Article: https://www.livescience.com/61994-flippy-burger-flipping-robot-flops.html
After just one day in service, CaliBurger's new robotic burger flipper, "Flippy," flopped. After touting their new $60,000 robot that is capable of flipping 2,000 burgers a day to the public in a "come see Flippy in action campaign," CaliBurger's machine began flipping burgers so fast that the employees couldn't make the patties into burgers fast enough, forcing them to pull the plug on their kitchen companion. Developed by Miso Robotics, Flippy provides an eerie glimpse into a future of automated food preparation, as it is intended to "collaborate with its coworkers" and learn from them to prepare perfect food every time.
Although CaliBurger claims that the technology is not intended to replace human laborers, but rather to "assist them," the fact that Flippy's debut was hindered by his coworkers does not bode well for CaliBurger employees, or frycooks everywhere for that matter. Rather than scrap the technology, it would not surprise me if Miso Robotics and others instead chose to develop robots that can create entire burgers, wrapped and ready to go, a technology that would put many fast-food employees out of a job. Given the volume of burgers that fast food chains like McDonald's and Wendy's pump out every day, it would not surprise me to see these robots make an appearance.
This has several economic implications. New technology is a supply shifter, allowing companies to supply more burgers at any price point. This increased supply would shift the supply curve to the right, establishing a new equilibrium price lower and a new equilibrium quantity sold higher than before. With a decrease in price comes a decrease in the value of the marginal product, and because robots are more efficient workers than are humans (and are a one-time investment), it would not surprise me to see decreasing numbers of unskilled/semiskilled fast food employees while more technicians are hired to maintain the robot, positions that usually require a college degree or some sort of formal training.
While it may seem far-out, this is a real issue that will face us in the future. Not only will we have robotic chefs, but we will have digital kiosks and likely robotic clean-up crews. While a McDonald's job has been a dependable (albeit stagnant and not lucrative) option for young or uneducated workers in the past, these jobs will soon no longer be taken for granted. Moreover, we are far from achieving affordable college education, and this type of training will likely be needed in the future as fast food restaurants hire fewer and higher-paid specialized workers. We have already seen how manufacturing and other unskilled industries have waned over the last few decades, and it is somewhat depressing to think that if this trend continues, getting a job without a college degree will be next to impossible.
I personally think that there is no way to stop these kinds of robots from taking over human labor positions, and while some may claim that they boost business productivity and therefore create more jobs, I disagree with this point of view. All products, even food, experience decreasing marginal utility, and there is not an infinite demand for most products (as is assumed by those who claim that higher efficiency=more productivity=more jobs). Moreover, while some jobs will be created, these will be mainly skilled maintenance jobs that require a college degree. Thus, I think that it is necessary to make a college education more affordable while simultaneously requiring students in high school to take a computer science or robotics class. While these skills have been regarded as highly technical and specialized in the past, they will likely become a commonplace in the future, and if high school is to continue giving students a foundation from which they can immediately pursue low-income jobs, these classes must be a priority. Granted, I personally did not take CS, but I kind of wish I had (and will probably take a course over the summer or in college).
What do you guys think about the future of technology in the food industry? Should regulations be placed on businesses looking to use these types of robots? How can we devise policy that addresses the growing need for a technically adept work force? Should computer science be a requirement in high school?
9 comments:
I think it's inevitable that this type of technology will creep into the food industry. Maybe as a sort of system buisnesses could have robots that are programmed to inspect the cooked cuisine for safety measures, like check the temperature and such. Then there could be a regulation on how many robots the restaurant is supposed to employ, not so many that they human workers feel inadequate yet not so little that robots aren't deemed necessary. Humans might just lost the food industry as a working opportunity anyway, robots are faster, cheaper, and only need a 2 hour charge. As unforutnate as that sounds, there are other minimum wage jobs available, such as crossing guards or a child-care provider, that require minimal training. I think making computer science as a mandatory requirement is a great idea as it´s practical and could land you a potential job down the line.
Over time, I believe that technology will take over jobs in the fast food industry. In the past, technology has found its way into everything. In addition, to maintain a machine costs much less than the cost to pay a person. You have to pay any liabilities to the person and they have to paid every hour. With a machine all you need is one person to watch the machine and it probably works much faster.At this time, there should be regulations on these machines because if we suddenly switch to all machines, thousands of people would lose their jobs and our economy would tank. Using regulation to ease into it is the better call. Yes, I believe that comp sci should be required even at the most basic level because it opens more jobs for everyone.
