FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Japanese conveyor-sushi is evolving

Japanese conveyor-sushi is evolving

(5:24) How the new breed of highly automated Japanese conveyor-belt sushi restaurants feed their customers. hong-chiang.com

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
iknowlessthanyoudo iknowlessthanyoudo (740 days ago)

Low birth rate, low immigration and high cost of living are the mother of automation.

ReplyVote up (108)down (73)
Original comment

Low birth rate, low immigration and high cost of living are the mother of automation.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (740 days ago)

Cost of living, yes. The higher the wages are, the more incentive there is to automate processes. It might take a huge initial investment but the long term savings will make up for it.

ReplyVote up (104)down (71)
Original comment

Cost of living, yes. The higher the wages are, the more incentive there is to automate processes. It might take a huge initial investment but the long term savings will make up for it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (740 days ago)

There are huge benefits to automation, but there are also huge costs which ultimately will become the much bigger problem - the welfare bill and social cohesion.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but it's most certainly not more laissez-faire capitalism.

ReplyVote up (101)down (87)
Original comment

There are huge benefits to automation, but there are also huge costs which ultimately will become the much bigger problem - the welfare bill and social cohesion.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but it's most certainly not more laissez-faire capitalism.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (739 days ago)

Servers have been complaining about not getting paid enough. This system will fix that problem. Now they can hopefully find a different job that pays better. At bare minimum, they will not be complaining about not getting paid enough at their old job.

ReplyVote up (84)down (101)
Original comment

Servers have been complaining about not getting paid enough. This system will fix that problem. Now they can hopefully find a different job that pays better. At bare minimum, they will not be complaining about not getting paid enough at their old job.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (739 days ago)

For a concerned citizen, that's a funny way of looking at the problem of low wages.

Your "If you don't like it, f-off" approach amplifies the problem of low wages. It's basic economics: High unemployment + high automation = low wages.

The way to solve the problem of low wages is simply to raise them. Enforce a real living wage and save the tax payer a bunch of money. I wouldn't worry about the head honchos at McDonald's, they will survive.

ReplyVote up (101)down (88)
Original comment

For a concerned citizen, that's a funny way of looking at the problem of low wages.

Your "If you don't like it, f-off" approach amplifies the problem of low wages. It's basic economics: High unemployment + high automation = low wages.

The way to solve the problem of low wages is simply to raise them. Enforce a real living wage and save the tax payer a bunch of money. I wouldn't worry about the head honchos at McDonald's, they will survive.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (739 days ago)

Obviously our philosophy is different. If you raise wages, the employer looks for ways to reduce costs and, employees being one of the highest costs to run a business, will cut employees.

You can see this in action now. Why do you think American companies go to China to get products manufactured? Could it be because it's cheaper labor there? Is there any other reason other than labor costs?

ReplyVote up (91)down (107)
Original comment

Obviously our philosophy is different. If you raise wages, the employer looks for ways to reduce costs and, employees being one of the highest costs to run a business, will cut employees.

You can see this in action now. Why do you think American companies go to China to get products manufactured? Could it be because it's cheaper labor there? Is there any other reason other than labor costs?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (739 days ago)

Should American workers compete on the same level as Chinese workers?

Are you happy with the American worker's standard of living being dragged down to that of the Chinese worker, in a country that is much more expensive to live in?

There are plenty of ways to disincentivise American companies from getting products manufactured in China. Why not some smart, sensible regulation that keeps jobs in America, with a mandatory living wage so that tax payers don't have to top-up wages too low to live on?

Some products may be more expensive, but then people will have more money to spend, which will keep the economy well lubricated and healthy, and the population happier.

Surely that's a better way to go than telling people to f-off and replacing them with robots?

ReplyVote up (101)down (79)
Original comment

Should American workers compete on the same level as Chinese workers?

Are you happy with the American worker's standard of living being dragged down to that of the Chinese worker, in a country that is much more expensive to live in?

There are plenty of ways to disincentivise American companies from getting products manufactured in China. Why not some smart, sensible regulation that keeps jobs in America, with a mandatory living wage so that tax payers don't have to top-up wages too low to live on?

Some products may be more expensive, but then people will have more money to spend, which will keep the economy well lubricated and healthy, and the population happier.

Surely that's a better way to go than telling people to f-off and replacing them with robots?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Drumbeat (735 days ago)

But American workers are competing with Chinese, so are we and all the rest for that matter. History reveals that when governmens interfer in markets, they nearly always make it worse, look at the utilities market in the UK, every thing they try makes it wore for the consumer. It is like we have learnt nothing.

