Vigilante
Legendary Contributor
Staff member
FASTLANE INSIDER
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum:
Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.
Upcoming Live Fastlane Calls (FREE!)
Inventors Virtual Meetup (FREE - All welcome!): Sunday, April, 21st 2024: 11 AM ESTJoin over 80,000 entrepreneurs who have rejected the paradigm of mediocrity and said "NO!" to underpaid jobs, ascetic frugality, and suffocating savings rituals— learn how to build a Fastlane business that pays both freedom and lifestyle affluence.
Free registration at the forum removes this block.You're still missing my point.Yes the trend you have discussed, will continue. Certain jobs will go away and they will find other jobs. Gary, you’re just going to have to trust me on that one. It’s been disproven, you’re wrong. It has already happened over and over and over.
It should, but there should be some forms of social safeguards against what big companies do.I loathe any form of minimum wage laws. Labor should be an open and free market like everything else should be.
Yep. Now that they’ve done it, how much do you want to bet that they start lobbying for it to be mandatory to hurt the competition? They already ride out selling a lot of items below cost, they’ve pushed the razor thin margins on to the smaller proprietors, and now they want to go a step further to crush competition.
The other thread talking about Amazon being a monopoly, I’d say this is one of those counter intuitive, crony capitalist, moves that will shake out better for them despite doubling their cost of their workforce. It is looking more like a monopoly today, than when that thread started. Is a monopoly necessarily bad? No. But the government, ignorantly playing that game, is wildly bad business policy. It’s all desssed up in a pretty bow. “Higher minimum wage, workers rights, YAY!”
Honestly, in this business environment, it’s what I would do.
I’m interested in what @Vigilante thinks about this.
An economist explains how Amazon could use its lobbying for a $15 minimum wage as a 'weapon' against other retailersThe city of Seattle tried to require Amazon to do this, and Amazon threatened to leave as a result.
How Amazon Killed Seattle's Head Tax - The Atlantic
Amazon continues to invest in automation, with a focus on EBITDA improvement. One of the largest variable costs is that of the employee. More machines equals less employees. If I were a gambler, I'd put money on Amazon cracking the whip on the automation of functions previously occupied by employees.
It's the same as fast food and other unskilled labor. The higher the labor costs, the more automation develops to take your order, flip your burger, and eliminate one of the larger variable costs. ‘It just makes sense’ to replace workers with machines, Jack in the Box CEO says
The net effect of Amazon's higher wages will be higher unemployment. Congratulations workers... you just went from $12 an hour to $0 an hour.
What I haven't figured out yet is how this plays into the feud between Bezos and Trump. But maybe this is even bigger than that. It's likely less about that, but more about casting off heat about being a monopoly. Now you become a champion for the people. Instead of being an enemy and a capitalist, now you are a social justice warrior, and all it really costs you was a few million dollars... a rounding error for Amazon.
The US Department of Labor said in their statement they think it will entice more people to work for Amazon. That presumes Amazon is hiring. Elisabeth Warren, a potential 2020 presidential candidate, has publicly called for Amazon to be broken up. The EU is already holding an antitrust investigation against Amazon.
If you believe what a former president of the United States said about industry... industry is essentially by the people and for the people. Bezos didn't build Amazon, some would muse. The people did, and were supported by the roads, the infrastructure, and even the backdrop of the internet Amazon doesn't own.
Amazon just played a card aimed at stemming the rising bile from the have nots. They just went from an enemy to a socialist darling, and probably bought themselves a few more years of unfettered growth in the process.
Who does this hurt the most?
......
WALMART.
Non-unionized, underpaid walmart workers. Walmart will now be put in a corner.
Amazon has 500,000 employees.
Walmart has 2.1m, of which 1,400,000 are in the US. Walmart has high fixed retail expenses, and you just potentially delivered the most significant blow to them from a SG&A standpoint in the history of Walmart. Amazon has warehouses. Walmart has 5,000 FIXED COST stores in the United States, and you literally just delivered a significant blow to how they operate their stores. Their labor cost is their single biggest expense and their largest variable expense, and overnight you just changed that by 20%.
