[Heyso]

Work and salaries ? Like from their own pocket ? No. That is the business money. Wasted. Time, attention, of peoples wasted.

That is the same absurd logic as for not to replace low qualified human physical work by machines (self checkout in supermarket).

Having less jobs due to technology or less stupid work should be seen as good for humanity.

Perhaps, instead, of imagining some stupid jobs and occupation, so peoples can be paid and survive. We coul reduce the total workhours of working people, so that senseful work would employ more peoples. And with no changes to the salary ofc.

I am not so good with english, so let me rephrase it. What would happen to humanity if 90 % went jobless because -let's imagine- robots and IA would efficientely replace us. Would 90 % be condemned to die in the cold when there is abondance ? Because they have no job and a 0.00001 % "owns" the robots ?

Our current system cannot work with abondance.

[PH95VuimJjqBqy]

> Work and salaries ? Like from their own pocket ? No. That is the business money. Wasted. Time, attention, of peoples wasted.

It actually blows me away sometimes the willingness people w/i companies have to just spend money that isn't theirs.

It's not even the calculation of build vs buy, they'll spend exorbitant amounts of money for nothing in particular. It makes me understand the stereotypical budget constraints, because without them people would just waste money left and right.

[shadowgovt]

Eventually, one comes to realize that everyone's spending money that isn't theirs. Including the CEO and the owners, who are spending the money invested by people who expect returns.

[PH95VuimJjqBqy]

sure, but there's a lack of responsibility there that amazes me.

[fnordpiglet]

Depends on if you ever took outside money I guess :-)

[shadowgovt]

The only organization that doesn't take outside money is the federal government, and they take the consent of the people to rule instead (quite a bit more valuable).

[fnordpiglet]

Oh that’s not true at all. Hudson River Trading, for instance, has never taken outside money and has no outside investors, yet makes billions in profit every year. There are likewise many fully private companies that have no investors, debt, or unaffiliated shareholders. Goldman Sachs was a partnership until the mid 1990’s. Etc.

[zer0tonin]

Self-checkout is still low qualified human work. It's just done for free by the customers.

[amalcon]

The cashier has three jobs:

- Prevent theft

- Keep track of what's specifically been sold, to help determine re-ordering schedules

- Sometimes, put things in bags. Some stores just ask the customer to do this even if they have a cashier.

The thing about physically moving products over a barcode scanner is only for those first two purposes. Mostly the first -- if theft weren't an issue, it would be cheaper to just do manual inventory more frequently.

The customer is not preventing theft. They (mostly) aren't stealing, but they also aren't deterring anyone from stealing. The lone employee for the eight self-checkout kiosks is doing that -- with the help of scales, cameras, and (these days) a little bit of AI.

[recursive]

Much the same as pushing shopping carts.

[ToucanLoucan]

Not free if you "miss" scanning a few items.

Not that I'm endorsing that of course. But if you're going to saddle me with work you don't want to pay people to do, without training and without compensation and I happen to make a mistake... well. Guess that was a bad move on your part.

[Beldin]

The obvious benefit to the customer is that they are not stuck in a queue. If you have portable scanners for customers (eg, via an app), all items can already be scanned on the fly, speeding up things even more. Moreover, self-checkout registers take less space - roughly doubling the number of available registers. Which, again, increases throughput and reduces latency.

Less obvious benefits to the customer: you can have one employee oversee multiple registers, instead of only 1. So less employees needed, so prices can go down. Customers can more easily take distancing measures themselves, as long as there isn't a queue for self-checkout.

But sure, some asshat may forget or "forget" to scan something. That happens with regular registers as well, but is more likely to be caught. And if it isn't: lucky for the asshat, less so gor the other customers - they will end up paying for the store's losses.

[ToucanLoucan]

> The obvious benefit to the customer is that they are not stuck in a queue. If you have portable scanners for customers (eg, via an app), all items can already be scanned on the fly, speeding up things even more.

I have never in my entire life used an arrangement like that. I've only used the ones where they have a computerized terminal with a scale and conveyor belt, basically a checkout with the computer turned backwards, along with a computer-illiterate person manning between 4 and 6 of those resolving all the dumb problems they have.

> increases throughput and reduces latency.

Until the stupid scale stops working and you need to wait for one employee manning six of the things to come over and tell the stupid computer that your stupid eggs are in fact on the stupid scale.

Like, I can't overemphasize how bad these can get. If you're using the scale as a theft-deterrent, it doesn't work. Never in my life has the register person actually looked at what I'm bagging to see if it's correct. They would probably catch it if I ring up a 52" OLED TV as 16 pounds of avocados, but like, if I ring up organic avocados as regular ones? They're never gonna see that, and even if they did I doubt most would even care enough to do something about it given the wage they're making.

If your argument is instead efficiency, the things brutalize that too because so many purchases in an average grocery store are going to cause problems, things like cigarettes need to be kept in cases, things like alcohol require ID verification (which I've also never ever been carded at a self checkout!), some medications do too, and their constant problems and glitches require an attendant to resolve, while adding to customer frustration in general. And I just don't even try to use coupons at them, that's a complete fucking nightmare.

If your argument is instead cost cutting, everything at my grocery store is more expensive than it was 3 years ago, and it's basically all self checkouts now minus the pharmacy counter. So that clearly didn't pan the fuck out. Either that or all the theft it's now trivial to do is eating into their margins, who's to say.

Like I genuinely am fine with these, when they're well maintained and work. The ones at Home Depot come to mind; they don't use the stupid scale at all, they have nice, big displays the attendants seem better trained than most, and they use wireless scanners which makes the whole process a whole lot less of a pain in the ass. But when they're put in by some cut-rate business barely making margins? God damn do they suck.

[Beldin]

> I have never in my entire life used an arrangement like that.

It's become the norm around here: pick up a dedicated scanner at the entrance, scan while you go, at cash register, return scanner in a reader that extracts all necessary info. Newest gimmick is you don't need the store's dedicated scanner, but can use an app from your phone.

Bonus I didn't foresee: no more need to ask an employee "how much is this?" - just scan. This also shows you if your personal discount applies (if the store does personal discounts).

> Until the stupid scale stops working I think that's part of why they went with on-the-fly scanning. It's one thing to detect a postcard on an empty scale, quite another on a scale with a few 2L bottles of soda. Your example with eggs is also perfect: not that heavy, all but guaranteed to be last on the scale. Here, I think most stores switched from scales to doing random checks (where they scan 3-5 items).

[marcosdumay]

What will happen is that either the 0.01% will order the robots to kill the 99%, or the 99% will go out and kill the 0.01% and whoever else is near them.

Or we could reform our system so it can cope with abundance. It's perfectly well known how to do it, and it helps creating that abundance too. But the 0.01% seems completely decided to fight against this to their death, so I'm not holding my breath.