Now Boomers are to blame for lack of Fast Food workers

a reply to: TheRedneck

I had to think about this post for a bit...

But, firstly you sort of validated what I was getting at earlier in the thread, that advanced programming and coding is necessary now to achieve higher levels of robotics and efficient 'machines' or just a program that an office worker uses.
If we go all the way back to when humans became sort of, I guess morally connected to the material world and started to form ideas around markets and city states, the idea of division of labor sprung up, and ever since our reaction to the material world has caused the division of labor to constantly strive to become more efficient to the point we are at now.
If we go back to the most notable instance of explaining division of labor it's of course the pin maker expanding production by simply hiring other people and giving them a task to complete.
That sort of model is dying off with more and more refined specialty jobs becoming the money makers, which are generally jobs that improve robotics and automation, and to strive for AI. Like I said earlier, and you mentioned, people aren't changing themselves, but we are changing the division of labor sort of speak, and the material world around us. So it would make perfect sense to see younger generations to pursue these types of jobs and leave the older, 'boomer' jobs in the dust, does it not?

Which brings up all sorts of moral philosophical questions, like is robotics, automation and AI ethically and morally correct?
If it dismantles the old models of how, basic economics works, what would be the consequences?

As for the AI thing, I don't think we are that far off, especially since how fast processing power grew since it's inception, what makes you think AI won't start hashing out there own code through trial and error. Have you ever heard of the concept of a
technological singularity? Sort of like Blade Runner scenario.

a reply to: strongfp

OK, I think I can sorta agree with you on the division of labor thing. The thing is, people like me have been preaching for years upon years that the only way to get out of the dead end jobs and improve your lot in life is to improve yourself so you are worth more. Automation, where it is implemented, is proving that philosophy sound: the jobs that can be done by a machine, when labor gets too expensive, will be done by a machine. Even though the machine does not have the innate abilities of a human to handle the unexpected, at some point the cost difference is just not able to be ignored.

In order to make oneself worth more, one must make themselves uniquely qualified for a position one wants. Sometimes that means getting a degree; sometimes that means learning a trade; sometimes that means demonstrating one's superiority in a field while on the job. Oftentimes it means living a little below where one is comfortable for a while to get a greater reward later on. Usually it means less free time and less excitement in one's life.

But, most of this younger generation does not want to do that. It's too much of an inconvenience. So they continue to work at jobs that they should have outgrown years before, demanding more and more in return for the same, until they price themselves out of a job and machines take over. Then we all get to live with those costly errors that only a machine can make, and we become slaves to the machines instead of masters of ourselves.

So yeah, I can agree with you on this point.

Which brings up all sorts of moral philosophical questions, like is robotics, automation and AI ethically and morally correct?
If it dismantles the old models of how, basic economics works, what would be the consequences?

Robotics, automation, and (what passes for) AI are machines. As such there is no moral or ethical consideration. How humans use those machines, now that has moral and ethical considerations.

As for the consequences, we are seeing them first hand. Even back in my teenage days, working fields was becoming something done by tractors, not people. Hay hauling, which was my biggest money-maker, was already being replaced by the large round bales which were handled with equipment, not teenagers. Soon after I entered the real workforce, those jobs became non-existent. Now, what? 40+ years later?, kids have no concept of how to work, what is expected in a job, how money works, the value of a dollar... and we are seeing this shift in the economy.

There's your consequences. Fast food has been a lifeline for many young folk, but it's been abused. How much worse will it be when fast food jobs are gone?

As for the AI thing, I don't think we are that far off, especially since how fast processing power grew since it's inception, what makes you think AI won't start hashing out there own code through trial and error.

Because there is no magic.

Computing power has advanced through two avenues: streamlining and specializing circuitry, and processor speed. Both of these are a direct result of miniaturization technology; we can pack more integrated circuitry on the chips, meaning more potential specialized circuits included in the design, and the smaller sizes allow us to use faster clock speeds since everything is closer (and that silly speed of light thing makes that pretty important).

But the way computers work has not changed. The fastest, most powerful supercomputer today uses the exact same basic design as ENIAC did: An ALU, registers, and an instruction set decoder. Nothing has changed. It's still just a machine.

We are no closer to actual AI than we were in 1945 when ENIAC was turned on. We just go faster and have learned to write bigger code.

Have you ever heard of the concept of a technological singularity?

Yes. It's a philosophical ideal that some science fiction writer came up with.

