4 ms·

> How many humans do you want employed as butter churners? More than exist today probably. We should not be regularly eliminating slightly less efficient proc

> How many humans do you want employed as butter churners? More than exist today probably. We should not be regularly eliminating slightly less efficient processes that use human workers, for completely alienated processes that are worse, that use fewer workers. Self checkout is a perfect example of this. It’s worse for everyone except for grocery store owners.

solardev 3y ago
As a shopper, self checkout is wonderful. It's so much faster and easier than waiting for a single cashier or two. Especially the ones with a scan gun, so you don't have to fight the stupid countertop scanner. As for lost jobs, should we really be propping up unnecessary jobs that really don't do much except poorly substituting a machine? Whether it's checkout or journalism or coding or politics... if a computer can do it better, why not let it and free up the human for other things? Technology leading to job losses and changes has been happening for a couple centuries now. It has real social impacts, but the answer can't just be "pretend it didn't happen and keep employing them". Maybe our economic and educational systems need to evolve to keep pace, rather than keeping people stuck in assembly line monotony just to keep them meaninglessly employed.
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  >why not let it and free up the human for other things? Cause this has never been the majority outcome in the history of technology The outcome in 90%? of mechanization/automation is not upskilling - it’s displacement. Work gets outsourced to cheaper labor areas or you’re now a baby sitter instead of a tradesperson that is more easily replaced because you have few skills. All the “meritocracy” goes out the window when there’s no need for human expertise - so everyone is the same faceless commodity that simply enforces the rules of whatever mechanical system they are now monitoring. At the end of the day, where once a person went to be a cashier for 8-10 hours a day having conversations and fixing problems and helping people - now you’re on your own waiting for the one person who is running the self-checkout to come over and fix the weight error because you thought you typed in the UPC for a pear but you accidentally typed the UPC for a watermelon and the system required human assistance Everything is worse and you’re doing someone else’s labor and they now have fewer job options.
  - echelon 3y ago
    > > why not let it and free up the human for other things? > Cause this has never been the majority outcome in the history of technology Work isn't disappearing. The US has great employment numbers that have been stable except for a few systemic shocks. With globalization, more people worldwide have been employed and lifted out of poverty than ever before. Would you rather pull a random job out of a hat from today or fifty to a hundred years ago? Self-employment is also a rising labor trend. What's more fulfilling than being your own boss?
  - solardev 3y ago
    In years of using self checkout, I've required human assistance only a handful of times, maybe 3 or 4 minutes total over all the years. That's still a huge improvement over waiting for cashiers. Perhaps your experiences were different, but for me they are a godsend. That's not really the point though. About the jobs, yes, we are in agreement about the displacement. I'm saying we need better systems to deal with that displacement at the social/national level, not at the micro level of an individual job going away one at a time. There's just no way capitalist companies are going to keep unnecessary labor employed. Staff are a cost that eat away at profits. I'm not saying that's a nice way to think about it, but that's how they work, and unless we can directly tackle that part of the mindset (that humans are there just as an input to some owner's dollars out), we won't really solve the issue. Bandaiding them through forced employment laws won't really work as our companies just become less efficient and companies outsource. You can't really have a protected economy like that unless you're also willing to limit outsourcing (which I'd be for, but capitalists who control the government aren't). I would love to get paid a living wage doing something less brain-wracking than coding (like journalism or barista-ing). But our economic system doesn't make that easy, or even possible. It's going to get worse over time without deep structural change...
    - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
      >I'm saying we need better systems to deal with that displacement at the social/national level, not at the micro level of an individual job going away one at a time Why not both? You can decide whether you will support or boycott organizations and systems that actively pursue these things, while also lobbying and voting and building organizations that pursue mutual voluntary organization. Might mean you have to change your lifestyle though and most people don't want to do that. >Bandaiding them through forced employment laws won't really work as our companies just become less efficient and companies outsource. You can't really have a protected economy like that unless you're also willing to limit outsourcing (which I'd be for, but capitalists who control the government aren't). Literally nobody suggested this in this thread, me or otherwise. >There's just no way capitalist companies are going to keep unnecessary labor employed. I would challenge you to imagine some solutions that are neither capitalist nor governmental. If you can't think of anything beyond these two options then I suggest reading more about mutual-voluntary organization.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > As a shopper, self checkout is wonderful. Not everyone thinks so. I know quite a lot of people (including myself) who hate self-checkout. > As for lost jobs, should we really be propping up unnecessary jobs that really don't do much except poorly substituting a machine? No, but equally, should we be kicking people out on the street with no means to support themselves?

