government. He would cut some of the government's 126 programs that already pay out cash. However, he suggests Social Security should remain intact. "I'm not saying we end all of them but certainly a lot of them. That's the basis of how we can fund this kind of program," he said. "We're going to have to change the welfare system going forward." http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mark...zens-dollar1000-a-month/ar-AAhh5mM?li=BBnbfcL
Increasing minimum wage doesn't not solve poverty and doesn't not improve living standard for anyone. It's just the number getting bigger for everyone, not just those on minimum wage. If minimum wage goes from 7.5$/h to 15$/h, someone who used to get 15$/h will now ask for 30$/h simply because their job is twice more demanding. It will cause inflation, because the amount of goods, service, properties, etc. remain the same. It will decrease international competitiveness, causing companies to lose sales, causing people to lose job. The only way to improve living standard is to increase productivity.
Hello piezoe: Thank you for your repy: You finally answered in part a question I asked at the very beginning in post 147, p 15 which you said you cannot answer. But if you had it would have saved a lot of time. In that post I said "Can you give your definition of a free market and the role of value in a free market ? If we can't agree on the definitions of some thing so basic in economics as a “free market” and “value” we will just be talking past each other and not really communicating. So now after talking past each other for way too long you have finally given your definition of a free market which is "When I say "Free Markets do not exist in the macroeconomic world," I am of course meaning pure Free Markets, and not just hit and miss occurrence of some elements of a free market. And as previously explained, I am using the term "FreeMarkets" to mean "Free Markets" in the layman's sense of that term. The Layman almost always, by use of the term "Free Market," means a market where participants (buyers and sellers) are free to participate on exactly equal terms in an atmosphere of perfect competition where neither participants nor the State has erected any barriers that would bias the market in favor of buyers or sellers. I am confident that you will agree that these kinds of markets do not exist. " A deconstruction of your definitions of a free market shows a straw man argument which you of course easily refute. And I of course agree with you "pure Free Markets" and "perfect competition" do not exist in the real world. And to answer your question "Do you think that McConnell believes that pure free markets exist?" No I don't, and what makes you think he does or I do. Your list of qualifications for a free market to exist only muddle the discussion. Economics is not like physics or chemistry where you are dealing with inanimate objects whose behavior can be predicted and described in very exact numerical terms. But even there the words "pure and perfect" are hard to find except in their models. Do you believe there is such a thing as pure gold or a perfect bridge or a perfect airplane or a perfect machine. To rephrase your earlier remark. "Do you think that Stephan Hawking believes that pure gold, a perfect bridge, a perfect airplane or a perfect machine exists?" In spite of the failure to hold to your standard of "pure and perfect" these items seem to be very useful in their imperfect state in the real world thanks to physics and chemistry. As Einstein says every thing is relative. And just because some thing is not "perfect or pure" does not mean it does not exist. Speaking of models of reality. You need to get your model of a free market right before you say they don't exist. Once you define a free market correctly you will see that they do exist. We talk about the free speech and the freedom we enjoy in the United States. And of course it not "pure" or "perfect" and yet it exists. You just just have to realize that your freedom to do as you please ends when you interfere with the another persons freedom. Or you could say ones right to happiness ends where another persons nose begins. Perhaps you would have preferred that the first amendment of the US Constitution to have said Congress shall make "nearly" no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the "nearly" free exercise thereof; or "nearly" abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or "nearly" the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Doesn't quite sound the same as the original version does it ? And yet in school we learn or should have learned that these rights and freedoms are not pure or perfect or absolute and yet they exist. Free markets are what made our country's economy so strong or if you prefer "nearly free markets" are what made our country's economy so strong. I find the qualification superfluous. But you are correct we have "nearly free markets" not "perfect and pure" free markets. I thought that was understood to be the case. I can't think of any human institutions in the real world that are "perfect or pure" ? Can you ? Here's a little humor for you. If some one Tells their wife she is the nearly perfect wife. What do you think would happen ? And yet wives exist. Very strange. Both Mankiw and McConnell as I pointed out earlier agree that free markets exist and they make no qualifications about there non existence in the "macroeconomic world" as you claim. You have no reputable sources to back up your claim. Your Soros references only state the obvious. At least it should be to any one who has studied economics. Soros says about markets as mentioned in your post: "After nearly half a century of what now appears as excessive regulation, we have been moving towards excessive deregulation. The sooner we recognize that some kind of regulation is necessary in order to maintain stability, the better our chances of preserving the benefits of a nearly free market system."** Of course there must be some regulation in the markets and if a market has some regulation then by Soros defintion it is not a free market but maybe a "a nearly free market system.". Thank you for the quote. So can we at least agree on the definition of some thing so basic in economics as a "market" ? Otherwise we will just be talking past each other and not really communicating. Do you agree with the below definitions ? From Mankiw, N. Gregory - Principles of Economics Market A group of buyers and sellers of a particular good or service From Campbell McConnell - Microeconomics Market Any institution or mechanism that brings together buyers (demanders) and sellers (suppliers) of a particular good or service. Anubis
