Buying robots would be cheaper than hiring at $15 an hour – former McDonald’s CEO

I like how the word of business executives is so important to people that someone pointing out basic mathematics is seen as newsworthy.

Even at the current minimum wage, a $35,000 robot would be vastly preferable to two ~$14,500 per year full time employees who can work a maximum of 40 hours each per week in a business open 24 hours a day.

Yes, in that it's inescapable.

1. There is a finite number of things in the universe.

2. Human desires are infinite.

Ergo fulfillment of all desire is impossible. Any system would necessarily institute rationing of one thing or another.

Try measuring scarcity by need instead of desire and you'll sound a little less retarded.

Even with needs, there is still finite matter on this planet, and humans keep reproducing. Post-scarcity would be possible if some matter came down on earth periodically to renew the stock.

Emancipation of women solves the high fertility rate problem.

that's not a definition tho

is this fully automated luxury gommunism

… it does. I believe about 40,000 tons of matter fall to the Earth each year, although quite some weight in gas is leeched off from the atmosphere each year.

WHERE ARE YOU TAKING OUR GASES, YOU FUCKING HIBERNIANS? WHO ARE YOU SELLING IT TO?! ALEINS?! ANSWER MEEE!

Most of it is unusable matter, and whatever "usable" remains are far too scarce for it to be usuable.

From where? Asteroids and old artificial satellites? Do you have sauce on this?

Oh, I never suggested it's usability, merely that matter /does/ indeed "come down on earth periodically".

I imagine most of it lands in the ocean, or is iron which is oxidized into rust.

Space dust, meteors, satellites, etc. Imagine how large the earth is, it's gravity, and the amount of shit it just mops up on it's course through space. I got the figure from a BBC article some time ago

bbc.com/news/magazine-16787636

Further sauce:

link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4419-8694-8_5

curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/75-our-solar-system/comets-meteors-and-asteroids/meteorites/313-how-many-meteorites-hit-earth-each-year-intermediate

But that's what the other user meant by "falling out of the sky". He meant usable matter.

Yeah, I realize that. I was playing some semantics for the purpose of shit-posting a fact I found interesting.

Was kinda hoping I wouldn't have to admit my shitposting form of autism to your nothing-gets-past-this-guy form of autism

...

You're underestimating Porky, what exactly is keeping him from simply buying your gonads for a year's salary and keeping The Earth to himself?

Ever heard of marketing? Most of our "desires" are the result of media and cultural influences.
People were just fine in the middle ages going to church and spending time with the family and confraternizing with their neighbors.
You probably live a relatively happy life with only your computer.
Soon we'll have virtual reality too. Post-scarcity is inevitable.

Because you still need a regulatory body to control some of the tragedy of the commons-type excesses of the human race. I have no confidence that communism will 100% solve the problems of the environment on a global scale because you will still be pitting one commune's interests against another's. Also for shit like infrastructure and such.

Because they were conditioned by society to believe so by the powers that be, such as the fucking church.

yah, so? There isn't a "right" happiness, there's just happiness. If people are happy reading Marxist theory, watching shitty TV, LARPing as furries, raiding small villages or living in some Amish commune somewhere is irrelevant to their self-actualization.
Individuals don't exist, only cultures.
There's no need to keep making people's lives more and more wastefully complex.
Communism would be pretty fucking stagnant, and there's literally nothing wrong with that.

If so, then why you criticized the happiness of the current consumerist culture, going as far as to imply that the medieval happiness was superior?

Define need. What quality of food counts as a need? What about housing? Arguably, we could deal with eating nothing but rice, lentils and vitamin B12 supplements.

If your goal is to minimize the amount of resources an individual consumes, we can do that, but to what end? What will that do to the quality of life around the world?

Also

Like I said above, what we consume is certainly reducible, but at what cost? We could go with showering once a month, being issued a set of clothes once a year, and eating twigs and berries, but things like science and human discovery would grind to a halt.

We won't really have to worry about reaching that level because if we do humanity will be obsolete at that point.

Consumerism is simply unsustainable.
Also the more fragmented and "individualist"(no such thing) society becomes the more manipulable it becomes, since there's not a cultural background for the feeble minded to fall back to.

If Capitalism isn't stopped in the next 200 years max whatever's left of proles will be just human cattle.
(Sorry for spamming)

Rich porkies are going to automate as much as they can as fast as they can regardless of how much they pay humans.
The reason cars are made by robots isn't because the worker demanded a living wage, but because robots do things faster.
This is just propaganda designed to make the proletariat feel guilty about wanting to survive.

If fast food employees are paid at slave wages (~$7.25/hr), the labour costs are so low that investing in robotics may not be very worthwhile for porky. But if labour starts at $15/hr, then investing in robotics sounds like a much more attractive proposition.

That's not to say that I think $7.25/hr is an acceptable wage to pay a worker. But sometimes cheap labour is preferable to investment in automation.

If you are a contractor in a third-world country and labourers make 60c/hr, why would you bother investing in a backhoe when you can just give the workers shovels?

Cheap labour retards technological advancement.

Indeed. This is why a strong national character that provides a firm social hierarchy is essential to battle the degeneracy that (((capitalism))) brings.

Precisely why this excites me. Capitalism will collapse upon itself the moment we can no longer buy any of porky's shit because robots replaced us.

I think it means not inundating everyone with "YOU NEED THIS THING BECAUSE IT'S COOL" and instead let them develop their own life and habits free of corporate meddling

I fear for the future. Unless Porky shortens the work week and raises hourly wages, the employment rate is going to get lower and lower. How the fuck are those of us who are not employed supposed to survive?

The official unemployment rate is a sick joke. The actual employment rate is abysmal. And the number of employed workers who have a livable wage? Well. I don't even need to get into that.

degeneracy is so ill defined and susceptible to muh opinion that using it in debate is meaningless

this may be what sparks the happening we pine for, colossal unemployment crisis all over the world? the revolution will ferment like a fine wine.

Fascism and authoritarianism is much more likely.

I think you mean SIN, mister. Abandon your unbiblical notions and submit to the God who made you.

which is why it's important we spread our message instead of just sitting on our asses and letting the racists and fascists get into power.

Pretty much every white mass murderer (or half-white if you want to include Elliot Rodger and Chris Harper-Mercer) is a far-right nutjob.

When lumpens have their back against the wall for some reason they tend to cling to fascism or "strong men" like Donald Trump.

Very few of them for some reason are like "hell yeah, Bernie Sanders, free shit!" Because we still buy into the meme that employment is a virtue and that our self-worth is tied to our labour market value. And that a big authoritarian paternalistic strong-man like Donald Trump is going to make everything alright.

I'm comfortable enough to admit that I hated every job I ever had and that I want free shit. Because the nature of labour under capitalism is absolutely fucking terrible. And in a socialist society, labour would become more bearable anyway if I had to work. Shorter hours, higher pay and well-funded public transit so we don't have to fight rush-hour traffic. Nothing says individualism and capitalism like the private automobile and our auto-centric society.

What people want is a movement that gets shit done. So a firm establishment of leftist sentiment will make it reliable to fall back on thinking "hey, maybe these guys can do something"

Well considering how bloody the average "socialist" revolution gets I'm not surprised they're wary of starry-eyed fanatics that think anyone with a slightly different interpretation of Das Kapital should be sent to the gulags

Good. This just brings us closer to the conditions for revolution.