>I never use self-checkouts unless forced otherwise, as I rather not contribute to the capitalistic end goal to get rid of all employees other than those doing robot maintenance.
What's the alternative? Having people do menial jobs that can otherwise be automated? What's the difference between that and paying people to dig ditches and fill them back in again, or banning people from filling their own cars so we can keep teenagers employed as gas station attendants?
You seem to be under the impression that most jobs, as they exist and are done, are objectively needed. Just like RTO policies, they only exist to keep the economy going. Automation is not driven by a love of engineering or the desire to automate for efficiency's sake. The drive is the most efficient path to increasing profits and reducing costs not performing existing jobs in the most efficient way.
Automation being more profitable implies it’s more efficient (by the market’s measure of efficiency, which is the best measure anyone has come up with)
Not necessarily. RTO's policies are profitable but not efficient. Existing commercial anti-depressants are profitable but not efficient. Fuel oil is profitable but not efficient. I can go on but I hope you can get my point. The market is made up of humans who are not purely rational beings nor are they capable of thinking over too long periods of time.
Optimize the check out flow for the human worker like Aldi has done and pay them a decent wage so it's no longer a menial job?
Self check out of more than a few items at the grocery store will always suck and be slower than someone who has trained to scan items quickly and has memorized the produce codes.
I never use self check out because I don't work at the grocery store and would rather just wait on my phone than take an active role in an activity I have no interest in ever becoming good at while giving the company more money over all for the shittier experience. I'm also not afraid of the cashier asking me how my day is going.
The difference is there’s two options; to scan and bag your own stuff or go to a human(s) that can scan and bag your stuff. If the former catches on then we/you will be doing the “menial job” of bagging and scanning our own stuff all the time… and then some self checkout attendant will have the “menial job” of supervising the checkout and resetting it when it errors out.
Self-checkout is a system where you as a honest person are paying so that other people can steal goods.
Owners of supermarket have calculated that the increase in theft is off-set by the savings of not paying wages to cashiers. But those losses have to be paid by somebody, and that somebody is of course the customers who don't steal goods.
I'd rather not be the person who has to pay extra so that another person can steal. That's an undignified existence, and hence why I also boycott self-checkouts. I don't care what "rationalists" say.
Also, a store with a lot of self-checkout lanes and few cashiers will attract thieves and repel honest customers who want good service. The result is a worse store in every way, until it folds and closes - as owners have probably planned for a few years.
>Owners of supermarket have calculated that the increase in theft is off-set by the savings of not paying wages to cashiers. But those losses have to be paid by somebody, and that somebody is of course the customers who don't steal goods.
>I'd rather not be the person who has to pay extra so that another person can steal.
This doesn't make any sense. If the whole premise is that "the increase in theft is off-set by the savings of not paying wages to cashiers", then doesn't that imply that not having self-checkout is going to be more expensive than you overall? After all, regardless of whether the cost is losses from theft or cashier salaries, the customer has to pay for it at the end. Are you arguing that you want to pay more, because the extra money will go to a cashier than a thief?
> then doesn't that imply that not having self-checkout is going to be more expensive than you overall
Yes, certainly it does! I'd rather that my money goes to pay salaries for cashiers, than pay for the goods that thieves steal. The first option is sustainable, honest, and good for the community. The second option breeds crime and decay.
I'm not an atomized production-consumption unit, I'm a human being, and so are the cashiers. Plus that service is friendlier and faster with cashiers. We're not supposed to be psychotically seek efficiency and cost-savings in every nook and cranny like some of these store owners.
Very much a "the children yearn for the mines" sentiment.
People don't "need" jobs, they need food, shelter, clothing, health care, and community. Jobs are just how those unfortunate enough not to be born into wealth finance those things, and occasionally some luxuries.
A good society should raise the standard of living for everyone when technological advances make things more efficient.
Imagine if each person receives a "Thing-doer 3000" then. The people can contract out their own personal robots and collect wages. The technology improves their lives, the same amount of work gets done, and the same wages are paid out.
The problem is that under capitalism, the people get replaced by "Thing-doer 3000" bots which are owned by other large companies; the people don't benefit, and ultimately it even changes the economy when people have less work due to being replaced.
People working isn't needed for a "working economy"; things need to get done, to be sure, and right now people are needed to do those things, but that may not always be the case. Making pointless work for people to do is about as reasonable as replacing taxi cabs with rickshaw drivers, and power-tools with manual tools "just because"
What's the alternative? Having people do menial jobs that can otherwise be automated? What's the difference between that and paying people to dig ditches and fill them back in again, or banning people from filling their own cars so we can keep teenagers employed as gas station attendants?