Buffalo Starbucks Unionizes

[Soontir C'boath]

We've been threatened with the idea of automation for years and yet it's funny how other countries seem to be able to provide decent livable wages, but America is the exception. Hmmm. If your stance is, "you're replacable", and not "Oh shit, I am human and I should be worried other humans are treated poorly because I might be next", then you're part of the problem. Sooner or later, we'll probably have a robot that can do a better job than a plumber or an electrician or whatever your job is.

That hasn't been really the case as of late, thanks to the application of neural networking and computer learning. The reason I'm saying 'you're replaceable' is that I can see the bigger picture and see the futility of this action. Every pro-worker action is only to further the automation rush, killing the jobs anyway.

It can be said a ton of jobs will be eliminated regardless of the timetable. However, I dare say there's a ton of people in this country who are rightly worried about having a roof over their head and enough money to eat and worse problems are going to arise whether automation comes or not if their demands are not met.

What do you think the workers should have done instead ?

Vote in a Huey Long and his Share Our Wealth program at this point. There isn't any real alternative unless it's something like, oh, hoping that Ghost in the Shell-grade cybernetics and SciFi-grade gene mods get invented within the next half-decade...

There's been talks of universal basic income for quite awhile now.

Hah. Doesn't matter. Turns out that service jobs like these can't be effectively automated while still making a profit. The past two years have been the perfect time for that shift to happen. If the technology was adequate employers like Starbucks would already have made the switch. They haven't because they can't, and handwaving about how future advances will change that is pure speculation.

Actually, you would be genuinely surprised. Most of this 'complex' work is currently being conquered via a combination of neural networks and breaking down the 'jobs' into their constituent parts.

Yes, like self-check out lanes where people can "steal" stuff on the whim.

And/Therefore?

A certain level of realism is required, and that realism is that the workers have ultimately lost... and everything they do will only hasten or slow how quickly the loss is.

It's kind of weird how you say THEY as if you're not one of them. I'm going to assume you're a kind of programmer and you should know your job can be replacable as well. That's the realism you have to recognize.

[KraytKing]

That hasn't been really the case as of late, thanks to the application of neural networking and computer learning. The reason I'm saying 'you're replaceable' is that I can see the bigger picture and see the futility of this action. Every pro-worker action is only to further the automation rush, killing the jobs anyway.

Hate to dogpile, but I just want to point out: this is a fucking good thing. Pro worker action either results in better living conditions for the workers, or automation making things cheaper and freeing the economy to create a greater number of higher compensation jobs. Jobs are destroyed all the time. We'll keep coming up with new ones, and by definition they'll compensate better than the ones that were forced to automate by unions.

Or maybe that was your point and I misunderstood. It's late, that's possible.

[Soontir C'boath]

That hasn't been really the case as of late, thanks to the application of neural networking and computer learning. The reason I'm saying 'you're replaceable' is that I can see the bigger picture and see the futility of this action. Every pro-worker action is only to further the automation rush, killing the jobs anyway.

Hate to dogpile, but I just want to point out: this is a fucking good thing. Pro worker action either results in better living conditions for the workers, or automation making things cheaper and freeing the economy to create a greater number of higher compensation jobs. Jobs are destroyed all the time. We'll keep coming up with new ones, and by definition they'll compensate better than the ones that were forced to automate by unions.

Or maybe that was your point and I misunderstood. It's late, that's possible.

The problem is any way you cut it is his stance basically sums up to, "enjoy your shitty poorly paid job while you can or the robots will take over and you will have nothing instead."

But it should be acknowledged that, we shouldn't want people to have very good reasons to revolt.

[His Divine Shadow]

Sometimes it feels like some people just want that some people should be poor and kept that way, for it's own sake.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

I assume there's evidence to back this grand assertion?

It's called looking around. The sad reality is that the workers lost, in the end, thanks to automation. Remember we're just about to have self-driving vehicles by the end of this decade at the latest... which is some ~33 million jobs (and this is just jobs that require a driver's license, not the jobs that support those jobs) vanishing into the ether, never coming back. It wouldn't be even all at once, giving the 'slow boiling frog' effect as the rollouts happen (factories can only produce so fast).

