I suppose a robot needs only to be better and cheaper than the typical human counterpart it was replacing. A lot of human workers do not perform up to human potential whereas robots/automation do perform up to their programmed potential . This blurs the difference between a robot and a human. Hence the "Turing" test becomes an important indicator.

Indeed, exactly accurate observations. I think that your points illustrate why robots are not going to be taking over anytime soon. Now, specific automated systems that do not qualify as "robots" are viable today. There are a lot of places, even fast food, where automated systems could reduce headcount. But robots: you are correct sir!

Humans are good at dealing with unforeseen situations and notoriously bad at dealing accurately with highly repetitive situations. It's interesting to see how amazon and mouser use robots in their warehouses. To get the robots to work well, there is a lot of work to prepare the parts that initially go into the warehouse.
I want to make myself a home assistant robot, but houses are not currently robot friendly. "Alexa, go to the garage and bring the groceries from the car to the kitchen and put them away" would not be very feasible today. We would need standardized containers, automatic doors, very limited clutter, and specific locations for each item. Humans just deal with disorganization and houses are designed cheaply to suit the abilities of humans

Optical comparative systems could keep the cockroaches out of your hamburger better and more consistently than a human could, but currently the cost of robotic burger prep is prob still more expensive. Maybe at $15/hr the line will be crossed tho. The age of pick and place fast food robotic solutions isn't far away

Exactly, and it depends on what you want it to do. A 2 axis robot, off the shelf, costs probably 10-30K, and then you have to have the software, as well as an error detection system, and then experts on hand to recover when it goes "bork". I have a tool with a 6 axis robot in it to move wafers and the tool itself is about 10 million. We use robots not to replace humans, but for quality movement into and out of process tools. We are working to perfect a new tool and the cost is huge, but the end result is an improved system to ship wafers that will cut shipping costs in half. That is not a "replace people" type thing. Replace people things are normally simple motions, but the control software will need to mimic the reason that you had the humans there in the first place, and then costs skyrocket.I woulkd hesitate to eat a robot produced burger, simply because that robot would just as soon pick up a cockroach laden patty, that a human would not, especially if they go cheap on the error detection software. I would hope the human would not, but then you never know....

Agreed...

Gains are made in small steps usually. Sometimes one is fortunate to come up with a large improvement. The employees who keep looking for improvements are the ones to keep. Robots aren't to the point they can do that yet

You are doing the right thing then. My experience in Lean 6 Sigma, is that most productions systems are " what works", vice "whats optimum" It is amazing at how something that looks good to you, makes sense, and seems to work can be made20-40% using the tools and some careful observation, because it makes gains in small improvements (a step here, a keystroke there). Toyota is the often quoted creditor for it, but the system has been around a lot longer, and started with Demmings approach to standardization and statistical process control. Good luck to you.

My first approach to reducing costs has always been to change the way the product is made or the process used to make it- with the idea of taking less labor or materials. Only then do I cut employees. Getting people to simply work faster ( more than about 10% or so). Seems to have unintended negative side effects as you have noted. Right now I am redesigning work flow with the idea of eliminating about 25% of our labor hours. I am getting ready in advance for a minimum wage hike, on the day it comes (or before), I can keep production up with the 25% fewer people

Correct, dark star, government does not have any say in wages, it is an economic, not legal thing. Remember though, it is a powerful tool for several reasons, least of all: Vote for me, I will raise min wage! It also is self serving, raise min wage, raise SS and Medicaid income. If they truly cared, they would exempt those below a set level of income from all taxes, giving them an effective 20-30% raise right away.

Indeed: Value. It is the value of the work done that you are paying for, not the fact they are working, and that is the flaw in the whole min wage thing, it assumes all are equal in value, and thus it is out of the equation.

Exactly! Truth will never get near those folks, it would make them melt....

Exactly, and therein lies the seeds of the next crisis: when they raise interests rates, it will drive all that off the rails. I do not have an in depth understanding, but Graham Summers has been predicting a huge debt implosion when they do, as it will totally destabilize all the funny money schemes that have been allowed to grow out of the last 8 years of no interest, weak dollar, now in the face of a change. The loss of value is one of the hidden secrets they keep pushing (just like ObamaCare): effective inflation has been at about 20% for the last 8 years, and "creative" math and selective "samples" have been used to make it seem to be non existent. When ground beef was 99 cents a pound 8 years ago, and is now 2.99, that says to me my money is worth about 33% of what it was. My wife and I have seen this happening for years in the price of Hay, we used to get it for 1-2 dollar a bale in the field, now it is 5-7, and from a storage barn it is 15-20. But I got a .05% raise in my Navy Retirement "to adjust for inflation" this year, which matches what SS got. It is all about lies and deception, and will have to implode at some point, when they run out of tricks.

