They'll Just Be Replaced by Robots

            I don’t know how many times I’ve posted a meme, made a comment, or posted a video on Facebook dealing with the need for wage increases for many workers. Then someone will undoubtedly reply with something to the effect of, “They’ll just be replaced by robots.” Or, even worse, they’ll post some picture of the McCashier stations. I fear the people who post this actually believe this is a valid argument—like, I’m supposed to roll over and say, “Yeah. You got me on that one. I didn’t even think of the robot argument!” My general response is to completely ignore the reply. It’s really a waste of my time and an exercise in futility to enter the fray of intellectual debate with those who think McDonald’s is the economic model that sets the standard.

            So, I’m going to respond in this blog. I’m not going to argue with those who disagree.

            First, the robot response proves that we’ve created a brutal economic system. One cannot deny huge corporate profits and huge salaries for C-level executives. One cannot deny high unemployment rates, however they are measured. One cannot deny the increase in income inequality that becomes greater every day. Those at the top cut wages, send jobs overseas, demand ever-increasing productivity, and those at the bottom suffer. Rather than buck this system, the answer to some is to make it even more brutal. “Well, they’ll just replace workers with robots.” Yes, they might. Thanks for making my point. Our system has become so brutal, that robots are considered just as valuable as people. 

            But, rather than besmirching the robots, let me take their side. Who doesn’t want robots making a living wage? Just imagine a strong middle class made up of robots—spending all that middle class income buying goods and services. Yes, it will certainly be a boon to the economy. Of course, if we don’t pay robots a decent wage, none of this will happen. But, I’m certain our corporate heads love robots. So, why wouldn’t they pay them well? Of course, if they don’t pay them well, then we won’t have that robotic spending spurring on the economy. But, how could one deny the evidence that increasing wages spurs the economy, because robots with money actually spend more?

            Let’s assume for a moment the robots are poorly paid. There’s still a big advantage. Poor robots are far less inconvenient than poor people. Poor people sleep in the streets. Poor people use up government resources. Poor people become tired and cranky. And, crankiness leads to civil unrest. A poor robot can simply be unplugged and stored in a closet. A poor person is a constant mouth to fill until death.

            Of course, I can hear all the counter arguments about certain jobs being stepping stones, about the need for one to increase their education, or the myth that increasing wages will radically inflate prices. Sure, if people have more money there will be more demand for products and services. Of course, with items necessary for survival (like food and water), demand is only going to increase to the point where everyone is fed. Everyone is fed? Hmm? Does that sound like a good goal? Yes, demand on those items will increase to a point and then stabilize. What won’t stabilize is demand for consumer items—like cars, electronics, computers and houses. But, why would we want an increase in demand for those items? Such a demand could lead to increased manufacturing, which would supply more jobs. Imagine what would happen if there was a greater demand for employees? It might create greater wages. Yes, increased wages beget increased wages. You reap what you sow, a principle so ingrained in the Bible (and Torah), that it should be a key principle carried over from our supposedly Judeo-Christian heritage into our economic system.

            Of course, all this robot talk springs from the assumption that, “Burger flippers shouldn’t make $15/hour.” There is this notion that there is unskilled labor and skilled labor—a continuum of skills. If one wants to progress up the ladder of salary, they need to improve their skills. I agree with that notion. So, the point of disagreement isn’t whether the continuum should exist, but where the bottom of the continuum should reside. The bottom of the continuum should exist at a livable wage, which is considerably higher than current minimum wage.

            Of course, then comes out the tired arguments about how increasing wages will kill business, businesses will cut hours, and prices will shoot through the roof. I know all the arguments. I was trained to make those arguments. But, I’ve seen they aren’t true. Let’s begin with the idea that increasing wages will kill business. But, let’s look at those wages as a block of money instead of individual salaries. I think fully investigating this is important, because there are many robotic mouths that need to be filled! So, picture all employee’s salaries and benefits as a single block of spending. Increasing the size of that block will inflate the price of doing business. However, let’s say the size of the block needs to remain static. What happens if one person’s salary or benefits is increased? It’s pretty obvious—someone else’s salary and benefits need to decrease. Increasing wages and benefits for those at the bottom means the wages and benefits for those at the top need to decrease. Doing this makes sense if one assumes those at the top are making too much and those at the bottom are making too little. I believe that assumption is Gospel truth.

            Now, let’s consider all the tactics big business uses—such as cutting hours, employing robots, cutting wages or whatever argument someone will come up with. Is the business trying to cut the size of the block they spend on employees? Or, is the business simply decreasing what it spends on some workers so it can give more to others? That’s hard to say for each individual business, but the overall trend is giving more to those at the top and less to those at the bottom. This seems a logical conclusion, since the irrefutable evidence is an increase in wage disparity.

            The question of robotic workers really boils down to what kind of world we want to live in. Robotic workers are a real possibility based on our current economic system. But, do we want that economic system? Personally, I’d rather my burger be served by a happy person—a self-sufficient person who enjoys flipping burgers. If a few CEO’s need to give up their private jets and instead suffer first class, it’s a price I’m willing to pay. Yes, it means we must somehow change our current economic model, but I’m also fine with that. If we regarded people as highly as we do robots, maybe there’d be fewer of those inconvenient people sleeping on my streets, begging for my food, or dying of hunger and stinking up my air. My dream is for a world where people are as convenient as robots. But, in order for that to happen, we’re going to have to start employing more people at higher wages.