this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
469 points (96.6% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35822 readers
887 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

with supply and demand and all... IM DEMANDING CANNED BREAD!! where's the supply ๐Ÿฅบ?

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] ultrahamster64@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[โ€“] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Except robots don't need to take as many breaks nor do you have to pay them minimum wage.

[โ€“] HK65@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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.

[โ€“] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[โ€“] HK65@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Obviously, automation is changing work, and you can make cheaper robots that will be cheaper than working someone to do the same thing. All I'm saying is there is a significant component next to the direct "pay vs. machine maintenance costs" question.

My point is that companies and employers have got used to a ton of leeway with workers, where they can offload a ton of risk to people just because they are employees.

See for example that one case when that US airline wanted to weasel out of honouring a deal offered by their chatbot. That's them realizing they can no longer just say it's been a mistake made by an employee, as there is no separate legal entity to push responsibility on.

The same with paying a wage lower than living wage. If they pay sub-living wages, then the onus to make up the rest needed to lead a life that enables you to work long term, thus the risk is on you instead of the employer. If they replace you with a robot, and skimp on its requirements, it will break, and there is nowhere to push the responsibility.

[โ€“] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I don't see how the use or nonuse AI affects the adoption of a vending machine or self checkout.

[โ€“] HK65@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Take the case of self-checkouts.

Money is missing from the tally at the end of the day.

In one case, you have an employee as cashier. You can reprimand them, in some jurisdictions even take it from their pay.

What do you do with a machine if money is missing? It may be a tricky customer/thief, it may be just that the machine is not always 100% accurate in certain circumstances, maybe you skimped out on maintenance one too many times. Who do you blame?

That's why there are no vending machines for certain types of goods, or no self-checkouts at car dealerships or "bad neighbourhoods". Sometimes the risk component is too high.

[โ€“] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 1 points 1 month ago

What do you do with a machine if money is missing? It may be a tricky customer/thief, it may be just that the machine is not always 100% accurate in certain circumstances, maybe you skimped out on maintenance one too many times. Who do you blame?

Having dealt with automation in a specific context, the people making these decisions aren't focusing on blame. Instead, there is an assumed increase in shrinkage which gets factored into the cost-benefit analysis on whether to choose automation. The conditions in which shrinkage can happen affects the risk shrinkage.

No one is looking at who to blame if an electronics store goes for self checkout, they are looking to see at how much easier it will be for people to steal from that store compared to if all cashiers are human.

[โ€“] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

[โ€“] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[โ€“] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

I mean, maintenance is going to be a bitch. Your going to have to pay thousands in travel fees and probably thousands of dollars an hour labor, plus whatever robit parts cost everytime it breaks down. And while it's broken down, you can't earn revenue, like you could just replacing an employee.

[โ€“] ultrahamster64@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

[โ€“] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 3 points 1 month 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.