Skip to main content

Robots, Your Job, and the Future

On Twitter, I often link to articles about how robots are replacing humans in various jobs. This isn't something I like talking about. It's terrible for those being replaced. But it is a fact, and that's why I do it.

We are in the early stages of a radical change in how companies provide services and produce or sell goods. It is scary for workers, but the change has started, and it's not going to stop, and if you can be replaced by a robot, you will be.

Those people protesting outside McDonald's headquarters in Chicago, wanting a $15/hour minimum wage and the right to unionize? They're organizing battles in a war they've already lost. McDonald's isn't going to give you $15/hour. McDonald's will just replace you with robots, and it's already working on it.

(Frankly, the Chicago protesters strike me as more of a union-thing, more union power, more mandatory union dues, etc. But unions will decline as their members are replaced by robots. Of course, in 2012, unions killed the Hostess company, causing the loss of 18,000 jobs.)

Or let's say you get states to raise the minimum wage to $15/hour. Illinois or any state can force McDonald's to pay you $15/hour; but Illinois can't force McDonald's to keep unprofitable restaurants open. McDonald's can just close all of its restaurants in Illinois. How does that help you? You just went from $9.00/hour to no job.

Once rumblings started a few years ago about a $15/hour minimum wage for fast food workers, Wendy's said, okay, we're just going to develop self-ordering kiosks and get rid of as many human workers as we can. Wendy's is rolling them out this year.

The minimum wage for robots is $0.00/hour. Robots don't get overtime pay. Robots don't get sick, don't have babies, don't go out on FMLA leave. Robots don't take vacations. Robots don't unionize. Robots don't need medical insurance or a 401(k). The only costs are the initial building and implementing costs, and service/maintenance costs after that.

Companies like McDonald's and Wendy's, and pretty much every other company, only care about keeping costs down and maximizing profits for the owners of the company. That's how business works; that's why people create businesses, to make money, to make a profit for themselves.

Of course, as the consumer, you can always choose to buy food or products from companies that like using humans. (It feels strange writing that.) You will be paying more, but that will be your choice, provided those businesses survive.

So it's a scary time, but make no mistake, the change has started. I don't know what the future will look like, but workplaces will be much different than they are today. If you want a job in the future, it has to be a job that can't be replaced with a robot. Humans with computer, programming, coding, skills should be important, going forward, and that's what I tell my kids to study.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Know Your Rights: Money/Remedy at Law vs. Equitable Relief

When you bring a lawsuit (or some other kind of action or proceeding) in court, you are asking the court to give you some kind of relief. Generally speaking, that relief is either money (called "damages" or "money damages" or a "remedy at law") or equitable relief. Everyone knows what money is. What is "equitable relief"? It is relief other than money. Some examples of equitable relief (or "relief at equity" or an "equitable remedy") are:  specific performance of a contract -- you entered into a contract with another party for them to do something; they failed to do it; you sue them to force them to perform as they agreed to in the contract an injunction -- you bring an action to make another party do something or stop doing something rescission of contract -- you entered into a contract; you believe there is a problem with the contract, or the other side committed fraud, or the other side can't perform its oblig...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Case Developments: Employment Contract Enforceable Against Employer Even Though Not Signed

The plaintiff is a modeling scout. Defendant modeling agency decided to hire him as a modeling scout for $190,000/year, plus bonuses. An employment contract was prepared. One provision of the contact said that if the plaintiff were ever fired without cause, he would be entitled to 6-months severance ($95,000). The contract also said that it could be signed in counterparts. The plaintiff signed the contract on August 18, 2015 and emailed his signature to the modeling agency. One of the agency's board members emailed back, saying "Welcome aboard. We'll countersign over the next few days." But no one from the agency ever signed the contract. Nevertheless, the plaintiff began working as a modeling scout, and the agency paid him according to the contract. But after six months, the agency decided to terminate him, without cause. The agency then refused to pay him the $95,000 severance, and the plaintiff brought a lawsuit for breach of contract. The modeling agency m...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Case Developments: Contractor Entitled to be Paid For Extra Work Not Part of Original Contract

On September 12, 2013, the Town of Kent (Putnam County) entered into a contract with a contractor to build a sewer.  During construction, certain "conditions that were unexpected and unanticipated" arose, requiring the contractor to do "extra" work--things beyond the scope of work of the original contract. (The appeals court doesn't detail what this extra work was.) The contractor performed the extra work, totaling around $380,000 in additional costs. For reasons not stated by the appeals court, the Town refused to pay for this extra work, and the contractor eventually sued the Town in May, 2015.  The contractor moved for summary judgment in the lower court (a kind of mini-trial on paper), and the court awarded judgment in favor of the contractor for the $380,000.  The Town appealed, but the appeals court sided with the contractor, saying that even though this "extra" work was not within the scope of work of the original contract, the con...
Post a Comment
Read more