And as you say the bosses will be just fine.

ReplyVote up (94)down (101)
Original comment

But American workers are competing with Chinese, so are we and all the rest for that matter. History reveals that when governmens interfer in markets, they nearly always make it worse, look at the utilities market in the UK, every thing they try makes it wore for the consumer. It is like we have learnt nothing.

And as you say the bosses will be just fine.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (739 days ago)

"There are plenty of ways to disincentivise American companies from getting products manufactured in China. Why not some smart, sensible regulation that keeps jobs in America, with a mandatory living wage so that tax payers don't have to top-up wages too low to live on?"

Creating a minimum wage that is a living wage (allows people to buy a house, raise a family of 3, buy three cars, and have all the luxuries of a middle class family) does not give companies incentives to keep the jobs in America. It gives them the incentive to go elsewhere for cheaper labor.

When you have a global economy and have to pay the outrageous wages Americans expect, the price of the product goes up and you cannot compete against other countries selling similar products for less. The consumer will not buy American products if they are 3 or 4 times as expensive as one made in Korea or China and then the company goes out of business and then everyone loses their jobs.

ReplyVote up (90)down (101)
Original comment

"There are plenty of ways to disincentivise American companies from getting products manufactured in China. Why not some smart, sensible regulation that keeps jobs in America, with a mandatory living wage so that tax payers don't have to top-up wages too low to live on?"

Creating a minimum wage that is a living wage (allows people to buy a house, raise a family of 3, buy three cars, and have all the luxuries of a middle class family) does not give companies incentives to keep the jobs in America. It gives them the incentive to go elsewhere for cheaper labor.

When you have a global economy and have to pay the outrageous wages Americans expect, the price of the product goes up and you cannot compete against other countries selling similar products for less. The consumer will not buy American products if they are 3 or 4 times as expensive as one made in Korea or China and then the company goes out of business and then everyone loses their jobs.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (739 days ago)

Now you're being disingenuous. You know the living wage is not 3 kids and 3 cars.

The living wage is whatever a society decides should be the minimum anyone gets for giving up 1 hour of their time, whatever the job, and that minimum should be enough to finance a standard of living defined by the society, without being topped up by tax payers.

The thing to remember is that paying a living wage doesn't change the overall income a worker gets, just that rather than tax payers topping up the minimum wage to the standard of a living wage (for example, rent help and other low-income benefits), the company pays a living wage.

It's a no brainer. It saves the tax payer loads of money (most of UK welfare goes to people in work, not those unemployed), and it incentivises workers positively, and improves worker/management relations. Lower paid people tend to spend the money they earn, so that goes straight back into the economy. They also pay more tax because they earn more.

I don't think protectionism is altogether a bad thing. It just has to get the balance right between protecting American jobs and allowing "free" trade.

ReplyVote up (101)down (86)
Original comment

Now you're being disingenuous. You know the living wage is not 3 kids and 3 cars.

The living wage is whatever a society decides should be the minimum anyone gets for giving up 1 hour of their time, whatever the job, and that minimum should be enough to finance a standard of living defined by the society, without being topped up by tax payers.

The thing to remember is that paying a living wage doesn't change the overall income a worker gets, just that rather than tax payers topping up the minimum wage to the standard of a living wage (for example, rent help and other low-income benefits), the company pays a living wage.

It's a no brainer. It saves the tax payer loads of money (most of UK welfare goes to people in work, not those unemployed), and it incentivises workers positively, and improves worker/management relations. Lower paid people tend to spend the money they earn, so that goes straight back into the economy. They also pay more tax because they earn more.

I don't think protectionism is altogether a bad thing. It just has to get the balance right between protecting American jobs and allowing "free" trade.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (739 days ago)

"he living wage is whatever a society decides should be the minimum anyone gets for giving up 1 hour of their time" And society has decided that $7.25 is the right number. Bernie Sanders wants it to be $15 but that hasn't passed. What is the minimum a living wage should pay for? A place to live, alone? Kids? College? A vehicle? Food? Electricity? TV Service? What is it? Should it provide enough money to live in an apartment with 3 other roommates where you share the expenses and take public transportation and eat Romen Noodles? How much of a luxury is considered a living wage?

What if a married couple has a child and now the mother has to stay at home, does the guy suddenly get paid more because he has an extra person in his family and has to now support the wife and kid?