Also, good video about this:

Hate to dogpile, but I just want to point out: this is a fucking good thing. Pro worker action either results in better living conditions for the workers, or automation making things cheaper and freeing the economy to create a greater number of higher compensation jobs. Jobs are destroyed all the time. We'll keep coming up with new ones, and by definition they'll compensate better than the ones that were forced to automate by unions.

Or maybe that was your point and I misunderstood. It's late, that's possible.

The reality is that the current shitty conditions are due to us workers (collectively) understanding that if we kept demanding better wages (and now, better benefits), the companies would simply automate and/or send jobs overseas and thus leave us with nothing. Now that overseas is no longer an option, automation is being accelerated to 'we have no breaks' speeds.

In addition, Europe is in a similar situation, just with gold plating over the underlying issues.

Due to the current situation where you can't actually live without a job and there is no BIG/BLG (Basic Life Guarantee, basically living expenses and a little to invest) in our future despite the talk about it...

The problem is any way you cut it is his stance basically sums up to, "enjoy your shitty poorly paid job while you can or the robots will take over and you will have nothing instead."

But it should be acknowledged that, we shouldn't want people to have very good reasons to revolt.

My stance is that 'due to the last guy (Huey Long) who tried to implement a BIG/BLG getting outright assassinated in broad daylight' (and the immense resistance to such) and that your ability to live is absolutely tied to your job (even unemployment isn't able to compensate), right now you have to bear with the shitty poorly paid job or die out in the streets. You can't have some great revolt of the plebs because that will only get you and your family killed, as the gulf between a militia and a genuine military is just that great.

It can be said a ton of jobs will be eliminated regardless of the timetable. However, I dare say there's a ton of people in this country who are rightly worried about having a roof over their head and enough money to eat and worse problems are going to arise whether automation comes or not if their demands are not met.

While true, we're looking at a shitty reality here, which means the worker's power is all but vanished or is in the process of vanishing (hell, Walmart has already sent an automated floor scrubber to Great Falls, Montana).

There's been talks of universal basic income for quite awhile now.

Yeah, but not with powerful enough voices, especially since the last guy that seriously talked about it got gunned down in broad daylight despite his security detail (the man I'm talking about was Huey Long).

Yes, like self-check out lanes where people can "steal" stuff on the whim.

Yes and no, I'm afraid. The current self-checkouts are a byproduct of keeping a human in the loop (in this case, the customer), as things like online ordering weren't really a thing back when they were first rolled out. The next 'gen' of checkouts are basically going to eliminate humans actually physically shopping altogether, that the 'stores' are less stores and more like distribution centers.

It's kind of weird how you say THEY as if you're not one of them. I'm going to assume you're a kind of programmer and you should know your job can be replacable as well. That's the realism you have to recognize.

I was using they as the collective workforce, which includes me... and I'm a Subway 'Sandwich Artist' btw.

And what should they do while waiting for that to become a viable option ?

Simply bear it, I'm afraid. Employers have a massive advantage against workers to the point that they practically have all the power.

Especially when automation isn't a viable option for businesses with current technology. Or that mass automation leading to increased unemployment will make things like a guaranteed basic income more politically viable.

Automation is, in the current business environment (specifically the current 'growth at all costs' regime that has dominated for a better part of two centuries), the only viable option, hence why automation news has been so prolific.

[Soontir C'boath]

I was using they as the collective workforce, which includes me... and I'm a Subway 'Sandwich Artist' btw.

You're going to have to excuse me, but I'm sorry if you have given up and just decided that there's nothing to look forward to except to keep making a 6" tuna sub, but clearly others are not and they are actively trying to make their lives better which is more than can be said for you.

[Gandalf]

I assume there's evidence to back this grand assertion?

It's called looking around. The sad reality is that the workers lost, in the end, thanks to automation. Remember we're just about to have self-driving vehicles by the end of this decade at the latest... which is some ~33 million jobs (and this is just jobs that require a driver's license, not the jobs that support those jobs) vanishing into the ether, never coming back. It wouldn't be even all at once, giving the 'slow boiling frog' effect as the rollouts happen (factories can only produce so fast).

I'll take that as a no.

[Ralin]

Simply bear it, I'm afraid. Employers have a massive advantage against workers to the point that they practically have all the power.

They don't have the power to change reality so that it's practical and affordable to have robots run a Starbucks, or to make people willing to pay Starbucks prices to visit a glorified vending machine.

