3 ms·

Article is behind a paywall, so apologies for commenting on the title alone. Even if self-checkout as it is implemented today doesn't work [1], that's not a re

Article is behind a paywall, so apologies for commenting on the title alone. Even if self-checkout as it is implemented today doesn't work [1], that's not a reason to declare it a failed experiment. It's a reason to improve the technology. The only thing stopping us from having universal self-checkout is lack of quality in the hardware and software. There is a separate conversation about what impact self-checkout has on jobs and food prices. It's an empirical question what the ratio of automated to human checkout should be in order to maximize throughput. Maximizing throughput means lower food prices for everyone. However, if it happens that maximizing throughput means letting go of tens of thousands of human workers, then that also has an impact on the economy. This is why we should have a robust social safety net in wealthy societies. [1] I don't actually think this is the case. I use self-checkout multiple times per week at the grocery store, and I almost never have an issue. Maybe 1 in 10 visits I'll need assistance from staff, which takes less than a minute.

tivert 3y ago
> This is why we should have a robust social safety net in wealthy societies. People frequently say that, but how does that serve the interests of capitalism? If a safety net is too robust, they'll have to pay to support unproductive non-workers indefinitely. Seems like it would make a lot more sense (and be the moral thing to do w.r.t. objective, capitalist morality) to make the safety net inadequate and hard to access, to eventually cull the unproductive people that turn out to be useless and cannot find other work.
- fasterik 3y ago
  Capitalism isn't a moral agent with interests. It's an activity that humans participate in. Humans and non-human animals are what we should really care about. Capitalism produces benefits for everybody, and it also produces harmful side-effects and unintended consequences. Our moral obligation as a society is to maximize the benefits and minimize the harms. If cutting all social safety nets really maximizes overall well-being, then that's what we should do. But I don't think anyone seriously believes that. I think those who advocate for cutting off all aid to people with bad luck simply don't care about their suffering.

tivert 3y ago

> This is why we should have a robust social safety net in wealthy societies. People frequently say that, but how does that serve the interests of capitalism? If a safety net is too robust, they'll have to pay to support unproductive non-workers indefinitely. Seems like it would make a lot more sense (and be the moral thing to do w.r.t. objective, capitalist morality) to make the safety net inadequate and hard to access, to eventually cull the unproductive people that turn out to be useless and cannot find other work.

fasterik 3y ago
Capitalism isn't a moral agent with interests. It's an activity that humans participate in. Humans and non-human animals are what we should really care about. Capitalism produces benefits for everybody, and it also produces harmful side-effects and unintended consequences. Our moral obligation as a society is to maximize the benefits and minimize the harms. If cutting all social safety nets really maximizes overall well-being, then that's what we should do. But I don't think anyone seriously believes that. I think those who advocate for cutting off all aid to people with bad luck simply don't care about their suffering.