If you pay employees more, the price of goods go up, then the increase in salary doesn't pay for those goods anymore. So then you have to raise wages again, this is called inflation and you will have runaway inflation when you double people's wages. You pretend like it will not make any difference but I assure you it will.

"It saves the tax payer loads of money" Does it really, you might want to look at that again. You increase the wages of a worker, who ends up paying for that increase? The consumer (a.k.a., the tax payer).

Before there were minimum wage laws in place, people were getting shafted by employers. Then unions were formed. That prevented companies from taking advantage of their workers. If they tried to screw the employees, the union would strike and that could cause a company to go bankrupt. The management had to listen to the demands of the employees.

Today, with minimum wage laws, you no longer need unions. The government dictates what they think is fair. You could always go back to deregulation and have the unions step in and do it again. A person working in a factory tightening screws all day is making $20.90/hour.

"In manufacturing, union workers make about $836 a week, $56 a week more than non-union employees." That's $43,472 a year. Not bad for unskilled labor. They teach you everything you need to know on the factory floor. LINK

One of my favorite companies is American Apparel. They manufacture high quality tshirts that feel soft compared to those made in Malysia. I can immediately tell the difference the moment I touch the fabric. Unfortunately, they filed for bankruptcy. Why, I'm not 100% sure but I do know they cannot pay their creditors. The only reason I can see this as being a problem is if their income has to pay something else first -- like wages, and then nothing is left to pay creditors.

The AA shirts cost significantly more than their foreign competitors so they should easily be able to make a profit, right? Not so easy when all your labor is in America.

ReplyVote up (106)down (96)
Original comment

"he living wage is whatever a society decides should be the minimum anyone gets for giving up 1 hour of their time" And society has decided that $7.25 is the right number. Bernie Sanders wants it to be $15 but that hasn't passed. What is the minimum a living wage should pay for? A place to live, alone? Kids? College? A vehicle? Food? Electricity? TV Service? What is it? Should it provide enough money to live in an apartment with 3 other roommates where you share the expenses and take public transportation and eat Romen Noodles? How much of a luxury is considered a living wage?

What if a married couple has a child and now the mother has to stay at home, does the guy suddenly get paid more because he has an extra person in his family and has to now support the wife and kid?

If you pay employees more, the price of goods go up, then the increase in salary doesn't pay for those goods anymore. So then you have to raise wages again, this is called inflation and you will have runaway inflation when you double people's wages. You pretend like it will not make any difference but I assure you it will.

"It saves the tax payer loads of money" Does it really, you might want to look at that again. You increase the wages of a worker, who ends up paying for that increase? The consumer (a.k.a., the tax payer).

Before there were minimum wage laws in place, people were getting shafted by employers. Then unions were formed. That prevented companies from taking advantage of their workers. If they tried to screw the employees, the union would strike and that could cause a company to go bankrupt. The management had to listen to the demands of the employees.

Today, with minimum wage laws, you no longer need unions. The government dictates what they think is fair. You could always go back to deregulation and have the unions step in and do it again. A person working in a factory tightening screws all day is making $20.90/hour.

"In manufacturing, union workers make about $836 a week, $56 a week more than non-union employees." That's $43,472 a year. Not bad for unskilled labor. They teach you everything you need to know on the factory floor. LINK

One of my favorite companies is American Apparel. They manufacture high quality tshirts that feel soft compared to those made in Malysia. I can immediately tell the difference the moment I touch the fabric. Unfortunately, they filed for bankruptcy. Why, I'm not 100% sure but I do know they cannot pay their creditors. The only reason I can see this as being a problem is if their income has to pay something else first -- like wages, and then nothing is left to pay creditors.

The AA shirts cost significantly more than their foreign competitors so they should easily be able to make a profit, right? Not so easy when all your labor is in America.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (735 days ago)

Did you hear what happened to Walmart? Since they raised their minimum wage voluntarily to $9 because of political pressures, they lost a lot of revenue. When they announced their 3rd quarter earnings, it was so low that their stock value plummeted 10% in one day.

So tell me again how raising wages doesn't impact profits?

ReplyVote up (89)down (101)
Original comment

Did you hear what happened to Walmart? Since they raised their minimum wage voluntarily to $9 because of political pressures, they lost a lot of revenue. When they announced their 3rd quarter earnings, it was so low that their stock value plummeted 10% in one day.