From a Walmart standpoint this is a nightmare. Walmart's average full time wage is $13 and part time is $10. Walmart is screwed.
It's come out: they're doing it to absorb workers from other companies. Nice tactical evil. They've gotten rid of the stock and bonus system, which applied to workers already there, to pay for raises for entry-level workers, to stock up ready for holiday season and draw workers away from other companies. And on top of it they got to pretend it was for the common good and out of the goodness of Bezos' heart.
It should, but there should be some forms of social safeguards against what big companies do.
We've seen with companies like Uber how they use power & knowledge asymmetry to straight up consume people. And sure, the government getting involved hurts things. But someone should be involved.
Traditionally this was the role of unions. It seems that in countries like America the corporations have successfully managed to suppress union power, and Amazon workers urinating in bottles, and Uber drivers making less than minimum wage, has been the result. There's nothing anti free market about a union: it can be a creature of contract.
Unions should be much more widespread and there should be much more innovation in the union space beyond just the odd threat of a strike here and there.
You're still missing my point.
Yes, I totally agree it has worked this way IN THE PAST, and it will continue to work that way in the near future. But I assert the rise of AI changes the equation in a fundamental way. "This time it's different."
In the past, new technologies meant the streetlamp lighters and ice delivery men and elevator operators lost their jobs, so they went to other jobs. New technologies replaced the low-skill workers in those SPECIFIC jobs, but other low-skill jobs were still available for them to move into.
In the future, low-skill jobs will go away not just because new technology replaces a FEW jobs, but because AI-based automation can potentially replace the low-skill workers in nearly **ALL** low-skill jobs. And they very likely will, because the automation will be cheaper and more effective. Market forces will ensure automation replaces humans wherever it's economically advantageous or demonstrably superior. (E.g. self-driven cars aren't perfect but they're **already** comparable to human drivers and they're improving rapidly. Who will hire a human driver when the truck itself is 10x safer and doesn't need rest breaks?)
If **ALL** low-skill jobs disappear, then where do those low-skill workers go? They can't be retrained to be computer programmers. Some people are only cut out to drive a truck.
In my opinion, the only points of uncertainty in this scenario are how fast it happens, and how MANY low-skill jobs go away. Initially it won't be that many, and things will continue to work the way you say. But over time, more and more low-skill jobs will fall to automation. There will be fewer and fewer low-skill jobs available. Automation will probably (?) never replace 100% of all low-skill jobs, but it won't take 100% to cause massive societal upheaval. We will have a permanent underclass that is UN-employable in almost any *available* job.
And then we have to consider the HIGH-skill jobs. The low-skill jobs tend to be the easiest ones to automate, but white-collar jobs aren't safe either. IBM's Watson can already do a passable job of medical diagnosis and many legal procedures. It's not ready to replace all the doctors and lawyers yet, but...
In the future, low-skill jobs will go away not just because new technology replaces a FEW jobs, but because AI-based automation can potentially replace the low-skill workers in nearly **ALL** low-skill jobs.
And then once they've raised the minimum wage for all their competition, amazon replaces all their own minimum wage labour force with robots lol.
I realize that. The difference this time is that the machines will not be limited hunks of iron like tractors or fork lifts -- they will be vastly capable systems. Sooner than you might think, they will have more capability and flexibility than many humans. That's fundamentally and qualitatively different to an automatic elevator or an ordering kiosk.You do realize people said the same exact thing over and over through history.
100% agree -- for the ones who are capable of doing those high-skill jobs. No problem for them. Same as always, as you say.Someone has to build and design and program and maintain and deliver and adjust and fix said machines. Wow, new Jerbs!
I’ve heard this theory... that they’re mainly doing this to make their competition look bad.Yep. Now that they’ve done it, how much do you want to bet that they start lobbying for it to be mandatory to hurt the competition? They already ride out selling a lot of items below cost, they’ve pushed the razor thin margins on to the smaller proprietors, and now they want to go a step further to crush competition.