There is no magic.

TheRedneck

i just looked up if i am a 'boomer' - it seems i am what is known as 'gen x'. always good to know which category one belongs to i suppose. well i like billy idol so my 'gen' is ok by me. labels, labels, everything must be labelled.

a reply to: RoScoLaz5

Strangely enough, I used to be at the beginning of Gen X. Then someone changed things and I became a (late) Boomer.

Got news for 'em... I'm neither. I'm the redneck. As in, redneck does not define me; I define redneck.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Robotics, automation, and (what passes for) AI are machines. As such there is no moral or ethical consideration. How humans use those machines, now that has moral and ethical considerations.

As for the consequences, we are seeing them first hand. Even back in my teenage days, working fields was becoming something done by tractors, not people. Hay hauling, which was my biggest money-maker, was already being replaced by the large round bales which were handled with equipment, not teenagers. Soon after I entered the real workforce, those jobs became non-existent. Now, what? 40+ years later?, kids have no concept of how to work, what is expected in a job, how money works, the value of a dollar... and we are seeing this shift in the economy.

There's your consequences. Fast food has been a lifeline for many young folk, but it's been abused. How much worse will it be when fast food jobs are gone?

There is a moral and ethical consequences an extremely large one, if the division of labor is ultimately replaced by robotics and automation. And as you stated younger generations are I guess suffering as a consequence, but it doesn't end there. What do you do with those who aren't going to be cut out for programming and operating the automation and robotics. You will end up with a mass surplus of labor (not in a Marxist sense. A literal sense, mass unemployment), so what do you do with all the people who are out of a job, the entry level jobs, etc.

And if we believe in free markets it should work out all in the end, right? I believe so, and we need to accept that the youth and younger generations aren't 'lazy', or lacking in character building, they are being productive in their own way, which will pave the way for the future. We do live in a crisis, as in a cross road, and older generations cannot fathom it.

We are no closer to actual AI than we were in 1945 when ENIAC was turned on. We just go faster and have learned to write bigger code.

Which brings me to my next point, from what I know about coding, which several of my friends have careers in, code from back then does not exist in any form except some old vestiges of C which still live on but will eventually become extinct.
It's not magic, this is just humans leaving their mark in a sort of sense, I guess it's humans changing the 'material' world, but only within a programming sense, it's a language which evolves like any other language. So a technological singularity is not that far fetched. If I remember correctly you are a man of faith, yet you dismiss this human concept and vision as magic?

I have to ask, do you view coding and programming like math, a set in stone set of values like physics?

a reply to: strongfp

if we believe in free markets it should work out all in the end, right?

Oh, of course it will.

That's not the concern. The concern is what will happen to people while it is "working out in the end."

we need to accept that the youth and younger generations aren't 'lazy', or lacking in character building, they are being productive in their own way

Sorry, but it's hard to accept something when experience shows me the opposite. There are exceptions, of course, but in general the new generation is lazy and incompetent. That's not "being productive in their own way." It's simple laziness and incompetence.

When the new guys driving the forklifts in a factory are not producing what a 60-year old man in bad health can produce, and often screw up the inventory when they do do something, that's laziness and incompetence. There is no other (honest) way to look at it.

code from back then does not exist in any form except some old vestiges of C which still live on but will eventually become extinct.

Ummm... that's not the ind of code I am talking about.

The higher languages like C++, Python, C#, etc., are simply mechanisms to make programming easier. In the compiler, the statements in these higher-level languages are broken down, according to specific algorithms, into machine language. That's the actual language of the computer. The higher level languages are the language of the compiler, not the computer... an interpretation routine, if you will, to translate languages into machine code.

Really, all a processor can do is

• move information around, from memory locations to registers and vice versa, from registers to registers, or from memory locations to memory locations
  
• Perform simple arithmetic and logical operations on register contents
  
• Interpret instructions stored in memory to determine which operation to perform next
  
• Change the program counter based on arithmetic and logic operations.
  
• Respond to interrupts hardwired into the processor.

That's about it... that's all a computer can do. Everything we do with computers is based on those simple machine code instructions. The higher languages simply make it easier (and far less tedious) to create machine code, at the cost of algorithm inefficiency.

That's what I mean when I say "it's all just code." Those registers cannot hold thoughts or emotions or instincts... they can only hold binary numbers. Even the simple statement of adding two floating-point numbers is actually a major operation to "interpret" those binary numbers into floating-point numbers and then perform the needed calculations based on mathematical constructs.

do you view coding and programming like math, a set in stone set of values like physics?

