Self Checkouts: They aren't the monster you think they are.

Self checkouts are killing our economy! Or are they? Mechanical automation has been around for a long time, this is the automated assembly line, they are featured in almost every movie or TV show about “The Working Man”. Basically, someone stands by a line of moving parts and checks to make sure the machines are correctly assembling them. What once took 300 people, now takes 5, sounds like a ton of jobs were lost, right? Well, lets take a look at that. When it takes 300 people to make something, you have to pay 300 people, which means you have to charge for the wages of 300 people, which means things are more expensive. It also means you can't pay each individual as much for that job, so you wind up with 300 minimum wage (or near minimum wage) employees. What I find most interesting about the people who argue against automation is that they will demand it costs jobs, but in the same breath demand those jobs don't pay enough. Well, if we chip away as many jobs as we can with automated machines, we give room to pay the employees that remain more money. So, in the 80's, mechanical automation was instituted, which created room for technical salaries, quality control salaries, marketing salaries, executive salaries, etc, all of which pay drastically more than the average assembly worker in the previous manufacturing model. So, assets were rearranged to turn horrible factory jobs into professional careers, careers like machine maintenance, technical foreman and plant coordinator, careers that could support a family comfortably without having to work 70 hours a week. But what about the other 295 people who weren't included in the new careers? Well, I have no idea, but I know that they weren't out of a job. At the height of the switch to mechanical automation in the 1980's until it was inevitably accepted in the early 1990's, unemployment was halved (according to statistics Canada). So, what happened to them? They got other jobs, they started their own supporting businesses fixing the things they used to build, they changed their vocations and went back to school. They got on with their lives. Automation eliminates a bunch of really terrible jobs and replaces them with a few really great jobs, that's basically how it works. We live in a poverty stricken community, I know it's not exactly considered polite to say it out loud, but poverty has become a huge problem in Cape Breton. We consider the minimum wage market to be the last market remaining in Cape Breton, and we are very protective of it. But should we be? The numbers and history tells us that with automation comes increases in average salaries and higher quality of life, so is it really something we should be fighting against? With self-checkouts we will lose three minimum wage cashier jobs, but we will gain one 50k a year maintenance job that will support a young family. There will always be jobs for young people and teenagers, and they will always be terrible. There is always some awful job that some business owner or manager will be willing to pay a young person minimum wage to do. That isn't an excuse to try to force businesses to continue paying wages to employees for a job that could be done faster and cheaper by a machine. The argument of lack of low wage jobs for immigrants had been mentioned in the same breath in the last article I read on this topic, which also doesn't hold water for me. That argument isn't one in favor of keeping cashier jobs, it's an argument in favor of decreasing immigration as far as I can tell. If we don't have the economic resources to support the people we are immigrating, then we shouldn't be immigrating them. In the end, self-checkouts and digital automation are here to stay, they are happening and we need to learn to live with it. I doubt it will have a negative impact on our local economy, or at least it is the least of our worries in regards to that, and it's more likely to create a few high paying careers that will allow sub-markets to grow and flourish. At least that's what history tells us anyway.

Posted by
Receive news by email and share your news and events for free on goCapeBreton.com
SHOW ME HOW


2,403 25
https://capebreton.lokol.me/they-arent-the-monster-you-think-they-are
Self Checkout's and automation in general will probably help us more than hurt us, so you shouldn't hate them for the sake of hating them.
Business Doing business in Cape Breton

