What's the alternative? Having people do menial jobs that can otherwise be automated? What's the difference between that and paying people to dig ditches and fill them back in again, or banning people from filling their own cars so we can keep teenagers employed as gas station attendants?
Self check out of more than a few items at the grocery store will always suck and be slower than someone who has trained to scan items quickly and has memorized the produce codes.
I never use self check out because I don't work at the grocery store and would rather just wait on my phone than take an active role in an activity I have no interest in ever becoming good at while giving the company more money over all for the shittier experience. I'm also not afraid of the cashier asking me how my day is going.
That sounds suspiciously close to "capitalistic end goal to get rid of all employees other than those doing robot maintenance" that gp was deriding?
Owners of supermarket have calculated that the increase in theft is off-set by the savings of not paying wages to cashiers. But those losses have to be paid by somebody, and that somebody is of course the customers who don't steal goods.
I'd rather not be the person who has to pay extra so that another person can steal. That's an undignified existence, and hence why I also boycott self-checkouts. I don't care what "rationalists" say.
Also, a store with a lot of self-checkout lanes and few cashiers will attract thieves and repel honest customers who want good service. The result is a worse store in every way, until it folds and closes - as owners have probably planned for a few years.
>I'd rather not be the person who has to pay extra so that another person can steal.
This doesn't make any sense. If the whole premise is that "the increase in theft is off-set by the savings of not paying wages to cashiers", then doesn't that imply that not having self-checkout is going to be more expensive than you overall? After all, regardless of whether the cost is losses from theft or cashier salaries, the customer has to pay for it at the end. Are you arguing that you want to pay more, because the extra money will go to a cashier than a thief?
Yes, certainly it does! I'd rather that my money goes to pay salaries for cashiers, than pay for the goods that thieves steal. The first option is sustainable, honest, and good for the community. The second option breeds crime and decay.
I'm not an atomized production-consumption unit, I'm a human being, and so are the cashiers. Plus that service is friendlier and faster with cashiers. We're not supposed to be psychotically seek efficiency and cost-savings in every nook and cranny like some of these store owners.
People don't "need" jobs, they need food, shelter, clothing, health care, and community. Jobs are just how those unfortunate enough not to be born into wealth finance those things, and occasionally some luxuries.
A good society should raise the standard of living for everyone when technological advances make things more efficient.
The problem is that under capitalism, the people get replaced by "Thing-doer 3000" bots which are owned by other large companies; the people don't benefit, and ultimately it even changes the economy when people have less work due to being replaced.
People working isn't needed for a "working economy"; things need to get done, to be sure, and right now people are needed to do those things, but that may not always be the case. Making pointless work for people to do is about as reasonable as replacing taxi cabs with rickshaw drivers, and power-tools with manual tools "just because"
The utopian vision that state sponsors citzen lives that are free to leisure themselves is science fiction.
Additionally, bored humans usually find ways to entertain themselves that aren't always for the good of society.