Exactly, and it is such an oxymoron, it is regularly used even today.

Great comment! Right on. TANSTAAFL has been a stalwart cause (especially with Robert Heinlein in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress) to explain a simple concept: You can not make money when your costs are more than your price, and your price cannot be higher than your competitor. The corollary to that is "Reduce costs through efficiency and waste reduction, and increase profit, or cut price". Yet, American management is immune to such logic, most layoffs are always the lowest "herd" workers, and very few upper managers, who seem to always get higher raises, stock awards, etc, for almost any reason. I tend to lump them and politicians into the same category: Looters.

Just go with a tip jar...like Starbucks....

Great response and exactly what most business people say. Staffing is part of the cost of doing business, and most businesses cannot survive without some form of staffing. The cost, though, cannot exceed what you make, and I work at Intel, who went through a convulsive 12% cut in April, and the damage is still being felt, especially in the manufacturing end. What took 4 people is now 3, and with no consequent reduction in work needed, things do not get done. Not only is that not efficient, it actually increases costs with wasted time with product sitting. Basic Lean 6 Sigma explains that, but a lot of "managers" just do not comprehend the relationship. Politicians who want to dictate pay, will next dictate prices, and then there is no economic system, just ask the Russians.

Which will require a Phd to apply for (so as to keep the education elite in business). But that raises another question: Why can't we take all the teachers out and replace them with web based classes and assignments, and just have a few teachers who do nothing but correct and advise? Works the same and saves money....

Nope, Randy, that was what I read it as as well, his point being that she was trying to raise 2 kids and family, on minimum wage when dad couldn't work. Of course the question of disability etc comes up as well, but his flip side of "now, as a businessman" was where I thought the discussion had merit, as he was trying to show how a detailed discussion is a better way to look at an issue, then the current model of screaming till you get what you "think" you want (until you get it and find you are even more screwed). I would say a better system would be eliminate the minimum wage and not levy any taxes on income until you hit a threshold of 20 or 30K a year. But then the same people wanting to tell someone else what to give up, would then have to give up some of their treasured giveaways to compensate, and they are NEVER ready to do that. Look at Obamamcare, and the BS tripe they all are driveling about. The Dumbocraps will defend it even in the face of 100% increases (despite their lies it wouldn't), and the loss of your doctor (again they lied) and a whole host of other lies and misstated things.

I think many of the low wage beginner jobs will go robotic and other jobs that now pay well that can't go robotic will start out at a reduced wage of 15.00 an hour.
So my take will be that it will hurt all of us eventually.
New type jobs on the horizon though for the Highly skilled robot fixers!

I don't believe the author stated that his mother was making $15/hour. He only says that she was making "minimum wage", which may have put her on par with the kids that were working there.

Don't mean to pick nits, but...

And a fine opinion at that!

Good idea!
However, I don't think the government should have any say in wages paid to employees.
That being said, maybe we could try using social pressures to set up the pay scales you mentioned. That's how we've been trained to tip people perhaps society could be trained to do the same with starting pay scales as well .....

I am a small business owner. To be honest about it, and politically incorrect also, I am in it to make money for MYSELF . Thats why I go to work. Thats why I try to compete with other businesses and stay alive in the process. I enjoy some parts of what I do, but put up with a lot of other parts because I have to in order to be able to do the things I want for my life.

I could care less about "creating jobs" or "paying a living wage". My customers demand what THEY want at the price they want to pay. Its my job to give that to them. I have competitors also trying to satisfy the same customers with better and cheaper products.

When it comes to employees, I hire them because I HAVE to. If I could do business without employees, I would certainly do that if there were less expensive alternatives. The alternatives, such as automation and robotics, all have costs too. When the cost of the person in terms of money and management time exceeds the cost of automation, guess what? Layoffs.

$15 per hour minimum wage will simply exceed the cost of automation in a lot more businesses, such as mine. I can try to get our customers to pay more, but believe me, if I could increase prices now, I would do it now and just make more money. But I cant increase prices. Paying employees more means I make less, and I will do whatever I can to keep that from happening.

The solution: Let those patrons who feel the minimum wage should be $15 /hr. pay for the increase and those that don't think so, not pay any extra.

Base the Minimum wage on the military pay scale.
An E-1 right out of boot camp makes a bit under $10/hr if you base it on a 40 hour work week which it surely is not. Pay a kid right out of HS around $8/hr and that sounds about right to me. The Minimum wage was never designed to be an adult sustenance pay rate and shame on those who do not strive for more by moving up the ladder. I have had new employees that were not worth the $8 and let them go after the first two weeks. Others who showed great potential and got a substantial raise in short order. Reliability was a much bigger issue and when I need a crew of 3 guys and one can't drag his rear out of bed to come to work that guy becomes worthless to me at any price.