The other thread talking about Amazon being a monopoly, I’d say this is one of those counter intuitive, crony capitalist, moves that will shake out better for them despite doubling their cost of their workforce. It is looking more like a monopoly today, than when that thread started. Is a monopoly necessarily bad? No. But the government, ignorantly playing that game, is wildly bad business policy. It’s all desssed up in a pretty bow. “Higher minimum wage, workers rights, YAY!”
Honestly, in this business environment, it’s what I would do.
I’m interested in what @Vigilante thinks about this.
Yea but then what about the billionaires and those with savings.. doesnt that water down the value of their savings?More money in people’s pockets equals more money spent monthly. When the supply “of money” is increased so is demand for what is purchased with it. Supply for those items is lessened relative to the demand, thus increasing prices everywhere, not just at Amazon or Walmart.
Yea but dude... I think it’s a bit dickish. If they’re doing what I think they’re doing. They’re essentially sabotaging everyone else. I’m a believer in “just build the best widget” rather than burning down everyone else widget factories...But it isn’t... So... As a businessman, I applaud the tact, foresight and ability to navigate our actual business environment shown here.
I understand your point. But IMHO some large companies are abusing their power in this situation. E.g. Walmart pays starvation wages because they CAN -- because there are so many low-end workers desperate for a job, ANY job. Supply and demand. But they pay so little that their workers can't support themselves, and the workers end up on the public dole for food stamps, etc. Some people call this a "Walmart Tax" because the Walmart workers' drain on the system roughly equals Walmart's profits. Our taxes pay the welfare, enabling Walmart to pay lower wages, so it's effectively an income redistribution from everyone to Walmart. And IMHO that's wrong. Just like a company shouldn't be allowed to dump toxic wastes, forcing everyone else to clean it up, they shouldn't be allowed to dump their financial issues onto the public either.
Dude. I took macroeconomics probably 20 years before you were born. This is not a new concept to me.You see what happens here? Wage increases without value increases are chasing your tail.
Enough arguing. You have your opinion, I have mine.
Yea but then what about the billionaires and those with savings.. doesnt that water down the value of their savings?
Why? How will bus drivers and truck drivers and (name your manual labor) escape the fate that **already** hit telephone operators, travel agents, elevator operators, etc?
Are you saying they are all telephone operators and travel agents? They fit in somewhere else. Pure and simple.
Yes, for now they do. There are still other low-tech jobs available for them.
Yes the trend you have discussed, will continue. Certain jobs will go away and they will find other jobs. Gary, you’re just going to have to trust me on that one. It’s been disproven, you’re wrong. It has already happened over and over and over.
Yes, I totally agree it has worked this way IN THE PAST, and it will continue to work that way in the near future. But I assert the rise of AI changes the equation in a fundamental way. "This time it's different."
You do realize people said the same exact thing over and over through history? Every single stage in the development of modern civilization has alarmists like you with baseless claims spewing unverifiable conjecture. "Machines are gonna take our JERBS." No they are not. "This time different." No it's not. Someone has to build and design and program and maintain and deliver and adjust and fix said machines. Wow, new Jerbs!
100% agree -- for the ones who are capable of doing those high-skill jobs. No problem for them. Same as always, as you say.
Someone has to build and design and program and maintain and deliver and adjust and fix said machines. Wow, new Jerbs!
Workerbot 9000 is available at any Walmart near you has the equivalent of a 90 IQ in humans. Which means he’s just as good as humans with a 90 IQ. As an employer, what would you rather employ the Workerbot 9000 that operates for $7/day, or a low skilled worker with the same “IQ” who wants $12/hr and lunchbreaks and keeps staring at your wife.
It changes things at a fundamental level.
In comparison to them we’re just going to be these absurd blobs who piss and sh*t and eat french fries and drip mustard on our shirts and watch jerry springer and smell and have messy hair and in comparison to AI it’s going to be like ‘what the f*ck are these ridiculous blobs or protein?'
