That IF is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, as the article will point out. People like convenience when they feel perosnally disconnected from it, but I’m always sensitive to the implication of the adoption of a technology and long term goals, and you should be too. You claim it’s a win/win, but if this were applied broadly it would eliminate jobs for people who might not have good alternatives, if any, with no provisions for acces to other future labour. This is bad for ALL of us, even if you’re not working in retail and you don’t think people should have to, because like a chain our society is only as strong as the weakest and most neglected parts. Retail is largely a undesireable job because of OUR culture of consumption that gives people free license to treat employees like shit, and for the owning class to pay them as little as possible and disrespect their labour.
This is why you need to expand your view and afford respect for every worker working any job, their labour has intrinsic value to society, remember that you, the consumer, are the one creating the demad for their job to exist. Don’t forget the knock-on effect for owners who see tactics like this succeeding leading to more automation projects to eliminate more labour costs for the exclusive benefit of CEOs and shareholders. Based on these facts, I’m telling you, you’re wrong to think of this so simplistically, and to make so many assumptions in the face of clear precedents in corporate actions for pure profiteering. I know the purpose of coporations is to generate profit, and that’s true, which is also why we can only tolerate their existence with strictly imposed limits on their growth because by design unregulated capital will cannibalize society, the retail workers are the canaries in that coal mine, so to speak.
What do you mean the IF is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Its not doing heavy lifting. People like self checkout and if that saves the shop money thats a win/win and if it doesnt thats a win for people and a loss for the shop.
Your point about this being applied broadly and eliminating jobs is dumb. Technological advancement HAS been applied broadly and it does eliminate jobs and yet historically unemployment has been low because there is plenty of work to go around. Sure you can point to some points of high unemployment in history 10-20% but overall there has been no evidence that would suggest we should be passing on advancements to keep a job. So no self checkouts are not ‘bad for all of us’ and the rest of your rant is not worth addressing pure brainrot.
“and if it doesnt thats a win for people and a loss for the shop.” This case is not a win for people. The people did not ask the shop to automate services better rendered by humans. Half the time shops have to have a human on hand to help the self checkouts when they fail or reader errors plague the customers. I personally have had those machines stall out or stop working and waste my time and that of one of the few workers still around the store which slows up service somewhere else cause of understaffing. These things are specifically not an advancement if you’ll turn your attention to the article that started this post.
“Your point about this being applied broadly and eliminating jobs is dumb.” How? Why is humans losing jobs dumb?
You want to vaguely gesture to all technology being good just by virtue of being new, but these things end up being terrible busienss decisions all the fucking time, too. Some work, some don’t, and almost all aren’t done for the benefit of anybody but the bottom line of the owners. You write like you have no point of reference or understanding of working life, or ability to connect to other people in society given the way you just handwave human replacement. It’s embarassing frankly, you want to call nuance brain rot to avoid engaging with it because you’re developmentally challenged.
That IF is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, as the article will point out. People like convenience when they feel perosnally disconnected from it, but I’m always sensitive to the implication of the adoption of a technology and long term goals, and you should be too. You claim it’s a win/win, but if this were applied broadly it would eliminate jobs for people who might not have good alternatives, if any, with no provisions for acces to other future labour. This is bad for ALL of us, even if you’re not working in retail and you don’t think people should have to, because like a chain our society is only as strong as the weakest and most neglected parts. Retail is largely a undesireable job because of OUR culture of consumption that gives people free license to treat employees like shit, and for the owning class to pay them as little as possible and disrespect their labour.
This is why you need to expand your view and afford respect for every worker working any job, their labour has intrinsic value to society, remember that you, the consumer, are the one creating the demad for their job to exist. Don’t forget the knock-on effect for owners who see tactics like this succeeding leading to more automation projects to eliminate more labour costs for the exclusive benefit of CEOs and shareholders. Based on these facts, I’m telling you, you’re wrong to think of this so simplistically, and to make so many assumptions in the face of clear precedents in corporate actions for pure profiteering. I know the purpose of coporations is to generate profit, and that’s true, which is also why we can only tolerate their existence with strictly imposed limits on their growth because by design unregulated capital will cannibalize society, the retail workers are the canaries in that coal mine, so to speak.
What do you mean the IF is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Its not doing heavy lifting. People like self checkout and if that saves the shop money thats a win/win and if it doesnt thats a win for people and a loss for the shop.
Your point about this being applied broadly and eliminating jobs is dumb. Technological advancement HAS been applied broadly and it does eliminate jobs and yet historically unemployment has been low because there is plenty of work to go around. Sure you can point to some points of high unemployment in history 10-20% but overall there has been no evidence that would suggest we should be passing on advancements to keep a job. So no self checkouts are not ‘bad for all of us’ and the rest of your rant is not worth addressing pure brainrot.
“and if it doesnt thats a win for people and a loss for the shop.” This case is not a win for people. The people did not ask the shop to automate services better rendered by humans. Half the time shops have to have a human on hand to help the self checkouts when they fail or reader errors plague the customers. I personally have had those machines stall out or stop working and waste my time and that of one of the few workers still around the store which slows up service somewhere else cause of understaffing. These things are specifically not an advancement if you’ll turn your attention to the article that started this post.
“Your point about this being applied broadly and eliminating jobs is dumb.” How? Why is humans losing jobs dumb?
You want to vaguely gesture to all technology being good just by virtue of being new, but these things end up being terrible busienss decisions all the fucking time, too. Some work, some don’t, and almost all aren’t done for the benefit of anybody but the bottom line of the owners. You write like you have no point of reference or understanding of working life, or ability to connect to other people in society given the way you just handwave human replacement. It’s embarassing frankly, you want to call nuance brain rot to avoid engaging with it because you’re developmentally challenged.