Coding is a man-made science which addresses the use of a man-made device. Physics concerns natural phenomena. Thus, there is certainly a difference between understanding something man-made and understanding something natural.

The possibility exists that someone, someday, might come up with a new type of processor. Should that happen, coding will obviously change to accommodate the new device. So no, coding is not "set in stone" like physics. We determine the rules that govern the processors; we do not determine the laws of physics. The reason I can make such a statement about AI that I do, is because all computers to date, from the microprocessor in a wrist watch to the experimental quantum computers, use the same set of basic rules as any other. Registers, ALU, interpreter. We know certain principles that work with the kind of processors we use, but until the processor changes they will not change.

AI will take, in my professional opinion, a complete revamp of everything we understand about computation. AI, if and when it becomes reality, will be analog, not digital, and we know very little about analog computing.

TheRedneck

a reply to: JAGStorm

There isn't one set number, it depends on the location, but they need to pay enough to actually have workers. Maybe the CEO needs to take a cut out of his millions or billions. Don't get me wrong, I do believe business owners deserve reward for their risk, and investment, but it can't be at the cost of slave labor. I do think 7.25 is slave labor.

Some restaurants don't have staffing issues, so my guess it's a combination of pay, benefits and how they are treated.

Most McDonald's restaurants are franchises... i.e. small businesses.

And to start a McDonald's franchise? Anywhere from $1-2.5 million, with at least $750,000 in liquid capital.

Average annual profit for a McDonald's franchise? About $150,000/year.

At least 10 years of debt for that McDonald's owner, without paying himself a salary...

And people are calling for paying people $15/hr to screw up an order of a burger and fries...

At my local McDonald's the kid that works the drive through is all blinged-out. Multiple gold chains, a gold ring on just about every finger. I asked him about it, and he said when he got his stimulus checks, he went crazy and bought it all.

I guess gold is a good investment. I figured rent was a better investment, but he seems to make enough from McDonald's to not have to worry about it...

originally posted by: Tempter
Well, historically a lot of retired or elderly people USED to take those jobs. It was a great way to supplement retirement income for those who hadn't saved enough or for those who just want to keep being productive.

Boomers are retiring now, so while they WERE taking those jobs they are now not in huge numbers.

Shes partially correct about the staffing issue being related to boomers, but she's ignorant as to WHY. i.e., they already DID those jobs and are now done.

I worked at AutoZone when I was in college. There was a guy who was in his late sixties. He had retired twice already still working. I learned alot from that guy. Coolest person ever

a reply to: JAGStorm

Places are fighting over workers and if they don't raise wages nobody stays or applies. They raised wages at my workplace and people quit because idiot managers haven't realized they can push experienced workers but new people can always quit and find another job someplace else.

a reply to: rounda

At my local McDonald's the kid that works the drive through is all blinged-out. Multiple gold chains, a gold ring on just about every finger. I asked him about it, and he said when he got his stimulus checks, he went crazy and bought it all.

That's something most people don't seem to get: it's not just the pay that makes for a better life, it's how you use it. It has been said that if we could gather up all the wealth in the world and redistribute it so everyone had the same amount, in five years the same people would be rich and the same people would be poor.

There is always enough for those who understand the value of a dollar; there never will be enough for those who don't.

Many years ago, I was dirt-poor, to the point that I didn't know from day to day if I would have enough to eat or from month to month if the power was going to be cut off. I literally had nothing! Well, I saw an ad for truck driver training. All I needed was enough cash to live on for six weeks,,, they supplied transportation, room, board, a few meals, and the training at no cost to me, all paid for through a student loan (which they had already approved). But I didn't have the money to eat for six weeks!

Most people would have begged for the money. Not me. I saw an ad in the paper for the county fair... they were hiring local ride operators. I applied and got the job. It paid crap... actually, less than crap... and was probably the worst job I ever held in my life. Not to mention it was temporary... everything I made on that job still wouldn't pay for me to get through training.

However, I also had a friend I met online who ran a small office. He told me they were looking to buy 10 new computers and I asked him if I could bid. He said sure! So I worked that fair job and made enough to buy the needed components for 10 computers. I put in the bid and came in just behind Dell. My buddy told me what I needed to do to get the job and I adjusted my bid.

