I understand automation provides a lot of pros and cons. Some 'pros' include: it can reduce repetitive tasks, cut down on workplace injury, and offer greater efficiency a majority of the time. It's no surprise more companies are looking towards automation.
However, I believe there is a mismatch in terms of benefit to society and benefit to the corporations. Aside from initial capital and maintenance costs, automation provides businesses a way to profit without having to deal with the costs of paying and managing people. Assuming the role of the business is individualistic, the incentive is to pull in as much profit as possible, and work towards reducing costs. My takeaway from this is that self-interest also creates a lack of employee-interest.
For example, with low-skill, low-reward jobs such as cashier, most people may not care if they get automated (as we sort of have today with self-checkout/kiosks) since they were not very desirable jobs to begin with. Yet, what is to stop a business from automating other more "desirable" jobs that employees may actually want and enjoy doing, such as software developer, strategist, manager, etc. - the higher paying jobs that people train for and aspire for to put their productivity to good use. If it saves the business (or executives at the top) money by axing those jobs, my guess is that they will do it, regardless if it hurts their employees (or impacts greater society).
So with this in mind, where is the moral limit for automation?
Should we protect employees from having their jobs taken away for a more profitable alternative?
(I'm not counting on things like UBI in this instance because, sticking with the presumption of corporate self-interest, I'm not assuming that more profit = more paid in taxes for society, if taxes are another undesirable "cost" that businesses would want to reduce).
If we could invent a serious AI algorithm that can replace lab technician and drop this cost to $10 and $25 respectively. (Note that every single item in USA such as Cars, phones and bread is damn too cheap compared to mere 30 years ago).The lower cost of blood tests would save thousands of lives each year.
A small efficiency in making bread will save lives and put food on table of more people and improve sustainability of our planet.
It is not about jobs but efficiency. Making things more and more efficient is a moral imperative. It is something we need to do for the future generations.
Secondly, a cashier losing job is not as big a deal as people make it out to be because these people will do something else. Large availability of cheap labor can invent new industries as long as government does no criminalise being poor or skill less. Minimum wage jobs for example make it a crime to have no skill.
In future I imagine human beings with driving skills sitting a automated car simulators and teaching the cars to drive or clicking on images and video feeds to teach computers to get better while receiving am minimum wage.
Losing job is also something that makes a society ant-fragile and robust. Without laying off inefficient arms of the company you will haev a fragile North Korea/ Venezuella like economy.