10 ms·

I am unsure we are evolving. We have evolved in many areas that solve real problems, like healthcare and such, but I'm not sure today's society is any better fo

• iNate2000 10y ago
  It's not just time checking out that is saved. This is de facto a cashless store. Having cash on site is a liability.
• Ph0X 10y ago
  The point isn't that we save 2 minutes, it's that there's now 10 less job we need. And that may seem as a negative at first, but the idea is that as more and more job get automated, prices should go down until the point where people will not have to work full weeks anymore, or rather, focus on learning and reaching higher education, rather than doing dummy work all day (aka just scanning items non stop for 8 hours).
  • mikeash 10y ago
    It might be worthwhile to re-frame it. Rather than say "10 fewer jobs," say "10 people are no longer forced to spend eight hours a day sitting in front of a cash register." That assumes we can find something better for them to do, of course. But man, we have to try! Forcing people to do things a machine can do is inhumane.
    • rescripting 10y ago
      I'm a bit worried that most of us here on HN are feverishly working on ways to automate away jobs, and there is quite a strong economic incentive for us to do so, but there is hardly any effort and no incentive for policy makers to catch those affected. Who is building and planning for this new social utopia once people no longer have to bag groceries? Right now it looks like a lot of misery and poverty on the horizon before things get better.
      • mikeash 10y ago
        I totally agree. Getting rid of wasteful jobs is a good thing if you can somehow handle the people who lose those jobs, whether redirecting them to something more productive or pensioning them off or whatever. And that side of things really doesn't seem to get much attention. There's a lot of hand-wavy talk about basic income, some lip service paid to continuing education and retraining, but not a whole lot really being done to prepare.
        • jimbokun 10y ago
          No, no, it's all going to be OK now because there are 1000 Carrier jobs not going to Mexico.
        • SamBoogieNYC 10y ago
          I have a notion that one of the major ways people will be spending the time they otherwise would be working is by consuming entertainment. If that notion is correct, moving towards an educational model focused around creating the components needed for general entertainment (video/AR/VR/Music etc) might alleviate the problems we'll face.
          • darpa_escapee 10y ago
            > I have a notion that one of the major ways people will be spending the time they otherwise would be working is by consuming entertainment. Where are these people getting the money to spend on entertainment if they aren't working? I don't think this will happen. What I do see happening, however, is that people have less free time between juggling more than 1 job and a side gig with Uber/their ilk.
        • avar 10y ago
          Getting rid of wasteful jobs is a good thing regardless of whether you can handle the people who lose those jobs in the short term. The job-saving technology will live forever, long after the people who are temporarily displaced die. You're doing an immense amount of good for the untold number of people who aren't even born yet. Technology is also global, but the political problems associated with eliminating jobs are problems on a state-by-state basis. Is it immoral to develop a technology just because some political systems are incapable of handling the gains in productivity, while other states are?
    • ako 10y ago
      Look at what happened in the us. Unemployed people are looking towards the government to make sure that there are jobs for them to do. But how can we be sure that enough meaningful jobs will exist for all people who want to work? It would be kind of surprising if there was a meaningful full job for everyone. This feels like former communist countries where everyone was employed, although many jobs were pointless.
    • base698 10y ago
      XBox and OxyContin seems to be the current trend.
    • pbhjpbhj 10y ago
      >That assumes we can find something better for them to do, of course. // In practice what [is and] is going to happen is that the jobs of the poor are removed, because they are more easily automated and the capitalists will retain much of the revenue that would formerly have been spent on wages. Nothing is going to be done politically until there is either civil unrest or until there is so much impact to those with lowest wealth in society that the capitalists start getting poorer returns because too few people can afford to purchase the goods produced. In either case the situation is going to be very dire IMO before we get there. This on top of the apparent existing inequalities and the increasing pay gap that the gig economy is creating (the efficiencies don't appear to be improving pay for the workers nor reducing costs as much as they could), and things like zero-hours contracts are pushing [in the UK] makes for a bleak outlook for those who are not already rich IMO.