So tell me again how raising wages doesn't impact profits?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (735 days ago)

Walmart paid $7.2 billion to shareholders in 2014. LINK All the minimum wage rise means is that shareholders get less and actual Walmart staff on the front line doing the work, get more.

Tax payers will also pay less in benefits.

Low wage earners also tend to spend their money. Pay them more and the money goes straight back into the economy boosting everyone's profits.

In the long-term, everyone profits, including Walmart, because the economy will be much healthier. You can't have a healthy economy by sucking money from the bottom to the top. A healthy economy requires money to circulate.

ReplyVote up (66)down (101)
Original comment

Walmart paid $7.2 billion to shareholders in 2014. LINK All the minimum wage rise means is that shareholders get less and actual Walmart staff on the front line doing the work, get more.

Tax payers will also pay less in benefits.

Low wage earners also tend to spend their money. Pay them more and the money goes straight back into the economy boosting everyone's profits.

In the long-term, everyone profits, including Walmart, because the economy will be much healthier. You can't have a healthy economy by sucking money from the bottom to the top. A healthy economy requires money to circulate.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (735 days ago)
Latest comment:

Doesn't matter how much was paid to shareholders in 2014 because we are talking about 2015Q3. Besides, that number is overinflated because most of that was used to repurchase back some of their shares which companies like to do when the share prices go low.

"shareholders get less" That's right and that is where the issue is. Corporations are publically held companies that are owned by many different investors. People invest in the companies because they expect a return on their money that should exceed the same investment elsewhere. Once the return on investment is reduced to a point that makes it worth taking your money out and going elsewhere, then there becomes a mad rush to sell the shares causing the valuation of the company to go down. In the case of Walmart, that valuation was 10% in one day's worth of trading.

"Low wage earners also tend to spend their money." A middle class person spends more money than a low wage earner. So what is your point again? With your philosophy, raising wages goes back into the economy so why not just raise everyone's wage including the middle class and filthy rich? That would really make for a strong economy then. Obviously you're ignoring the downsides that I mentioned before -- runaway inflation. Wages go up, cost of goods go up, then wages must be raised again to keep up. Endless cycle.

"straight back into the economy boosting everyone's profits." Bad assumption. Just because people will be spending money, that doesn't mean they will be paying enough to pay for the increased wages you have to pay so that will not boost profits. Proof is in what happened to Walmart. They increased wages, their profits went down not up. Exact opposite of what you thought and exactly the way that I knew.

ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment
Latest comment:

Doesn't matter how much was paid to shareholders in 2014 because we are talking about 2015Q3. Besides, that number is overinflated because most of that was used to repurchase back some of their shares which companies like to do when the share prices go low.

"shareholders get less" That's right and that is where the issue is. Corporations are publically held companies that are owned by many different investors. People invest in the companies because they expect a return on their money that should exceed the same investment elsewhere. Once the return on investment is reduced to a point that makes it worth taking your money out and going elsewhere, then there becomes a mad rush to sell the shares causing the valuation of the company to go down. In the case of Walmart, that valuation was 10% in one day's worth of trading.

"Low wage earners also tend to spend their money." A middle class person spends more money than a low wage earner. So what is your point again? With your philosophy, raising wages goes back into the economy so why not just raise everyone's wage including the middle class and filthy rich? That would really make for a strong economy then. Obviously you're ignoring the downsides that I mentioned before -- runaway inflation. Wages go up, cost of goods go up, then wages must be raised again to keep up. Endless cycle.

"straight back into the economy boosting everyone's profits." Bad assumption. Just because people will be spending money, that doesn't mean they will be paying enough to pay for the increased wages you have to pay so that will not boost profits. Proof is in what happened to Walmart. They increased wages, their profits went down not up. Exact opposite of what you thought and exactly the way that I knew.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (740 days ago)

Wonderful. This eliminates the need to pay for servers and their benefits. Such a nice cost saving feature. All restaurants should implement this system. The Japanese are so far advanced.

ReplyVote up (117)down (107)
Original comment

Wonderful. This eliminates the need to pay for servers and their benefits. Such a nice cost saving feature. All restaurants should implement this system. The Japanese are so far advanced.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
The Restaurant of Life
The Restaurant of Life
Bernie supporters take over historic LA coffee shop
Bernie supporters take over historic LA coffee shop
Japanese conveyor-sushi is evolving
Japanese conveyor-sushi is evolving
Asian Garden in Littleton, New Hampshire
Asian Garden in Littleton, New Hampshire
Robot Restaurant in Tokyo
Robot Restaurant in Tokyo