Remember we're just about to have self-driving vehicles by the end of this decade at the latest... which is some ~33 million jobs (and this is just jobs that require a driver's license, not the jobs that support those jobs) vanishing into the ether, never coming back. It wouldn't be even all at once, giving the 'slow boiling frog' effect as the rollouts happen (factories can only produce so fast).

No we aren't. Self-driving cars are vaporware outside some very limited niches and there's no reason to assume that the technical hurdles to making them a large-scale thing on public roads will ever be sufficiently overcome.

Still waiting for those actual examples of automation replacing service jobs like Starbucks. Actual examples means something other than handwaving about neural networks and a semi-related Youtube video.

[KraytKing]

Hate to dogpile, but I just want to point out: this is a fucking good thing. Pro worker action either results in better living conditions for the workers, or automation making things cheaper and freeing the economy to create a greater number of higher compensation jobs. Jobs are destroyed all the time. We'll keep coming up with new ones, and by definition they'll compensate better than the ones that were forced to automate by unions.

Or maybe that was your point and I misunderstood. It's late, that's possible.

The reality is that the current shitty conditions are due to us workers (collectively) understanding that if we kept demanding better wages (and now, better benefits), the companies would simply automate and/or send jobs overseas and thus leave us with nothing. Now that overseas is no longer an option, automation is being accelerated to 'we have no breaks' speeds.

In addition, Europe is in a similar situation, just with gold plating over the underlying issues.

Due to the current situation where you can't actually live without a job and there is no BIG/BLG (Basic Life Guarantee, basically living expenses and a little to invest) in our future despite the talk about it...

You haven't actually addressed anything I said. My point is that whenever jobs are destroyed, new ones are made. Collectively bargaining for better working conditions will result in better working conditions, whether by forcing those jobs to adapt or by annihilating those jobs and creating new, better ones.

[bilateralrope]

And what should they do while waiting for that to become a viable option ?

Simply bear it, I'm afraid. Employers have a massive advantage against workers to the point that they practically have all the power.

Remember, even if the technology becomes viable tomorrow, rolling it out will take a while. Probably a few months in a trial store to show that it does indeed work as claimed. Then Starbucks puts in the order for the new hardware requires. Then they wait in line behind the companies that ordered their hardware first. Then the manufacturing and installation time.

How many of those workers are even planning to still be there by the time that happens ?
Compared those those who are planning to get jobs elsewhere once they finish their tertiary studies.

The way I see it, you need to prove two things:
- A timeframe for when automation becomes viable. Including an estimation for the trial run and rolling out the hardware.
- That unionization will speed up automation. Which means you need to calculate a cost per hour for running the automated systems to compare to staff wages.
Oh and since this is a thread about Starbucks, I want the proof specifically for Starbucks stores.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

They don't have the power to change reality so that it's practical and affordable to have robots run a Starbucks, or to make people willing to pay Starbucks prices to visit a glorified vending machine.

You would be surprised. Most people don't care about stuff like that.

No we aren't. Self-driving cars are vaporware outside some very limited niches and there's no reason to assume that the technical hurdles to making them a large-scale thing on public roads will ever be sufficiently overcome.

I'm sorry but this little bit made me chuckle. Like, seriously chuckle. Self-driving cars aren't vaporware as you would believe, they're becoming a (sad) reality.

Still waiting for those actual examples of automation replacing service jobs like Starbucks. Actual examples means something other than handwaving about neural networks and a semi-related Youtube video.

It'll take me a while because, to be frank, my Google-Fu is rather shit. But we've already got burger-flipping robots now... which isn't good for other service jobs.

You haven't actually addressed anything I said. My point is that whenever jobs are destroyed, new ones are made. Collectively bargaining for better working conditions will result in better working conditions, whether by forcing those jobs to adapt or by annihilating those jobs and creating new, better ones.

That actually hasn't been the case for the last decade at the least. Work hours have been literally stagnant in that time period (as the video shows) despite the fact that productivity increased by almost half. Jobs have actually been vanishing... which is bad when you need literal millions of jobs per month to be created.

Remember, even if the technology becomes viable tomorrow, rolling it out will take a while. Probably a few months in a trial store to show that it does indeed work as claimed. Then Starbucks puts in the order for the new hardware requires. Then they wait in line behind the companies that ordered their hardware first. Then the manufacturing and installation time.

How many of those workers are even planning to still be there by the time that happens ?