I'm still waiting for my address! Especially on the unions bit...I fully intend to address this nonsense tomorrow.
oh boy.. do you know who you’re talking to? i would just start hiding right now lolunions
of me talking a 90 IQ is just me being modest...it will surpass that quicklyThis right here is the big problem that we didn't have with the cotton gin or other technological advances.
Hell, AlphaGo Zero can teach itself super complex stuff that humans haven't been able to figure out, so we'll get to the point where we don't even need the big brain 120+ IQ people. I see a shrinking job market.
On your second point, a big concern is that a sentient AI will view humans as too irrational and destroy us. This stuff is kind of scary. Much scarier than a cotton gin, a refrigerator, or automatic typesetter.
A fun site for this stuff is: Future Timeline | Technology | Singularity | 2020 | 2050 | 2100 | 2150 | 2200 | 21st century | 22nd century | 23rd century | Humanity | Predictions | Events
It makes predictions on what the future will look like from 2000 AD to 1,000,000+ AD. Interesting site.
On your second point, a big concern is that a sentient AI will view humans as too irrational and destroy us. This stuff is kind of scary. Much scarier than a cotton gin, a refrigerator, or automatic typesetter.
We've seen with companies like Uber how they use power & knowledge asymmetry to straight up consume people. And sure, the government getting involved hurts things. But someone should be involved.
They took the best job that was available based on their skills, and their skills aren't good enough, in a purely capitalistic system if they quit they risk starving to death.Why?
If they don't like their jobs they can quit.
We live in a capitalistic system where you are paid your worth.
Time lag; do some research, military AI is being actively researched by everyone including the US.Why don't we use robot soldiers?
If people cannot successfully form businesses that can counter the growth of organizations like Amazon, and are therefore absorbed into the "workforce" (servants),
Amazon is now half of US retail.
loving this site you linked, went through a bit of an obsession with the singularity/ kurzweil/ kaku etc around 2005 ( I have a crazy book case at home), this has reignited my interest.
C'mon, @Kak. There are no robot soldiers for the same reason Rosie the Robot isn't making your dinner. The technology isn't there. YET.Why don't we use robot soldiers? Why doesn't the enemy? Why aren't battlefields filled with robot soldiers killing each other?
Ding ding ding! Give the man a kewpie doll. Exactly my point. "It's different this time" ("this time" being the near future, not today) because something in the equation has fundamentally changed. The machines are going from dumb-as-a-box-of-rocks to very capable. Not self-aware anytime soon, but capable of doing jobs that formerly only humans could do.The issue is... throughout history humans have always been more talented and capable than ‘the machines.’ That’s about to change.
The machines have never in history surpassed humans in ability or been able to act independently of human intervention. What happens when they do surpass us in ability?
IQ testing is a fiercely-debated topic, but it is certainly possible to test people and get an idea of their relative abilities. Jordan Peterson claims the armed forces determined that people with <83 IQ could not succeed in the military, in ANY position, and so they refuse to accept them. In reality the military branches use the ASVAB/AFQT exam, and each branch does have a minimum acceptable level. The Army's minimum is 31, Marines 32, Navy 35, Air Force 36, Coast Guard 40. You can draw a rough correlation between AFTQ scores and IQ; 31-32 is roughly equivalent to an IQ of 91-92.A while back (the details are fuzzy, but I’ll find the full source if needed).... a police force used to to use an ‘intellectual capacity test’ to screen applicants.
Exactly. Your example is obviously hypothetical, but in that scenario we can't retrain those sub-90 people to take another job if all the 90-IQ jobs have already been taken by cheaper/better/faster machines with an effective IQ of 90. In that scenario there are no sub-90 jobs LEFT.when you have a machine wit a 90 IQ, it can literally do any job that someone with a 90 IQ has. Those with 90 IQs.. their skills aren’t unlimited. You can’t just teach someone with a 90 IQ to program computers… they literally don’t have the ability.
Join Fastlane Insiders.