with supply and demand and all… IM DEMANDING CANNED BREAD!! where’s the supply 🥺?

It replaces workers with robots so it would probably save money too.

  • UltraHamster64@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    My boss once said that you can abuse human workers, you can underpay them, you can worsen their conditions (and if you do it slowly) they might not notice, or they going to work even harder to survive. Worst case scenario they quit, and you just find another one “new” and repeat the cycle.

    But you can’t underpay robots. You can’t abuse them. Why? Because they just break. You skip on maintenance, on working conditions, on anything around robots - and you are looking on fat sum of money that just going to get burnt on a new robot and its installation.

    So no, robots are not going to save money, especially in this scenario, because abuse would be massive.

      • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        You do actually have to pay them more than minimum wage, if you think about it.

        Minimum wage in many countries is so low it’s not enough to sustain a human. You can’t do it to a robot, since it will just not do its job, no matter how many regulators you capture or how many middle management manipulations you pull. You have to pay a living wage to a robot.

        This is why “people are still cheaper than robots”. What happens if there’s a 20% wave of inflation? With workers, it’s “we don’t give out 20% pay raises, grow up”, with robots, it’s “here is your power bill, it’s 30% higher to cover for any further fluctuations in inflation, pay it or shut your factory down”.

        Robots need breaks too, if they are not regularly maintained they will start to make mistakes, costly mistakes, and they might break, and when one breaks, you don’t just recruit one more wage slave from the fucked up job market, you shell out a lot of money for a new robot.

        • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          There may be cases where the price of labor is lower than the price of a specific machine, but the Industrial Revolution was built on replacing labor with capital.

          It isn’t evenly spread out, but it is something increasingly happening to more and more jobs.

      • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        The problem is minimum wage is the break even equivalent of like 2-10k human hours without even factoring in expensive maintenance costs.

        • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          A return on investment of 0.5 to 2.5 years is pretty good for companies. You also have to factor the costs of maintaining a space for a human equivalent. Paying a wage doesn’t cover all labor costs.

      • UltraHamster64@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        You have to pay them minimum wage, It’s just called “monthly maintenance expenses” and it’s quite a bit more than minimum pay for humans

        • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 hours ago

          and it’s quite a bit more than minimum pay for humans

          Is it? I can buy a vending machine for less than $8000. Converting that cost to minimum wage, that is ~28 full time weeks worth of labor to act as a mechanism to sell items. There are probably a lot of times when the cost in capital is less than the cost in labor.