You would be surprised, given that there is little work to be had.

Compared those those who are planning to get jobs elsewhere once they finish their tertiary studies.

The way I see it, you need to prove two things:
- A timeframe for when automation becomes viable. Including an estimation for the trial run and rolling out the hardware.
- That unionization will speed up automation. Which means you need to calculate a cost per hour for running the automated systems to compare to staff wages.
Oh and since this is a thread about Starbucks, I want the proof specifically for Starbucks stores.

That is a tall order, especially for my shitty google-fu skills. A large part of my predictions is based on what happened historically (how the industrial sector automated) combined with what I know about the current automation trends.

It'll take me ages to find what you ask for. [grumbles about Google including everything in search results even with advanced search options]

[Ralin]

You would be surprised. Most people don't care about stuff like that.

No I wouldn't. People care plenty about it, as shown by the fact that people go to Starbucks instead of just using a fucking vending machine.

I'm sorry but this little bit made me chuckle. Like, seriously chuckle. Self-driving cars aren't vaporware as you would believe, they're becoming a (sad) reality.

No, they aren't and you again have failed to give any evidence for your stupid handwaving bullshit. DR 5 motherfucker. Put up or shut up.

It'll take me a while because, to be frank, my Google-Fu is rather shit.

You're not going to do it at all because you know fuck all about the subject and are saying things that have little to no basis in reality.

But we've already got burger-flipping robots now... which isn't good for other service jobs.

Largely irrelevant to other service jobs.

That is a tall order, especially for my shitty google-fu skills. A large part of my predictions is based on what happened historically (how the industrial sector automated) combined with what I know about the current automation trends.

Your predictions are crap because they don't account for the fact that we can't make self-driving cars or automated fast food restaurants a large-scale thing just because Elon Musk wills it and throws investors' money at making it happen.

[bilateralrope]

But we've already got burger-flipping robots now... which isn't good for other service jobs.

Citation needed.
I only recall one example of a restaurant trying a burger flipping robot. It was a failure because the technology wasn't ready. If any other examples exist, I'd like to know about them.

Also I'm predicting that McDonalds New Zealand will fail with their first attempt at automating. Mainly because every year they have their "Monopoly" promotion. Every year that means custom animations on the menu screens. Every year that animation is jerky, showing that the hardware isn't up to the job. Also their app is slow to load and annoying to use when I compare it to the Burger King app. Too bogged down with unnecessary bits. Which is why McD has a 116MB app on my phone but the BK app only needs 19MB.
Basically, McDonalds have shown me that their IT people suck.

Remember, even if the technology becomes viable tomorrow, rolling it out will take a while. Probably a few months in a trial store to show that it does indeed work as claimed. Then Starbucks puts in the order for the new hardware requires. Then they wait in line behind the companies that ordered their hardware first. Then the manufacturing and installation time.

How many of those workers are even planning to still be there by the time that happens ?

You would be surprised, given that there is little work to be had.

So what are your estimates for how long the rollout of automation will take ?

Compared those those who are planning to get jobs elsewhere once they finish their tertiary studies.

The way I see it, you need to prove two things:
- A timeframe for when automation becomes viable. Including an estimation for the trial run and rolling out the hardware.
- That unionization will speed up automation. Which means you need to calculate a cost per hour for running the automated systems to compare to staff wages.
Oh and since this is a thread about Starbucks, I want the proof specifically for Starbucks stores.

That is a tall order, especially for my shitty google-fu skills. A large part of my predictions is based on what happened historically (how the industrial sector automated) combined with what I know about the current automation trends.

It'll take me ages to find what you ask for. [grumbles about Google including everything in search results even with advanced search options]

Then you better go find it. Because your position requires automation to fall within a very narrow cost range:
- If automation is too expensive, workers can demand better conditions and thus they should unionize.
- If automation is too cheap, it will be cheaper than what it currently costs to have human staff. Thus the human staff will be replaced as soon as they can be, unionised or not. So the workers should unionise to improve their conditions between now and when the automation arrives.

[KraytKing]

You haven't actually addressed anything I said. My point is that whenever jobs are destroyed, new ones are made. Collectively bargaining for better working conditions will result in better working conditions, whether by forcing those jobs to adapt or by annihilating those jobs and creating new, better ones.