25

Log In or Sign Up to add a comment.
Depth
Joe Ward Follow Me
Excellent discussion of the economic changes that occur as we move to automated and self-service business processes. Although there is all kinds of complex data to analyze when discussing a national economy, you make a very strong point about simply looking at employment rates over time since technology has been increasing integrated into business processes and looking for that effect. With our national unemployment rates alone, we could not claim at present time that it's had an excessive impact on overall employment... though we'd need to look at more data for such things as median household incomes to understand the effects more fully, etc. I often mention the "transitional phase" where some difficulty must be expected. But these are unavoidable. E.g. some job losses occur, our social safety net is used (uncomfortably so), retraining occurs, and new job types emerge. It's not always easy to make that transition for those directly affected, but we do know, for example, that when we move to greener energy production, this brings with it new job opportunities in that sector. The long-term goal is that society requires less human toil on non-rewarding, low paying, low skill level jobs, and then offers career opportunities that pay more and are more rewarding to each individual. With such things as delivery drones and self-driving vehicles of all sorts coming into active use in the next 2 to 5 years, it's an important time to be having this discussion.
Brian Linden My Post Follow Me
Which is my primary goal with this article. There is a sort of arbitrary hate going on with (specifically) self-checkouts, which is confusing because when grocery baggers, car stuffers, gas pumpers and a plethora of other self service initiatives took place, there was nowhere near the outrage. It's the invalidated hatred that confuses me about the whole thing, which is why I wrote this article I think.
Joe Ward Follow Me
This region is hypersensitive to anything that even remotely creates a perceived risk to any job, actual or not, the roots of which we can understand. But sometimes we act like we want our community to be "The Village" in the M. Night Shyamalan sense. Eventually, folks will figure out the advantages to be found on the modernized outside world and will leave it.
Brian Linden My Post Follow Me
You should definitely get involved in the facebook conversation on this though, the outrage is right up your ally. I suggested something of that form in my article "Cape Bretons obsession with the past is hurting the future", but the thought wasn't fully developed I think. I might do another piece on that in the future.
Mike Johnson Follow Me
You can learn from the past, but you cannot recreate it, or relive it. People need to understand history, but use the tools and ideas from here and now to build for the future.
Chris Gallant Follow Me
I think the big difference is that we now have social media. In the past, when we switched to self-serve gas pumps and ATMs, people could complain behind closed doors or in barber shops. Now, one person posts on Facebook about the devastation this will cause (without any evidence to back it up) and we see a kind of bandwagon effect. Perhaps we should start a campaign encouraging people to use self-checkouts to save the jobs of the factory workers who build them, the technicians who maintain them, and the people who install them. What about those jobs that didn't exist before?
Joe Ward Follow Me
I think we're definitely better off with social media being an open forum with very limited restrictions on expression (i.e. hate, threatening behaviour). You're definitely right, about the visibility of the reactions to change that died out more quickly around the water cooler in the past. There's an anti-vaccination guy I went to high school with, who's still in my Facebook feed (for now). He somehow believes that eliminating vaccines would lead to less death and less suffering. After challenging him on some of this, it was clear that he had no intention of being rational about his beliefs now that they were chosen. Of course, the variety of irrational beliefs he shares, in this particular case, point strongly at mental illness and much more so than just ignorance. But a positive takeaway for me in knowing his views is simply an awareness of the level of irrationality that is possible, the irrational basis upon which it is constructed (pseudoscience and bogus memes), and the unlikeliness of altering his views. He and people like him are risk factors. If we can't change them, it's worthwhile at least knowing what they're all about. In the best case scenario, for some, there might be a path to altering their views.
Bill Fiander Follow Me
Not sure yet if self-checkouts are a good thing or bad thing. ( Perhaps if a company like Walmart indicated that there were no layoffs or that wages have gone up as a result I might buy into it), but they are not just being grappled with in Cape Breton as this story states regarding Canadian Tire stores in Canada going against the trend of self-checkouts: https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canadian-tire-self-checkout-cashiers-automation-1.5011981
Jason Swan Follow Me
What I find interesting about the “self-checkout” topic is that the same people who vilify self-checkouts are the same ones that complain about the high cost of goods. Walmart has implemented technology which reduces costs (wages) and helps maintain their cutthroat pricing. If they didn’t, prices would go up (because profits aren’t going to suffer). You can have high-level service or rock-bottom prices. You choose. There was a time when people made their own clothing or they paid a tailor. Those were the options. Improvements in technology has allowed better clothing to be produced at lower cost. Do you see many tailors around? Change is inevitable. How we react to it (or better yet, how we drive change) determines if we benefit or not.
Joe Ward Follow Me
