[Arizhel]

>I think it is in society's interest to arrange for there to be a number of job-vacancies of the Panera-kid-type available

I completely disagree. It's actively making things worse to not use more efficient methods. Now if a restaurant wants to keep one of those people around for people who don't like the kiosks, or maybe to talk to if they have a question about something or want to ask for something the kiosk can't do, then that's great, because that's where people are actually useful: for handling things that automation can't, like special cases. Of course, you don't need as many humans this way, since there aren't that many people who the kiosk can't serve.

But having people employed just for the sake of employment is nothing more than make-work. It's just like the Soviet factories where they built wooden crates on one side of the factory, then moved them to the other side of the factory where another team disassembled them for recycling, then moved the wood to the other side of the factory where it was used for building crates, .... There's no dignity in make-work. If you're worried about there not being enough jobs, the answer is the UBI: give people a regular stipend and let them spend it however they want. At least some of them will find some new enterprise on their own, whether it's writing a book (like JK Rowling, who was on welfare when she wrote the books that made her a millionaire--she's worth almost $800M), or writing a phone game, or just doing odd jobs and not having to worry so much about having enough for rent because of the irregularity. The other answer is to get the government to invest in its people by providing education, and by financing important projects (like replacing those bridges). There's plenty of work to be done without resorting to make-work.