5 ms·

Like I said in my original comment, even if the people are great, they are usually doing a very boring repetitive job. And even if they aren't a "bump on a log

by cbanek 9y ago

Like I said in my original comment, even if the people are great, they are usually doing a very boring repetitive job. And even if they aren't a "bump on a log," many employers these days honestly want them to be. (liability, efficiency) They really want a robot that is cheaper, not a person. There are so many rules about what an employee can and should do now, especially for lower level jobs. What they can say, how they can say it, what abilities they have to resolve customer problems, if they should interact with the customers at all, etc. I honestly think the whole demise of customer service is the result of this. People feel in a double bind because they aren't allowed and aren't supposed to help customers. Or if they can, they aren't rewarded for it and take a greater risk by doing it. People can do much greater things, be more helpful, be more friendly, and generally add value - if their employer would allow and reward it. But most are just looking at profit, and speed from entry to exit, and a lot of customers are too.

ethbro 9y ago
I'd argue that those companies that have squeezed the humanity out of their workers are the first ones getting dislocated by the market. E.g. Blockbuster being bankrupt and our local independent video store doing just fine. Or McDonald's vs Waffle House. If you play was "we can provide a worse service for less" then yes, you're going to get steamrolled by automation. If your business is run around adding value (like informative parent of yore in the ticket booth), then your value is going to increase until strong AI (if that ever happens). Assuming people like talking to humans. Sometimes I wonder about the HN crowd...
- cbanek 9y ago
  I think you hit it on the head - it depends on the service being provided, and how the people relate to providing it. Some people like talking to humans, some don't. It often changes as well. But for incredibly basic mundane transactions, I'd lean on the "I don't like talking to humans." But it's also slower to talk to humans, and generally there is a line, making it again slower. If I have to add travel time in there, that's a factor. So if the person at the end doesn't add at least some positive value (other than just doing what I need done), I'd rather go the faster way. Also, if a company is squeezing the workers and not the market, that probably means that company is having trouble no matter what the workers are doing.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- intended 9y ago
  A major point of data missing in your example is all the many, many cafes, diners and other eateries which Mc Donald's itself wiped out. The point being that lots of independent and service focused restaurants have died, and automation, consistency and efficiency has decimated the alternative.
  - ethbro 9y ago
    I look at it in terms of competitive advantage. (And I'm not authoritative on any of the following, so don't take me as gospel) Imho, McD and the first wave of franchisee stores leveraged price and consistency as their advantage. Their logistic chains were more efficient, and they could standardize their operation (benefit to efficiency and customer). The market did decide that their prices (which were nationally set afaik) and consistency won over the qualities independent chains brought to the picture. However, I think in the intervening years there have been a few developments. Firstly, Sysco and the national food suppliers as intermediaries. So aside from volume discounts, everyone's sitting on the same logistics backing now. Secondly, consistency as a commodity. Whereas before this was a competitive advantage (because it distinguished them from Local Dairy Freeze 283), now it's the market average. I see it as, as you noted, McD's and the like put everyone else out of business... but we're now in the future past that where they have become the model that's ripe for disruption. Maybe that looks like Chipotle and Five Guys (limited menu, better product, slightly higher price), or maybe it looks like a return to local service, now backed by automation and turnkey logistics chains. I can't see a future with McD's where it isn't a fully-automated, human-less burger factory though. Unless they basically toss out their existing business model.

by cbanek 9y ago

ethbro 9y ago

I'd argue that those companies that have squeezed the humanity out of their workers are the first ones getting dislocated by the market. E.g. Blockbuster being bankrupt and our local independent video store doing just fine. Or McDonald's vs Waffle House. If you play was "we can provide a worse service for less" then yes, you're going to get steamrolled by automation. If your business is run around adding value (like informative parent of yore in the ticket booth), then your value is going to increase until strong AI (if that ever happens). Assuming people like talking to humans. Sometimes I wonder about the HN crowd...

cbanek 9y ago
I think you hit it on the head - it depends on the service being provided, and how the people relate to providing it. Some people like talking to humans, some don't. It often changes as well. But for incredibly basic mundane transactions, I'd lean on the "I don't like talking to humans." But it's also slower to talk to humans, and generally there is a line, making it again slower. If I have to add travel time in there, that's a factor. So if the person at the end doesn't add at least some positive value (other than just doing what I need done), I'd rather go the faster way. Also, if a company is squeezing the workers and not the market, that probably means that company is having trouble no matter what the workers are doing.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
intended 9y ago
A major point of data missing in your example is all the many, many cafes, diners and other eateries which Mc Donald's itself wiped out. The point being that lots of independent and service focused restaurants have died, and automation, consistency and efficiency has decimated the alternative.
- ethbro 9y ago
  I look at it in terms of competitive advantage. (And I'm not authoritative on any of the following, so don't take me as gospel) Imho, McD and the first wave of franchisee stores leveraged price and consistency as their advantage. Their logistic chains were more efficient, and they could standardize their operation (benefit to efficiency and customer). The market did decide that their prices (which were nationally set afaik) and consistency won over the qualities independent chains brought to the picture. However, I think in the intervening years there have been a few developments. Firstly, Sysco and the national food suppliers as intermediaries. So aside from volume discounts, everyone's sitting on the same logistics backing now. Secondly, consistency as a commodity. Whereas before this was a competitive advantage (because it distinguished them from Local Dairy Freeze 283), now it's the market average. I see it as, as you noted, McD's and the like put everyone else out of business... but we're now in the future past that where they have become the model that's ripe for disruption. Maybe that looks like Chipotle and Five Guys (limited menu, better product, slightly higher price), or maybe it looks like a return to local service, now backed by automation and turnkey logistics chains. I can't see a future with McD's where it isn't a fully-automated, human-less burger factory though. Unless they basically toss out their existing business model.