      • jimbokun 10y ago
        "Nothing is going to be done politically until there is either civil unrest or until there is so much impact to those with lowest wealth in society that the capitalists start getting poorer returns because too few people can afford to purchase the goods produced." The problem is the civil unrest seems to be moving in the direction of ethnic nationalism and isolationism, which may not turn out to be the best long term solution to this problem.
    • user5994461 10y ago
      Keep half of them to unstuck the automatic cash registry, watch buyers and restock the shop.
      • mikeash 10y ago
        That certainly seems to be the solution so far.
    • milcron 10y ago
      This would be great if they got to keep the same salary. Now they're just plain out of work. Hooray?
    • jimbokun 10y ago
      "Forcing people to do things a machine can do is inhumane." It's not clear there's anything a person can do that a machine can never do, in principle. So then what's the point of having people?
      • mikeash 10y ago
        Unless you believe in souls or some other form of dualism, then clearly machines will eventually be able to do anything we can do. But we're far from that point now. Anything machines can currently do is, pretty much by definition, drudgery. I'd be happy to reevaluate that statement if and when this changes. I have no idea what the ultimate answer to that question would be. Lots of SF authors have tried to address it, coming up with answers varying from humans always having something they can do better, to humans existing to have fun, to humans having no point at all and therefore get wiped out by the machines.
      • Qwertystop 10y ago
        Generally in sci-fi, one of: A): None (catastrophic). People die out, or are wiped out, as advanced machines outcompete them for all resources. B): The boundary (hopeful). AI capable of creating new ideas is either impossible or just too difficult to invent (hard to prove which way it goes), so people keep pushing it farther. C): None (utopic). Machines do anything people would have done for society, including the creation of new things to have and/or do. However, machines don't reach the level of autonomy required for them to actively eliminate people, or decide against it because there's plenty of resources for everyone, so people have 100% leisure time (which may happen to resemble what used to be work, if the people in question enjoy the process, but is no longer necessary to society). D): The boundary (dystopic). Machines end up being more complex than people - to the degree that people are valued less than sufficiently advanced machines, and are put to work rather than manufacturing robots to do the jobs. A note on D: Generally relatively soft sci-fi that does this, because the stories generally put humanity's role as hard labor, which doesn't make sense. However, I could see a story in "The Thinking Machine of the Future has become so Incredibly Advanced that the Absolute Pinnacle of Human Thought is to them what Plowing Fields is to Us." Humanity as the intellectual equivalent of the plow ox (or the tractor), doing the jobs that the machines (with their much higher potential for more complex thought) find to be beneath them and refuse to subject each other to. Possibly with the assistance of basic nonintelligent machines, the way we wouldn't try to make an ox plow a field without first affixing a plow to it.
  • CrLf 10y ago
    The Earth's population isn't getting any lower, those 10 jobs lost mean 10 people that will need support from the rest of society, just to survive. It's utopian to think job losses mean everybody gets their workload reduced, as this has never happened before. Automation has never reduced anybody's workloads. In fact, every reduction has happened to either eliminate de-facto slaves (industrial revolution) or because excessive workloads actually reduce productivity.
    • chongli 10y ago
      those 10 jobs lost mean 10 people that will need support from the rest of society, just to survive. If we have the technology to replace those people and we don't do it, then we as a society are already supporting them just to survive. You're talking about artificially maintaining inefficiency. If we're going to go down that road, we might as well start paying people to dig holes and fill them back up again.
    • guntars 10y ago
      They already need the support of the rest of society. No one survives on their own anymore. Automating a job like this gives more time and money back to people who buy groceries, which is almost everyone. Some of that can be used to support the lost jobs while they find something else to do.
      • pbhjpbhj 10y ago
        >Some of that can be used to support the lost jobs // It can, that's clear, the problem is convincing the people who didn't lose their jobs that they should take a take hike to support the others; that's not an easy sell in Western Capitalism at least.