Hello piezoe: Your Soros quote "After nearly half a century of what now appears as excessive regulation, we have been moving towards excessive deregulation. The sooner we recognize that some kind of regulation is necessary in order to maintain stability, the better our chances of preserving the benefits of a nearly free market system." .................................................................................... reminds me of the story Goldilocks and the Three Bears. Once upon a time, there was a little girl named Goldilocks. She went for a walk in the forest. Pretty soon, she came upon a house. She knocked and, when no one answered, she walked right in. At the table in the kitchen, there were three bowls of porridge. Goldilocks was hungry. She tasted the porridge from the first bowl. "This porridge is too hot!" she exclaimed. So, she tasted the porridge from the second bowl. "This porridge is too cold," she said So, she tasted the last bowl of porridge. "Ahhh, this porridge is just right," she said happily and she ate it all up... .................................................................................... In the Soros version of the Goldilocks story where we substitute markets for porridge and Soros for Goldilocks the story would go as follows: Markets with excessive regulation is bad, Soros exclaimed. Markets with excessive deregulation is also bad, Soros said.. But ahhh, markets with "just the right amount" of regulation is good, says Soros happily and he quickly shorted the British pound and made billions. .................................................................................... The Soros quote is just a platitude. Of course the key word here is regulation which unlike hot or cold cannot be defined in straight forward numerical terms. Wage and price controls are a form of regulation. Laws forbidding the sale of illegal drugs or human slavery etc are also a form of regulation. Laws on standards of weights and measures are a form of regulation. Laws on the legality of contracts are a form of regulation. In fact I cannot imagine how markets in any society can function fairly or well without some forms of regulation. What Soros should have said is regulations which facilitate free and fair trade are good. Regulations which restrain free and fair trade are bad. The terms "excessive regulation" or "not enough regulation" have no functional meaning and are therefore useless economic terms. Whether regulations exist or do not exist or how many or how few regulations there are is not what defines a free market. In fact the wrong kinds of regulation can destroy a free market. See socialism/Bernie Sanders/communism/Venezuela's Maduro. With no regulations you can hardly expect free and fair markets to exist. That type of situation would be more like a Mad Max type of society with criminal gangs preying on each other and on the defenseless for what they want. You say “ Soros is under no delusions that the optimum allocation of resources is attainable. He knows it isn't.” I don't know of any one who believes this goal is attainable either, other than socialists like Bernie Sanders or Venezuela's Maduro. Do you ? You really need to read up on what a fine job Maduro is doing in Venezuela. He has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that socialism not free markets is how to make the “optimum allocation of resources attainable”. We are in his debt for this great lesson in economics. You say “And of course he knows that ideal, pure "Free Markets", i.e. those that don't quickly deteriorate into cartels and monopolies, or those that I refer to when I use that term, are equally unattainable.” Is that so ? Cartels and monopolies typically get their power to be cartels and monopolies thanks to laws they got the government to pass to favor them. It doesn't sound like a free or fair market to me if there are laws specifically designed to prevent competition with a government favored company. Sounds like an example of government corruption to me not free markets. In a free and democratic society those corrupt officials can be prosecuted and thrown in jail. I believe Soros is committing the sin of binarism here. Shame on Soros. Lucky for us North Korea started out as one big monoploy over the economy and didn't go through that awful free market stage like South Korea did. Bernie Sanders fans must really be proud of socialist North Korea. Another great lesson in economics showing the advantages of socialism over free markets. North Korea sounds like a dream vacation spot for Bernie Sanders fans. I guarantee you, North Korea is free of free markets. See Democratic People's Republic of Korea http://www.korea-dpr.com/ "The DPRK is the Juche-oriented socialist state which embodies the idea and leadership of Comrade Kim II Sung, the founder of the Republic and the father of socialist Korea." The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a genuine workers' state in which all the people are completely liberated from exploitation and oppression. The workers, peasants, soldiers and intellectuals are the true masters of their destiny and are in a unique position to defend their interests. …................................................................................................................................. So let me ask you piezoe. Since free markets do not exist according to you, what makes South Korea's economy so much so much better than North Korea's economy ? Anubis
It is true that monopolies and cartels often use the government to maintain and consolidate their control of a market, but it is a common fallacy to think that monopolies and cartels, in the absence of regulation, must have government help to form. Even more fallacious is the opinion that some hold that "there has never been a monopoly or cartel without government help." There are many examples of monopolies and cartels , after they formed, obtaining government help to maintain their hegemony. Just as there are many examples of governments stepping in to break up monopolies and cartels.
You are capable, i'm sure, of answering this question for yourself, recognizing, of course, that both North and South Korea have highly regulated economies. One might therefore conclude that either the type and extent of regulation is responsible for the difference, or that the existence of regulation, in and of itself, in these economies has nothing to do with the differences in the two economies. It is not an interesting question to me. You'll have to sort it out for yourself.
The last sentence in your "Soros" version of Goldilocks contains a non sequitur, making it read as nonsense.
Adjusted for inflation, the federal minimum wage is worth less than 50 years ago Nearly seven years ago, the U.S. federal minimum wage was increased to $7.25 an hour from $6.55. It's remained stagnant ever since, as a nationwide debate over better pay and worker protections rages on. But that hasn't stopped Ken Weinstein from paying his workers more at his two restaurants in Pennsylvania, where the state minimum wage matches the federal floor. Weinstein owns two Trolley Car Diners in the northern Philadelphia area, and decided two years ago to increase the minimum wage for his 75 employees to $8.50. "It's a competitive thing — you certainly get better employees by paying them more," said Weinstein, who supports a $12 an hour federal minimum wage. "We have a stable workforce, and it's partly due to treating our employees well, and paying them more than our competitors." Despite periodic increases, the buying power of the federal minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Data show that in 1968, the federal minimum was equivalent to $10.90 in 2015 dollars, nearly $4 higher than today's rate.... http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/21/adju...mum-wage-is-worth-less-than-50-years-ago.html