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.