it's also possible that we no longer have a lot of general technology imporvements that can be cost effective relative to just paying someone.

We could probably build excellent robots to bring food from the kitchen to tables of a restaurant, but the capital costs are just not worth it relative to hiring wait staff (conveyor belt sushi nonwithstanding).

Would it ever be worth it to Chili's to outfit a 40-table restaurant with automated delivery systems, replace 3 wait staff with a technician, and deal with the edge cases (how do tables get cleared??)? Probably not.

Likely most tech ends up actually make existing staff more efficient, to be simply overworked instead of insanely overworked. Tablet digital ordering systems, fast dishwashers, kitchen-side logistics improvements....

I don't think Chili's is going to automate bringing the food to you any time soon, but they're probably considering putting kiosk tablets to order drinks and pay to save a few trips (I haven't been to a Chili's in a while, but these things are invading most of the chains I frequent).

McDonald's now has automated drink machines, mobile ordering and in select locations kiosk ordering (on giant touch screens). They've also experimented with call center handling of drive through ordering, so could be ready to potentially hand that over to voice recognition as well.

I think it's a long time before food service jobs are all automated away, but some of the jobs are going away. (McDonald's claims they plan to keep the same number of employees, and shift to provide more service in the seating area)

I think food service jobs are some of the safest. At least in the US people are going to want to talk to real people (especially at non-fast food places).

easier in UK to import degree educated youngsters from eastern Europe and pay them the minimum wage

China is investing in automation at a faster pace than anyone else.

And wages are growing faster in China than anywhere else. Automation has never been associated with mass unemployment or declining wages. In fact, the reality is exactly the opposite: it is the ultimate cause of all increases in workers' compensation.

The belief that automation will hurt workers goes back 200 years and is found in sources as diverse as Marx's writings, JFK's speeches, and warnings from world renowned scientists (the Ad Hoc Committee on the Triple Revolution). It's a product of the natural human tendency towards pessimism (which is a very useful survival instinct).

Yes automation is the necessary condition for real wage growth. The only way for real wages to grow is for productivity to grow, which means more automation assuming work force skill level is stable. Is it also sufficient? I think there is valid concern about aggregate demand, esp if the transition is too fast. I don't think that is currently a problem though as our productivity has been growing too slowly, not too fast.

They are investing in automationnlargely because of the rapid wage increase.

But you are mixing concerns. This is mostly old style automation which has never bothered is because it could never fully replace humans so we simply moved to new jobs.

However now we are getting closer to the beginning of a period were people will become FULLY redundant because eventually there will be NO task which machines can’t do cheaper and better than us.

What then?

If common people don’t have stocks or don’t get money from government they will get screwed because there will be no job for them.

> However now we are getting closer to the beginning of a period were people will become FULLY redundant because eventually there will be NO task which machines can’t do cheaper and better than us.

We automate the politicians, judges and CEOs out of a job.

> What then?

The machines get bored with doing everything for us, and figure out a way to exist on a another physical substrate elsewhere, like in the movie Her.