In our textbooks, we read that historically, most technological advancements have been labor-augmenting, and have led to leftward shifts in the labor demand curve. However, there are those new technologies which replace labor, and shift the labor demand curve to the right. I think that in the future, these robots will be taking over the labor industry, slowly but surely, so we may need to do something to compromise for the current workers. I agree that Computer Science should be made a mandatory course, as it builds a very versatile skill set.
I have to agree that CS (or something like it) should be mandatory in high school. While not everybody should go for a career in computer science, understanding how computers work is a priceless skill in the 21st century. Even if you don't need/want to code you can learn countless other skills that will soon be very relevant from setting up an Enterprise Google Drive suite to managing a Git.
I'd also like to point out that there are plenty of free and easy resources to pick up these skills. I truly believe if anybody, regardless of education (as long as you can add and multiply numbers), spent an hour a day on codecademy.com's python course he/she would gain a useful skill and become much smarter in the process through problem solving. An important question is, why hasn't every high school in the country taken advantage of this?
Like any new development in technology, there is concern that "jobs will be destroyed". I really don't think that automation/robots will be a net negative for society or the job market.
You're right in saying (or implying) that the typical argument of "X invention decreases the price of the good, so more jobs will be created in said industry" doesn't transfer over that well to the food industry. During the industrial revolution, "automated" looms made textiles cheaper, allowing more people to buy textiles. This increased demand actually led to more textile workers being employed than before, even after you factor in the employees originally displaced by machines. It was a win-win for all groups: more jobs were made, the standard of living increased (since more people could afford the material), and corporations made more money. Unfortunately for the food industry, us humans have limited stomach space - price saving won't lead to that much new demand.
This being said, you also have to see the benefits of automated food (even excluding the higher-paying jobs in making robots). Cheaper food means consumers have more money in their pockets to spend (and create jobs) elsewhere. The leftover jobs in simply managing robots and servers onsite will pay more than burger flipping and won't require that much training. Also, the transition between human and robot jobs also won't be abrupt - humans will always be more flexible and better at problem solving, and it takes time to convince industries that robots are better for the bottom line than humans.
History and economics show that any time we can create more goods and services for less cost the standard of living increases. If you want regulations on how many robots businesses can employ, you're only holding back inevitable technological progress. The U.S. will fall behind the rest of the world (say China, who just spent $2.1 billion on an AI research park) in technology and wage growth. Let the invisible hand do its thing and/or try to educate people to match the jobs needed in the future.
Sorry about the essay, I just like writing about tech.
Mechanizing the fast food industry might actually be a good thing. With fewer low-income jobs available, we may see an increase in the number of people attending higher education and an overall increase in median salaries. Only a third of McDonald's employees have attended college at all, let alone graduate (http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2013/08/fast-food_workers_more_often_a.html). This does not necessarily mean everyone will need to pursue a four-year college degree to get a job, as oftentimes that is not economically feasible. However, trade schools and community college are available to a much wider population, and getting degrees from these schools are enough to land people jobs that pay 60-80K a year, which is far better than most fast food workers' salary.
I believe that as technology advances and becomes readily available robots will begin to take over these low-income jobs. In the fast food market alone, this new finding will lead to further pushes into the use of technology in these restaurants. In a market where profits are prioritized the more expensive and slower person will lose to the cheaper and more efficient machine every time. However, as others have mentioned, this could have a beneficial effect on the future workforce, forcing them to obtain higher levels of education due to the lack of low-income jobs. Additionally, this technology is not yet ready or accessible and will take time to implement allowing for current low wage laborers to continue their current jobs.
I think Flippy is just the beginning of a food industry mainly managed by robots. The people have seen Flippy in action, and seen how effective it was. It's inevitable for more robots like that to be made and introduced to the work force. This will definitely push the more manual simple tasks job off the industry, leading to needing a higher education. On the contrary, I do not believe that higher education will be reduced to any cheaper. I think the price would go up as it will eventually become mandatory to living a comfortable life.
Even though this is one case, I think that the use of robotics in food production will indeed go up. IT is just so much more convenient than the human worker. Regulations should not be placed as it would not be fair to be held back because a bunch people are whining about it. Saying this, I don't think it is enough to require computer science in high school.
I think the advancement of technology in the food industry is beneficial to society as a whole. Technological advancements have slowly been creeping into every industry in one way or another, the food industry is just another. If it costs less, and produces more, it is clearly the superior worker. We should be welcoming the efficiency technology can provide, not restrict it. Robots will not be able to completely take over an industry as there are always positions that need a human body. Computer science is helpful, but I don't think it should be a requirement. More like in line with foreign languages, it should be an option at every school if the student wishes to learn it.
Post a Comment