That actually hasn't been the case for the last decade at the least. Work hours have been literally stagnant in that time period (as the video shows) despite the fact that productivity increased by almost half. Jobs have actually been vanishing... which is bad when you need literal millions of jobs per month to be created.

Not that collective bargaining has been very strong in a while. You're simultaneously claiming "nothing can change" while supporting the reasons nothing has changed.

Also, bear in mind that a few hundred thousand jobs are destroyed and created every month. If a wave of unionization occurs and higher wages are bargained for, at the very least it would take years to see all of those jobs replaced.

Obviously you are correct in the arbitrarily long term, automation can do many things, why not these things? But this discussion isn't ABOUT the arbitrarily long term, it's about the next five to ten years. And in that time frame, you need MUCH better evidence than you have provided.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Citation needed.
I only recall one example of a restaurant trying a burger flipping robot. It was a failure because the technology wasn't ready. If any other examples exist, I'd like to know about them.

First, can you give me when this example was about, largely because automation has been improving at an astonishing rate over the last few years (with bots like Baxter coming out)?



LA Times article that is roughly two years old.
Food and Wine did an article about the improvements made to said burger-flipping robot just over two years ago...

Also, KFC has just opened its first automated restaurant a while back:

Though, these examples are what I can dig up within an hour or so.

So what are your estimates for how long the rollout of automation will take ?

Depending on various conditions and not things like a 'Black Swan' event (or worse, a nuclear war) disrupting things? We'll see a bunch of what can be best described as 'field test' groups throughout this decade at the minimum. The actual V1s would be (at the worst-case scenario for us workers) start rolling out based on the field test groups' data by the end of the decade at the earliest, next decade (or best-case scenario for us workers) at the latest.

So, by 2050 at the latest, 2030 at the earliest... though this number would be suspect to change due to new data and conditions.

Then you better go find it. Because your position requires automation to fall within a very narrow cost range:
- If automation is too expensive, workers can demand better conditions and thus they should unionize.
- If automation is too cheap, it will be cheaper than what it currently costs to have human staff. Thus the human staff will be replaced as soon as they can be, unionised or not. So the workers should unionise to improve their conditions between now and when the automation arrives.

It'll take ages for me because I'll have to dig through a lot of dreck to find them. You wouldn't believe just how politicized economic stuff is. Trying to find something that isn't outright political in the field is harder than it looks (I should know, I'm forum-friends with an actual economist, and he bemoans just how political the field is).

[Rogue 9]

My stance is that 'due to the last guy (Huey Long) who tried to implement a BIG/BLG getting outright assassinated in broad daylight' (and the immense resistance to such) and that your ability to live is absolutely tied to your job (even unemployment isn't able to compensate), right now you have to bear with the shitty poorly paid job or die out in the streets.

I'ma stop you right there. Huey Long was assassinated by the son in law of a political opponent whose district he had just gerrymandered out of existence. The motive wasn't that he advocated UBI.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

I'ma stop you right there. Huey Long was assassinated by the son in law of a political opponent whose district he had just gerrymandered out of existence. The motive wasn't that he advocated UBI.

From my understanding, it was partially influenced by Huey Long's 'Share Our Wealth' program idea, though what little I've skimmed of the man didn't tell much about the assassination on the political side of things.

Then again, a trend I've seen in US politics is that if you try to stop capitalism (unless the situation has people with enlightened self-interest override this), you tend to either be pushed out of politics or dead.

[bilateralrope]

So, by 2050 at the latest, 2030 at the earliest... though this number would be suspect to change due to new data and conditions.

So your position is that the workers should just suck it up and deal with the current conditions, because unionizing might risk their jobs in the next decade or three. Oh and you've got no guarantee that doing everything the company wants has any chance of saving their job because you don't have the information to compare the cost of non-unionised workers to automation.

One more question: How would you pick the store that gets the trial run of the automation ?

Remember to consider what happens if the testing reveals that the automation being tested isn't up to the job.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

So your position is that the workers should just suck it up and deal with the current conditions, because unionizing might risk their jobs in the next decade or three. Oh and you've got no guarantee that doing everything the company wants has any chance of saving their job because you don't have the information to compare the cost of non-unionised workers to automation.

All I can see is that it'll slow the process down at best... though it should be noted that my solution isn't just grinning and bearing it -because we're too far gone in automation to extend the life of jobs at this point- but vote in politicians that would implement some sort of "Share Our Wealth" program, but that's going to be harder to sell than you would think.

