Humans would attend a gas station or fetch items in a store. Why? They're completely unneeded, I can do (and WANT to do) that myself.
I always feel sad about these people, trapped in an economic system that forces them into useless labour when they could spend their time learning actually useful skills.
> I always feel sad about these people, trapped in an economic system that forces them into useless labour when they could spend their time learning actually useful skills.
It's useful labor. Yes you could do it yourself, but it gives them a job which they can ultimately use to afford food and where they live.
I mostly only feel bad for kids doing that sort of labor as it means they aren't getting an education. But for an adult? It speaks to something a bit right about their economic situation that they can stay a float by merely fetching items in a store.
I wish in the US that it was possible for someone to make a living doing doordash or instacart.
Because the presence of a human likely prevents shoplifting and / or vandalism. It must make economic sense for the gas station owner to employ a human, and I suppose this is the sense.
What actual useful skill do you think the gas station keeper could learn? Is their employment the thing that prevents them from learning these skills?
I mean, it's possible there are useful skills they could learn but there's not the interest or desire to learn those skills. It's completely possible that person is perfectly content doing that work.
Also I think it is preposterous to claim that these people are trapped.
1. You can fill your own car with gas, but some people can't, or prefer someone more knowledgeable to do it for them. Some people like the comfort of having someone bag their groceries for them, or have disabilities that necessitate it. Some people are old. Today you learned.
2. Your economic system is not different than theirs. Everybody NEEDS a job to support themselves, their families and to be functioning members of society. That means jobs that can easily be automated won't be automated. Also, you may make a lot more money than that kid bagging groceries to make a few bucks for himself, but at least what he does actually helps someone. What we here on Hacker News do is mostly build imaginary products that will be gone and forgotten quicker than you can say "Al Bundy".
3. Not only that, all of us here have basically written our own replacements and made ourselves obsolete. Something tells me your job isn't really needed too.
Tying this back to your first point, the revealed preference is that people would rather fill their own gas tank, rather than be forced to wait for someone to come and fill it for them.
Bagging groceries is different, however the revealed preference is that people would prefer the lower price/lower service supermarket, and those that need the help have to ask for it.
You are correct that everyone needs to earn a living, I think that most people would prefer that others can earn a living doing a somewhat meaningful job, in a somewhat safe manner.
The reason that much of this isn't automated has nothing to do with ensuring that jobs exist, but rather that the cost of automation is higher than the cost of labour. This is what op is talking about.
MOST people, not ALL. Smaller markets can still be profitable and useful markets. Most people prefer to pay less and cook their own food, but some people prefer to pay more and have lunch delivered to them. That market is doing quite well despite the fact that pretty much everybody can just stick something in the microwave. There are endless more examples.
> doing a somewhat meaningful job
Who decides what's "meaningful" and what isn't?
> The reason that much of this isn't automated has nothing to do with ensuring that jobs exist, but rather that the cost of automation is higher than the cost of labour.
SOME of the times, you're right, but not ALL of the times. People (most often via unions) aren't resisting automation because they're excited about moving to a "more meaningful job" or because they hate progress. They're resisting because in modern society they MUST have a job, and if they spent the past two decades working as cashiers in supermarkets, their ability to find "more meaningful jobs" at this stage in their lives is extremely limited, and chances are they're gonna have to take a pay cut. Progress cannot come with higher unemployment and poverty rates. If that means low income, less meaningful jobs remain, so be it.
Helping someone fill their car with gas or sell them an item is useful as well, not everyone should be a software developer. Before feeling sad for other people, think about yourself as well.
Do you WANT to do that?
I've tried to run my own items at the corner store via the automatic checkout. Whenever I buy lightweight items or items that lose weight during the day (fresh bread) the anti fraud weighing system lights up. And I like my fresh bread.
So I've gone back to the one manned checkout. Judging by the lines I get sometimes, so have most other customers.
we all need to do something
We've pretty much locked ourselves into an economic system that requires everyone to work, even though our productivity has skyrocketed many orders of magnitude. The end result is most people are doing meaningless work just because they have to in order to survive, and most jobs do not need to exist. This is true even in office work. It usually manifests as moving stuff from A to B and then maybe back to A. Basically, not creating, just moving. And not physically moving either.