A robot has been developed to
debone
chickens.
This article repeats some of the usual bogus arguments businesses make
to get their own way. They cite economics in these arguments then
ignore the economics that refutes them.
If profit margins are small, that implies nothing about automation
since automation won't change that. In such a Red Queen's race, no
advance in efficiency is objectively necessary. If one competitor
adopts an advance, the others must; but once they all adopt it, their
competitive situation has not changed much. Meanwhile, if the advance
did not exist, or were prohibited, none of the competitors would miss
it.
Concerned about whether workers can handle an expected increase in
chicken production? No need to be; they certainly can, if the
companies hire more workers in proportion.
Do workers suffer from fatigue and repetitive strain? If so, slow
down the line and hire a few more workers. A non-plutocratic
government would require this. It would increase costs per chicken a
little, but since that increase will apply to all competitors, they
will cope easily by increasing prices a little.
If it were solely a matter of how to debone chickens, I'd rejoice if
people no longer had to do this grueling, dangerous and gory job
— provided they were not made homeless as a result. Under
plutocratic austerity, that's the probable outcome. We must not
permit more automation until we provide decently for those whose work
is not needed.
This is why I shout out to people using the automated self-checkout
machines: "If you use those machines, you are putting Americans out of
work."
Yesterday, an employee stationed near the machines at a Safeway store
responded with "Yes". Someone got the message.