      • falcolas 10y ago
        > Automating a job like this gives more [...] money back to people who buy groceries Honestly, I think this is never going to actually be the case. Why would a grocery store lower prices just because their costs went down a bit? Neither the demand nor the supply has changed, nor has the price people are willing to pay for their groceries. If nothing has changed but your costs, why lower the prices when you can simply report increased revenue to your shareholders? If competition comes along, a quick "we're premium, they are cheap" marketing campaign (or buying them out) would probably cost less than lowering the prices to match.
  • goranb 10y ago
    This would work if means of production were distributed more equally. The global productivity is already at a point where many of us don't need to work, but we still do because we are denied the benefits of the automation that you mention.
  • dpc59 10y ago
    Except prices for living necessities won't get lower, since demand is elastic, people will just get trapped as debt slaves while corporate stockholders become the new monarchy.
  • platz 10y ago
    > prices should go down unlikely - can think of a bunch of reasons why this wouldn't happen. > people will not have to work full weeks anymore, or rather, focus on learning and reaching higher education too idealistic - why aren't the people who "aren't working full weeks" today focusing on learning and reaching higher education? The logic doesn't work for the people already in this target group, today.
    • batrat 10y ago
      At the end of the day, that CEO has to make bigger profits to justify the technology investment.
    • TeMPOraL 10y ago
      > too idealistic - why aren't the people who "aren't working full weeks" today focusing on learning and reaching higher education? The logic doesn't work for the people already in this target group, today. There are many reasons. "Not working full weeks" doesn't always mean "not busy". Some of the reasons are: - they're taking care of children / sick parents - they're themselves sick or disabled (including various psychological conditions that can make you unable to perform effectively as a worker in this economy) - they don't have a way to find a job that would let them earn more than they get from benefits (going to work in such circumstances is stupidity from economic POV) - higher education they need costs money they can't get due to reasons listed above
  • dap 10y ago
    The claim that increased automation will enable people not to work is often cited as a defense of putting people out of work in favor of automation. This relies heavily on a number of assumptions that I think are empirically completely untested: - that automating all jobs will cause all prices to go down. (It seems just as plausible that if everything were automated, then the relatively small class of people who work building and maintaining the machines wield monopoly-like power and charge accordingly, concentrating wealth even more than it's concentrated today.) - that with lower prices, people will want less money. (It seems just as plausible that people will expect to be able to keep working and buy more to raise their standard of living.) - that the intermediate state, where many jobs are automated, but people still need to work for a living, is tenable for society - that there are no significant social problems resulting from a society where nobody has to work I don't know whether these are true or not, but if they're not, the result will greatly impact the lives of millions (billions?) of people. Obviously, banning automation isn't a solution either, but it seems flippant to bet the lives of so many people on what we think might happen in a system as complex as the global economy. [edited formatting]
    • joshumax 10y ago
      Funny how I just finish my Thesis on automation and its effects on globalization and the workforce the day before this comes out...
      • omtinez 10y ago
        Well, are you gonna share that with us? :-)
        • joshumax 10y ago
          As soon as I publish it I will ;)
      • duaneb 10y ago
        Is it any good?
      • 10y ago
  • vintageseltzer 10y ago
    I used to believe that, but yeah, that hasn't happened and is not likely to, because the real world does not operate anywhere close to an efficient market. Instead, those with the means of production have hoarded the benefits. Despite all of our technological progress after the American industrial revolution, we are working more hours and earning less as a whole. Despite record profits, companies are not increasing wages and prices are not decreasing for anything except cheap, low-quality, mass-market consumer goods. See: trickle down economics.
    • genericpseudo 10y ago
      > those with the means of production have hoarded the benefits And, behold, we see someone rediscovering the central tenet of Marxist economic theory. (Entirely serious; not an insult. HN readers could really do with a more balanced economic diet – reading more Marxist theory and less Chicago School...)
      • burkaman 10y ago
        I think anyone who uses the phrase "means of production" was probably already familiar with Marxism.