Imagine we started with this premise: Any tool, process, or form of technology that *reduces the number of human hours* needed, therefore also reduces (a) the demand for human labour by businesses, and (b) the number of jobs doing things in a less-efficient way. Now imagine that we took action based on the presumption that the above was a bad thing. So we begin eliminating any tools of automation or efficiency, undoing any efficient processes, and attempting to maximize the number of human hours of labour required. There would really be no limit to the backwards moving. For instance, a roofer might have a job, but more hours of his/her time would be required if he/she was restricted from using air or electric nailers to speed up the job. The roof would cost much more. Things like email would need to be eliminated because we'd want mail couriers and postal workers to maximize the volume of physical mail that they needed to process. Once the emails were forced to be printed mail, we'd also have to get rid of electronic mail sorters, as manual sorting would require more human hours. In fact, scanning bar codes would be a bad idea too, because more human time would be required to enter the numbers into the computer (if we even kept the computer around at all). There would be a lot of very bad outcomes for everyone: 1. There would be an increase in demand for lower skilled, lower paid, less fulfilling jobs. 2. Prices for all products would rise dramatically and become unaffordable for those working the new, low-paying jobs. 3. Everything would take longer to produce or deliver (both goods and services). 4. The purchasing power of everyone would be reduced, and low wage jobs couldn't keep up with price inflation. Everyone, on average, would have less and lower quality.
Bill Fiander Follow Me
One of the reasons for not wanting self-checkouts also has to do with the human factor - A lack of personal interaction. How far should technology be allowed to encroach on our lives? Is it always good as long as it benefits our bottom line. What if some day AI can replace what a doctor or a psychiatrist can do? Is there a limit to technology's advance?
Joe Ward Follow Me
That sort of presumes that people don't take time saved and reinvest it into other types of human interaction. In thinking forward, I believe the point of technology is actually to maximize human time together as reduction of wasteful time frees up our most limited of all resources, to spend with others in more fulfilling ways. Further, our time with family and friends at present time is both limited and degraded by our lack of time and resources, or the stresses/distractions of life that rob from it. A "bottom line" reference implies that technology is only focused on profit making. That is a component of the corporate engine that rewards technology development, but it's far from the only reward. Technology saves and improves lives. AI absolutely should replace the diagnostic assessment role of today's doctors as soon as it does it measurably better, which is probably less than 2-5 years away, if not already feasible. It likely is right now. Future doctors will be expert facilitators and developers of this technology. Wait times will collapse. Detection time will be rapid. Recovery will be greatly boosted. Mortality will decline. Cost of delivery will be reduced. We'll be much healthier on average and live longer.
Bill Fiander Follow Me
There's a whole lot of presumptions going on here, Joe. 'Investing into other types of human interactions" is a presumption in itself. My 'bottom line' reference was how this whole argument was heading. It was of course in regard to profit making. Why else would a self-checkout be put in place by Walmart or any other company. You'll argue convenience ( excuse the presumption). The bottom line was was also part of the argument of the article we are debating on. I didn't state that AI could 'assist' doctors. That was not what I stated. I said for them to replace doctors. If that's where we are headed, it bodes for a very cold future
Joe Ward Follow Me
A fairly safe presumption is that when people have time that they are able to spend doing something they *enjoy*, instead of what they're *required* to do, they'll prefer to do the thing they enjoy. I think of anything we do that we believe will bring some benefit to us as an "investment". Increasing time doing things we enjoy is an investment in a better quality of life. I'm not talking just increasing our annual income. An increasing number of hugs/year, or growth in annual hours of amazing conversation with friends is the kind of return I'm looking for too. The capitalist system requires regulation. However, it's also the greatest system in the world, within democratic societies, where profit-making motivation results in better lives for people. While Walmart drives prices down to compete with their biggest competitors, every dollar saved by families is free to be used for something else. We immensely benefit from profit-motivated corporations that drive down the cost, and drive up the quality of goods and services, trying to stay one step ahead of their competitors, maintaining or growing their market share. They should be richly rewarded for being able to do so. It is our democratic policymakers who are entrusted with creating the regulatory, tax, and labour environment to keep things in check. Because they often do so poorly (e.g. wealth inequality, bad taxation policy), the democratic framework is essential for us to be able to draft replacements for these policymakers. AI should replace doctors as we know their role to be today. The introduction of technology of any type will lead to the evolution of our roles in all fields. There is nothing cold about better health, less illness, longer and more youthful life. Wouldn't you choose to replace 50 hours of necessary conversations with an oncologist with 50 hours of visiting with grandchildren? That's the true warmth life offers, and which technology provides more of.
Joe Ward Follow Me
Note: At the point when AI replaces the diagnostic role of our doctors (as it is today), not only will everyone have immediate access to a doctor, they will have immediate access to an intelligence that is hundreds of times more competent than the best doctor in the world today.
Bill Fiander Follow Me
Now wouldn't that be a cause for celebration. An AI Doctor. I'm looking forward to that cold outlook.
Joe Ward Follow Me