I took the money from the fair job, bought the parts, assembled the computers, tested them, and shipped them off. That contract paid enough for me to go to driver training and even enough to get a cheap cell phone to stay in touch, just in case. I couldn't afford to call during weekdays back then, but I had free minutes on weekends.

Six weeks later I was on a bus to my first driving job. I made good money for eight years before I came off the road for personal reasons... enough to build and stock an electronics lab that I still use today. I made some serious sacrifices to get that done... went hungry a lot of the time... wore old clothes because I wouldn't spend money for new... went without almost everything I wanted... but in the end it paid off in spades.

Who does that today? No one. Instead, people just complain because they don't have enough money for all the trinkets they want and never get ahead.

Yeah, I'm not very sympathetic to people who won't sacrifice for what they want/need.

TheRedneck

A local guy offered me $20 an hour to cruse around and check peoples summer homes and trip their alarm systems to make sure they work. 4-6 hours a day cash. HUMMMM a little retirement kicker for beer money. He can't find anyone to be on schedule for the alarm checks.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: strongfp
But, most of this younger generation does not want to do that. It's too much of an inconvenience. So they continue to work at jobs that they should have outgrown years before, demanding more and more in return for the same, until they price themselves out of a job and machines take over.
TheRedneck

I've witnessed the exact opposite: young talent is extremely difficult to retain. Sounds like you know or work with a bunch of duds!

a reply to: joejack1949

I've witnessed the exact opposite: young talent is extremely difficult to retain.

How is that the opposite? It sounds like exactly what am talking about.

This generation wants it all, and they want it all NOW! And if they don't get it, they'll just quit.

TheRedneck

a reply to: JAGStorm

I think one thing that's happening is people are eating more at home now than the past couple decades and have largely realized they can cook better food than they can ever get at a fast food joint. Why wait 20 minutes for overpriced low quality generally unhealthy food when you can cook something better at home for half the price, and you don't have to worry about some disgruntled millennial spitting in it? I think the age of fast food is almost over, and we will all be far better off when it is.

originally posted by: Jdubious
Huge problem in skilled trades is the older generation not retiring leaving no skilled jobs for the younger generation. Why am I competing for jobs with 60, 70, sometimes 80 year olds when they should be retired or taking their dirt nap. Got redneck talking about how great boomers work ethic is when the first thing they do when the work bell rings is go to the bathroom and take a dump for a half hour on company time. So maybe these old timers can #1 retire at appropriate age 55-60, #2 train next generation better, boomers did not train me or my boomer dad like boomer egos claim. a reply to: dawnstar

Sounds like you are age-discriminating against seniors. Who gave you the right to decide when people should retire or leave the work force. There are plenty of jobs for younger people. And you expect Seniors to just go away.... that is shameful. My father ran a steel foundry and believed that skilled labor was important for self-respect. He even hired some people who would otherwise end up homeless ... he believed that no one should be forced to retire. He gave people a good trade skill.. like arc air welding ...
Our society has become so callous while telling us we have to take care of everyone else in every country. Let’s see what you do when do w illegal takes your job.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I thought you said this generation likes to stay in the same job too long? It's rare to see a millennial or zillennial in the same job for more than 2 years in my experience. It's common knowledge that the best way to earn more money is to jump ship. These people aren't quitting and going back to mommy's basement - they are getting better paying jobs with more flexibility and better perks. Company loyalty is a retired concept. Companies need to learn how to turn a profit while providing a work environment which attracts talented workers. I envy the older generation. Low skill jobs actually provided enough to buy the house, cars, support a family, etc. Those days are long gone. $20/hr barely covers rent.

a reply to: joejack1949

No, they tend to not improve themselves. They might stay in the same industry (like fast food) because they never develop an improved skillset, but not at the same job. If I gave a different impression, please forgive me.

It's common knowledge that the best way to earn more money is to jump ship.

That is only true in low-paying fields which require little to no specialized skills. It's hard to advance otherwise.

Let's face something right here, right now: working in a field like fast food is not something that requires a lot of skill! Unless you're a franchise manager, high enough that management skills come into play, you're what we used to refer to as a "dime-a-dozen." It simply doesn't take a degree or specialized skills to flip the burger over after a few minutes or scoop up fries into a specially-designed measurement container and dump that into a cardboard box. Almost anyone can do it. And since almost anyone can do it, employers are not that fast to offer raises; it's historically pretty easy to replace anyone who demands more money.

