low-end jobs

[cellio]

Automated alternatives to humans in the service industry have been around for a while. ATMs were probably the first widespread case of this. The real value of ATMs was the ability to interact with your bank at times when the bank wouldn't otherwise be available. I think ATMs are a real win for that reason, and the only time I visit humans in my bank is when I want to make a deposit.

More recently, I've interacted with automation that is designed to specifically replace humans rather than broadening service. The automated check-out at grocery stores is the big example here. Instead of one cashier per line, stores now need one employee per 4 or so lines. This isn't making things more convenient for customers; unlike ATMs, the scanners are only available when the store is open anyway.

There are practical reasons I tend to avoid the automated checkouts, mostly related to speed. The line for the human has to be about three times as long as the line for the machine before the machine looks like a time-saver. People may get more proficient at scanning and packing over time, of course.

But I find that even absent that consideration, I'm reluctant to use the machine. Doing so helps to eliminate a low-end job that might be the only job the job-holder is capable of doing. Most of the cashiers I see at the grocery store aren't college-age kids looking for spending money; they're middle-aged and sometimes visibly handicapped.

This is not wholly a compassion-based argument; it's also one of expedience. I think we as a society are better off if almost everyone has a productive job. And some people are only capable of the lower-end jobs that are most in danger of being automated away. (Aside: for this reason, requirements for high minimum wages are also a bad idea -- don't make it cost-ineffective to hire people at prices they're willing to work for!)

We cannot avoid automation, of course, and in many cases it's a good thing. I'm no Luddite (she says, typing on her computer :-) ). But I kind of wish that we could focus it a little differently sometimes.

And yes, sometimes the humans are annoying to deal with. Last night I lost close to ten minutes to an inept cashier, and there is one (mentally challenged) bagger who I will never again allow to touch my groceries because he seems utterly bewildered by ideas like "the bread goes on top" (multiple failures). People who aren't capable of doing the job shouldn't hold the job anyway just out of pity. (Giant Eagle was right to fire the guy who was partially eating food and then putting the package back on the shelf, and I don't care that he didn't understand that this was wrong.) But y'know, the machines aren't painless either -- just try to get a scanning error fixed. And for the most part, the people holding these jobs are quite capable and willing to work, and I find I'm rooting for the people over the machines.

Comments

Re: part 2

[cellio]

And the cost of the bureaucracy to determine worthiness likely exceeds the potential fraud. Conservatives are supposed to be about fiscal responsibility, aren't they?

Mind, I used to think that way too about worthiness (fueled by bad uses of food stamps observed in grocery stores), and I still have some tendencies in that direction. But if, instead of having an arcane process for applying for and keeping welfare, with fraud opportunities galore, you instead did a tax-like filing with a body that's already set up to sniff out egregious fraud, you can let it all boil down to the contents of the tax return and not even deal with all the other factors like proof that you've been dilligently job-hunting. If you're willing to live below the poverty line, I shouldn't be not that concerned with whether you're lazy or truly deserving. (You do, of course, have to keep the line fairly low; the point is to provide for the most basic needs only, not to provide a comfortable living. This is "don't let them starve" money, not "support the beer/pizza/cable habit" and "dynasties of welfare families" money.)