I fail to see how instant access to the world's best doctor, better health and well being and longevity, wouldn't be one of the greatest causes for celebration in human history. But the reality of our democratic society also is to be celebrated. For some time, as a transitionary adjustment period, there will be a market for the traditional way of doing things, even if ultimately proven to be inferior for health outcomes. And people will be able to choose that. In fact, if we could suddenly live to be 150, there would be people among us that would object to the idea because it violated their sense of tradition in terms of how long humans should be allowed to live.
Bill Fiander Follow Me
More than anything else that is sad. To sit down with an AI medical doctor or Pscyhologist. Particularly the latter There was also a piece in todays' news indicating how much compassion from a primary care giver helps prolong the lives of patients. If an AI Doctor can show compassion than you've won me over.
Joe Ward Follow Me
I'd much prefer fast diagnosis; precise, customized, effective treatment; and survival over a compassionate though inferior doctor making me feel cared for while I die. Compassion from my dad's doctor, if there was some, didn't save him. The campassion is present when thousands of medical technologists are pouring their heart and soul into developing the kinds of technology I'm describing because they know it will save lives. Here's another interesting example. Drone automation of mangrove re-planting to restore a key part of the lungs and water filtration system of the planet are able to exceed in two years what took 7 years to achieve without them. https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1122342926007320576?s=21
Bill Fiander Follow Me
It should go without saying that the recent piece on compassion did not result from a specific case.
Mike Johnson Follow Me
Depending on how you define it, Medical AI is here now in some areas and expanding quickly. In the 1980s Marquette Electronics pioneered Computer Diagnosis in Cardiology. They basically did a compilation of the best Heart Doctors readings of each ECG and created a Database that did instant measurements of the PQRS complex and created a much better diagnosis than any Dr. could on their own. They used the same Process for Stress, Holter and routine Patient Monitoring. The last one actually allowed Dr input to teach it when they wanted an alarm or to identify a specific arrithymia. For years, both DRs resisted the technology, though it is now accepted as the norm. Marquette was bought by GE 20 years ago. The concept of Computer driven diagnosis continue in most areas of medicine and their is no doubt there will full Patient Diagnosis available in the near future.
Joe Ward Follow Me
You're absolutely right, Mike. Excellent point. In the last 5 years, AI has made huge advances and the same process you described will be followed and improved. The push towards self-driving cars and other such technologies that make use of machine learning will also push the technology forward, making its discoveries, capabilities, and reusable platforms we put in place available for other uses at lower costs. Essentially, AI or machine learning, relies on *training data*. That's what you described. You take a large volume of data, and then have human experts categorize or classify it (or have already done so). The software then takes this data and runs a computationally intensive evaluation of it, using varying complex algorithms actively being developed and improved, attempting to find a way to imitate the success of the human experts that it must learn from. What eventually can happen with good data, and sufficient data, is that the software can do what the human evaluators do, but more efficiently, and eventually much better. It can even make discoveries that the humans would have potentially found hundreds of thousands of manhours later, as the computing power does so orders of magnitude faster. Imagine having one of the world's best human doctors that could do the equivalent of sitting with you - and only you - for 3 months examining you and all of your data to make a diagnosis and an individualized (down to your genetics) treatment plan. And then imagine that the equivalent of that could be done in 5 minutes by a computer if given sufficient input data about you. That's where we're headed because universal healthcare isn't able to provide us the quality of healthcare we need on a timely basis. Good health and longer life is more important than some witty banter and words of concern from a human doctor. However, they'll be very useful in explaining and facilitating everything the machine outputs.
Bill Fiander Follow Me
Interesting. I certainly learned something in this discussion. We started of with self-checkouts and lead us into the possibility of AI doctors. The resistance to this sort of technology is going to be normal, however, unless the benefits can be clearly seen.
Joe Ward Follow Me
The transitionary phase is going to be very challenging because it won't be completely smooth. Mike's use case is a good one, as it reflects improvements the technology has already made without widespread awareness that it's actually being done. Benefits that we receive without being aware of how they come about will be accepted readily. But clearly, as self-checkouts show us, there will be immense controversy. There are perhaps two categories: automation via self-service, and automation via robot. We're likely to object more to the type of automation that requires us to do something, versus the kind that just replaces human workers holding jobs that aren't *our jobs*. Right now, there are delivery robots (surface) active in California, air drones at work (medical delivery), AI doctor visits in China, and self-driving cars heading for approval, but already on North American roadways being tested; and even server-less fast food (also California). Just imagine the public debate when they start rolling out here. ;)
Bill Fiander Follow Me
Food for thought: the World Economic Forum states that "By 2020, over five million jobs will be lost as the result of technological change, artificial intelligence, robotics, according to World Economic Forum research." " The public reject the robot technology because the technology is taking away human labour. " Read more at https://www.business2community.com/tech-gadgets/7-changeovers-technologies-rejected-public-01577847
[comment deleted] Posted

Facebook Comments

View all the LATEST
and HOTTEST posts
View

Share this comment by copying the direct link.

  • Our Sponsors

Using this website is subject to the Terms of Use that contain binding contractual terms.