        • TeMPOraL 10y ago
          Many people know the phrase - maybe they even remember it from history lessons. But understanding what it means is often absent (as with many concepts one doesn't use) until one for some reason starts thinking about it more.
      • eropple 10y ago
        I upvoted you, but I want to also vocally agree with you because I think it's important. Even if you don't come away agreeing with the conclusions of Marxist economists, etc., understanding it is worth the time it takes. Considering theories that are not automatically in agreement with those that currently run the show is valuable. (This is why I've read a solid chunk of the Austrians. I generally laugh at them. But I've read their stuff and I can think in it once I get into the mindset.)
  • ronjouch 10y ago
    > "the idea is that as more and more job get automated, prices should go down until the point where people will not have to work full weeks anymore" Fallacy; apart from a short break thanks to syndicalist wins, we're just working more and more since the industrial revolution. Reading suggestions: "A People's History Of The United States" by Howard Zinn, and Noam Chomsky.
  • Apocryphon 10y ago
    Losing 10 jobs to automation would be far less concerning if the businesses and individuals that cut the jobs would reinvest a greater percentage of their newfound profits into social programs to retrain the 10 people who are now without jobs. Or into a fund for the much-vaunted basic income, even.
    • darpa_escapee 10y ago
      Reminder that unions have negotiated and continue to negotiate compensation plans from employers that automate away or move jobs overseas to workers that are replaced.
      • Apocryphon 10y ago
        Unions... in the U.S.???
  • herval 10y ago
    Is there any evidence that reducing the number of jobs correlates to lower prices?
    • wooter 10y ago
      The last 300 years during which capitalism and tech have done more for the common man than any other ststem in the last 30,000.
      • herval 10y ago
        Uh... I'm not a luddite, nor comparing the modern world w/ pre-electricity society. I'm specifically asking about the assumption that "if we remove cashiers, supermarkets will obviously bring the prices down" (as a counter-example, I remember reading somewhere that Seattle's minimum wage didn't affect inflation in any meaningful way)
• gnopgnip 10y ago
  Think about how many bodegas, convenience stores, and small grocery stores are in large cities across the world. Now if all of those stores only had to be restocked for a few hours a day, instead of watching the till 12+ hours a day, the storekeepers would have more time to spend with their families.
  • tspike 10y ago
    This is naïve. In reality, the larger companies will be the ones that can afford the technological advancement, and they will eventually drive the bodegas, convenience stores, and small groceries out of business. The benefits that would otherwise accrue to the shop owners will accrue to the leadership of major corporations instead.
• gdudeman 10y ago
  I'd suggest we are evolving, but you are both mis-using "evolve." Evolution does not mean better, it just means change to fit the current environment. Humanity and intelligence is not the logical outcome of evolution. This feels like a natural evolution. It's a outcome product of the environment.
• sidravi1 10y ago
  Also, you are conflating social return vs. private return. Yes, me being able to go on facebook has very little social returns but it has some private returns. Private returns mean a lot to people - just look at all the people working on wall st.
• kenjackson 10y ago
  So who decides where you spend those couple of minutes? I feel like I should decide if I want to go spend time on Facebook or interact with someone on the corner who is singing. Effectively forcing me to spend the time with the person on the corner singing may in fact be the best thing for me, but I think the choice is still more important.
• baddox 10y ago
  Browsing Facebook sounds like passive social interactions with friends that you've deliberately chosen, rather than passive social interactions with whoever your local grocery store employees happen to be. It doesn't really sound that much worse to me.
  • duaneb 10y ago
    That sounds like an echo chamber to me. Hardly healthy for a society, let alone an individual. Such alienation from your neighbors!
• homakov 10y ago
  Good point of view, and indeed procrastination is the opposite of evolving. However "I am unsure we are evolving" sounds like paradox. Isn't a version 2 of anything always "evolving" by definition? Otherwise, what's "better"?
  • CrLf 10y ago
    "all change is not progress as all movement is not forward"