solardev 3y ago

As a shopper, self checkout is wonderful. It's so much faster and easier than waiting for a single cashier or two. Especially the ones with a scan gun, so you don't have to fight the stupid countertop scanner. As for lost jobs, should we really be propping up unnecessary jobs that really don't do much except poorly substituting a machine? Whether it's checkout or journalism or coding or politics... if a computer can do it better, why not let it and free up the human for other things? Technology leading to job losses and changes has been happening for a couple centuries now. It has real social impacts, but the answer can't just be "pretend it didn't happen and keep employing them". Maybe our economic and educational systems need to evolve to keep pace, rather than keeping people stuck in assembly line monotony just to keep them meaninglessly employed.

AndrewKemendo 3y ago
>why not let it and free up the human for other things? Cause this has never been the majority outcome in the history of technology The outcome in 90%? of mechanization/automation is not upskilling - it’s displacement. Work gets outsourced to cheaper labor areas or you’re now a baby sitter instead of a tradesperson that is more easily replaced because you have few skills. All the “meritocracy” goes out the window when there’s no need for human expertise - so everyone is the same faceless commodity that simply enforces the rules of whatever mechanical system they are now monitoring. At the end of the day, where once a person went to be a cashier for 8-10 hours a day having conversations and fixing problems and helping people - now you’re on your own waiting for the one person who is running the self-checkout to come over and fix the weight error because you thought you typed in the UPC for a pear but you accidentally typed the UPC for a watermelon and the system required human assistance Everything is worse and you’re doing someone else’s labor and they now have fewer job options.
- echelon 3y ago
  > > why not let it and free up the human for other things? > Cause this has never been the majority outcome in the history of technology Work isn't disappearing. The US has great employment numbers that have been stable except for a few systemic shocks. With globalization, more people worldwide have been employed and lifted out of poverty than ever before. Would you rather pull a random job out of a hat from today or fifty to a hundred years ago? Self-employment is also a rising labor trend. What's more fulfilling than being your own boss?
- solardev 3y ago
  In years of using self checkout, I've required human assistance only a handful of times, maybe 3 or 4 minutes total over all the years. That's still a huge improvement over waiting for cashiers. Perhaps your experiences were different, but for me they are a godsend. That's not really the point though. About the jobs, yes, we are in agreement about the displacement. I'm saying we need better systems to deal with that displacement at the social/national level, not at the micro level of an individual job going away one at a time. There's just no way capitalist companies are going to keep unnecessary labor employed. Staff are a cost that eat away at profits. I'm not saying that's a nice way to think about it, but that's how they work, and unless we can directly tackle that part of the mindset (that humans are there just as an input to some owner's dollars out), we won't really solve the issue. Bandaiding them through forced employment laws won't really work as our companies just become less efficient and companies outsource. You can't really have a protected economy like that unless you're also willing to limit outsourcing (which I'd be for, but capitalists who control the government aren't). I would love to get paid a living wage doing something less brain-wracking than coding (like journalism or barista-ing). But our economic system doesn't make that easy, or even possible. It's going to get worse over time without deep structural change...
  - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
    >I'm saying we need better systems to deal with that displacement at the social/national level, not at the micro level of an individual job going away one at a time Why not both? You can decide whether you will support or boycott organizations and systems that actively pursue these things, while also lobbying and voting and building organizations that pursue mutual voluntary organization. Might mean you have to change your lifestyle though and most people don't want to do that. >Bandaiding them through forced employment laws won't really work as our companies just become less efficient and companies outsource. You can't really have a protected economy like that unless you're also willing to limit outsourcing (which I'd be for, but capitalists who control the government aren't). Literally nobody suggested this in this thread, me or otherwise. >There's just no way capitalist companies are going to keep unnecessary labor employed. I would challenge you to imagine some solutions that are neither capitalist nor governmental. If you can't think of anything beyond these two options then I suggest reading more about mutual-voluntary organization.
JohnFen 3y ago
> As a shopper, self checkout is wonderful. Not everyone thinks so. I know quite a lot of people (including myself) who hate self-checkout. > As for lost jobs, should we really be propping up unnecessary jobs that really don't do much except poorly substituting a machine? No, but equally, should we be kicking people out on the street with no means to support themselves?