One more question: How would you pick the store that gets the trial run of the automation ?

Just 19 hours ago, an article from FOX Business confirmed that 100 White Castle stores were being automated, which is based on articles as old as six days (with my initial google-fu-ing) from other sites like Restaurant Drive...

Remember to consider what happens if the testing reveals that the automation being tested isn't up to the job.

So far, it's up to the hype, which is the problem.

[bilateralrope]

All I can see is that it'll slow the process down at best... though it should be noted that my solution isn't just grinning and bearing it -because we're too far gone in automation to extend the life of jobs at this point- but vote in politicians that would implement some sort of "Share Our Wealth" program, but that's going to be harder to sell than you would think.

The problem with your position is that I don't think workers can do anything to slow down automation. But you insist that they skip over something which will help them today in favor of something which isn't politically viable right now. That they stop the thing that will reduce company profits in the short term and instead focus on something which probably won't touch the profit margins in any timeframe the company cares about.

One more question: How would you pick the store that gets the trial run of the automation ?

Just 19 hours ago, an article from FOX Business confirmed that 100 White Castle stores were being automated, which is based on articles as old as six days (with my initial google-fu-ing) from other sites like Restaurant Drive...

You didn't answer my question of how you would pick the stores. Nor do your links say how those stores were picked. I'm not even sure if your articles are talking about a trial run or an actual rollout.

There is a point I'm trying to make with my question. But my point makes some assumptions on how you'll answer. If my assumptions are wrong, my point falls apart. So I'd prefer to verify my assumptions first.

[Broomstick]

Jobs are destroyed all the time. We'll keep coming up with new ones, and by definition they'll compensate better than the ones that were forced to automate by unions.

Speaking as someone who has been in the labor force long enough that my job has been eliminated not once, not twice, but three times due to innovation/automation...

No, it is NOT guaranteed that the new jobs will be better compensated. Or even equally compensated.

But there will be new jobs, and a key thing to fight for are that the new jobs have actual living wages attached to them. Also, I'd like to see a real safety net for those transitioning between one career and another. There are actually a lot of things we could be doing better than at present.

[KraytKing]

Perhaps I was overly optimistic. I am assuming that the jobs are destroyed by collective bargaining first, then automated as a result, and assuming that said collective bargaining will continue to apply in the new jobs. I expect that should union movements continue to broadly fail, automation will continue and new jobs will NOT compensate better.

[Broomstick]

What do you do when, after automation, there are fewer jobs to fill in a particular area?

What do you do to retrain people to new careers? At present, many such programs, including union-sponsored apprenticeship programs, have age limits. When I lost a career at 45 I was flat out told I was too old for most of the offered training programs for people displaced out of their jobs. I'll just point out that one of my sisters entered medical school at 46 and is now an MD and actively practicing doctor - ageist assumptions are NOT helping the work force.

Rather than pad payrolls to avoid job loss after major changes (like automation) or ageist policies for retraining we need to offer people avenues not just to continue their present careers but to change careers entirely. More options are better, right?

[KraytKing]

Oh, 100% broad change is needed. Expansion of retraining programs, expansion of unemployment benefits/UBI, investment into universal college education as part of retraining, all need to happen. I never meant to suggest that the economy works and everything would be hunkydory no matter what. I was specifically pushing back on the notion that automation needs to be avoided at all costs, including fair wages.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

The problem with your position is that I don't think workers can do anything to slow down automation. But you insist that they skip over something which will help them today in favor of something which isn't politically viable right now. That they stop the thing that will reduce company profits in the short term and instead focus on something which probably won't touch the profit margins in any timeframe the company cares about.

Hence why I said 'at best'.

You didn't answer my question of how you would pick the stores. Nor do your links say how those stores were picked. I'm not even sure if your articles are talking about a trial run or an actual rollout.

There is a point I'm trying to make with my question. But my point makes some assumptions on how you'll answer. If my assumptions are wrong, my point falls apart. So I'd prefer to verify my assumptions first.

That's a good question, but the sad thing is my google-fu searches keep coming up empty so I have to expect some 'basic common' competence in my assumptions. That is unless someone from White Castle decided to leak the information onto the internet...

Though, in other news, MIT just recently came out with a study that went 'yeah, automation is causing inequality', take of that as you will.