We begin by taking a statement from Matt Yglesias out of context:

Most restaurants would keep longer hours (they're paying for the rent and the robots anyway), meaning many workers would get a raise and change shifts.

OK, moron, let's take it from the top:

• The whole point to automation is to reduce labor costs.

• Therefore, most workers will be fired in the ideal case you're positing.

• Therefore therefore, the remaining workers sure as Hell will not be getting longer hours.

• In fact, they will be getting effective pay cuts, because their hours will be shortened.

Yglesias' column is a hypothetical about new minimum wage laws leading to an increase in automation, and how that will be a good thing. So let's actually look at what he says will happen:

What about the workers thrown out of jobs by the new robo-waiters? Many would get new jobs, though the way this would work is often ignored.

So he begins by acknowledging that many of the minimum wage workers would be fired. (Keep in mind that's one of derleth's bullet points he called Yglesias a 'moron' for.) He continues:

Most restaurants would keep longer hours (they're paying for the rent and the robots anyway), meaning many workers would get a raise and change shifts.

Or in other words, as I read this, some employees would be fired, and some would be promoted, with automation taking over for the lower skilled employees who were fired. Essentially, instead of low level employees and managers, we'd have robots and (relatively) more managers. This is a bit praxy, but strikes me as eminently reasonable.

The advanced robo-restaurant technology would itself be a valuable American export good, and people would be employed in designing and selling it.

Derleth's responds:

Ah, the classic dodge: "You'll lose your job, but somoene else will get a job!" It would be funny if it weren't borderline psychotic. Let me give you a hint: I will care about that if and when that other person starts paying my expenses.

Freeing up labor by creating a new industry seems like a classic Kaldor-Hicks improvement. I share derleth's skepticism about transfers being made, but I don't think someone is a 'moron' for suggesting it.

But get ready for this:

Some low-wage work would be reallocated out of the relatively low-social-value restaurant sector and into things like child care and home health assistance, for which there is ample demand.

Every time you say something new, you plumb new depths of utter fucking idiocy. Jesus Fucking Christ, how much do you want to kill kids and old people?

---

We already have a problem with nursing home/assisted living workers taking blatantly abusive pictures of the people in their care and posting them to social media. How much more of that do you want?

This is just insane. I don't even know if it needs an RI. It's just madness.

We have a need both a) for more labor in these sectors, and b) a need for better training and screening. These are not mutually exclusive, or zero-sum. And arguing for things that would reallocate labor to them doesn't imply you want to kill kids unless you're a fucking psychopath.

Back to Yglesias:

Since poor people are now making more money, there will be opportunities to sell them things — things like restaurant meals! — that they couldn't previously afford, which in turn creates demand for new jobs.

Seems unobjectionable to me: productivity gains have widespread indirect effects. So why am I not surprised:

Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence.

Rather than explaining the problem, derleth takes a victory lap:

Really, there's no point in dissecting this one. I've already destroyed the foundations it rests upon.

Really? Lowering the cost of food (say, by lowering the cost of an input) doesn't help poor people, or affect the larger economy?

This myopic view of productivity gains explains derleth's view of Yglesias' last statement:

Right now the retirement age is rising from 65 to 67, and most people think it will have to go up to 70. If robots can do a lot of the work instead, we could put it back down to 65 or even to 62 while still growing the economy.

HOW? ... Do you honestly think robots pay taxes? Do you honestly think businesses will accept a tax increase after they fire employees and invest in robots?

Well, no. I think Yglesias thinks that when we make things cheaper, and lower the cost of living, it increases the amount of leisure workers are capable of taking advantage of. A lower retirement age seems eminently reasonable in a world where automation is reducing the cost of living (or in other words, increasing real wages.)

Stop talking. Just stop talking. You're apparently losing brain cells with every goddamned word.

It's like you read my mind.