If someone is a skilled electrician, welder, machinist, engineer, doctor, accountant, etc. it becomes much harder to replace them. Just anyone can't do the job. So an employer is a bit more receptive to giving a raise to not lose a hard-to-replace employee. But today's youth seems more interested in jumping jobs to try and get a few extra bucks than invest in themselves and get the big bucks.

These people aren't quitting and going back to mommy's basement - they are getting better paying jobs with more flexibility and better perks.

I'm sure a few are. But the majority I have seen are leaving McDonald's because they got upset over something and getting a job at Arby's. That's not a forward pass... it's a lateral.

Company loyalty is a retired concept.

In both directions! Why spend more than is absolutely necessary on someone who can barely flip a burger without screwing it up? Or someone who is likely to quit because it was their turn to clean the bathroom after someone couldn't find the toilet?

Loyalty is not a one-way street. It makes no sense to complain about company loyalty when there is no employee loyalty.

Companies need to learn how to turn a profit while providing a work environment which attracts talented workers.

And how exactly do they do that? There is a maximum price consumers will pay for anything. It's not like someone can decide to just pay their low-skilled workers $25 a hour and raise the price of a burger to $100 to cover it. No one will pay it and the business will close down.

The only way to not use low-paid workers for low-skilled jobs is to use machines instead. And guess what we're seeing happen?

I envy the older generation. Low skill jobs actually provided enough to buy the house, cars, support a family, etc. Those days are long gone. $20/hr barely covers rent.

The jobs back then didn't pay more, it was that the employees didn't demand as much from the economy. Back when I started working, a few of my friends actually lived in houses that would be condemned on the spot today. We drove clunker cars we could afford. We didn't have cell phones... heck, we were lucky to have a house phone! We certainly didn't have ISP bills, video games, and cable TV. We ate what we could afford... mac-n-cheese six nights a week. We got all those things as we got better jobs. That's why we did what was necessary to get those better jobs.

Today, one has to have a nice car, a nice house, the latest smart phone with data plan, video games to pass the time, insurance for everything, one's favorite foods every night, etc., etc., etc. Those things cost money. That's fine if someone can afford them, but they are not required to survive.

Envy us all you want; you could not do what we did. Thus, you cannot have more than we have.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: RoScoLaz5
i just looked up if i am a 'boomer' - it seems i am what is known as 'gen x'. always good to know which category one belongs to i suppose. well i like billy idol so my 'gen' is ok by me. labels, labels, everything must be labelled.

You and I are Gen X. No one cares about us. No one analyzes us. As a group, we don't matter. That means we'll get hosed before it's all said and done.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I should clarify - I was not talking about fast food workers. I'm talking engineers, programmers, software dev, sales, project managers, small business owners, actuaries, etc.

Companies need to learn how to turn a profit while providing a work environment which attracts talented workers.

And how exactly do they do that?

Have you ever seen a google office, or any tech company office? Catered breakfast, lunch and dinner. Fully stocked fridges, booze, kegs, gaming rooms, music rooms, screening rooms, gyms, sleeping pods. The google office in my town has a rock climbing wall and a slide between floors! And you know what this accomplishes? People don't leave work! They socialize with their coworkers endlessly and discuss work constantly! This is common in any tech hub community from San Diego to New York to Toronto to little ol' Kitchener-Waterloo. Starting salaries for these positions are in the six-figure range.

No, they tend to not improve themselves.

I strongly disagree with you here. If the only millennial/zillennials you know work fast food, your sample size is insufficient. I was born in the 80's and many of my peers are extremely hard working and successful.

Envy us all you want; you could not do what we did.

I'm not sure what you did that you think younger generations could not do.

originally posted by: openminded2011
a reply to: JAGStorm

I think one thing that's happening is people are eating more at home now than the past couple decades and have largely realized they can cook better food than they can ever get at a fast food joint. Why wait 20 minutes for overpriced low quality generally unhealthy food when you can cook something better at home for half the price, and you don't have to worry about some disgruntled millennial spitting in it? I think the age of fast food is almost over, and we will all be far better off when it is.

There were a few places that were high end that offered to go during the height of Covid, they have all stopped. They don’t have the labor to do to go and in person. I know where I live a huge amount of income for restaurants is booze! They rely on alcohol sales to survive.

Just wanted to add, those high end places were 1000x better than fast food and surprisingly not that much more expensive! Too bad most of them stopped!