I am not against progress or automation but I refuse to use the self-checkout at supermarkets because there is no savings in doing so and I don’t want to take anyone’s job away.  I also don’t save much time doing it myself so why bother.

I would walk right out of that restaurant. If this
catches on who knows how many more unemployed this will
lead to. We have to react with our wallets, do not
support these businesses. If they empowered their wait
staff with an Ipad I would be in support of that. But
this scheme is ridiculous. Eventually cooks will be
replaced too by robots.

I for one refuse to use the self checkouts at grocery stores, and I would damned sure walk right out of anuy place with an iPod instead of waitstaff.

@thethirdman
Mechanisation and later industrialisation of agriculture had the immediate effect of freeing up labour. For most of human history 90pct of the population was directly involved with agriculture. Certain technological advances in the late middle ages allowed that to go down to about 70pct. This was directly responsible that the renaissance and the development of Europe was even possible (and the fact that it did not happen to that extent in other parts of the world the reason they did not develop technology and a denser network of large cities in the same way).
Further advances in artificial fertilizers further lowered the amount of workers needed for agriculture and this coincided with the start of the industrial revolution (which needed those workers and the food at the same time). Mechanisation finalised the trend so that now only a few percent (if that) of the population is involved in agriculture. It did mean though that those remaining farmers alone had to do the work of all those farmhands that used to work for them, so they had to work much harder.
The reason why they did not stop working is simple too. Farmers never had (much) control over the price for their products, and food prices have lagged behind, considerably, behind inflation. To make a decent income farmers had to produce more and more, just to keep earning the same income relative to other workers.

Economically speaking there should be three distinct groups of economic sectors: food, products and services. Of those only the products react more or less normally to the accepted ‘economic laws’ and that only because consumers can choose to forego them. Food is something we literally can not surive without, so the price will have to be within a narrow range of the lowest income. Otherwise the country faces rioting and revolution. Imagine if food prices are aimed at the 500.000+ earners and about 70pct of the population is starving while confronted with supermarkets full of food…
Services are different yet again in that availability is of greater importance than price. E.g. healthcare or electricity are examples of services that are meaningless if they can not be provided. Overflowing hospitals and brownouts are quickly unacceptable to the customers.

Sadly economists lump these three groups together and formulate policies that have rather adverse effects on the medium and long run (they will make somebody very rich in the short run though). Except with the food that is. Most countries, including the USA, set a maximum price on basic foodstuff and subsidise it as long as they can afford. A lot of federal money goes to farmers to allow them to effectively produce food below cost.
Should the republican/libertarian dream of doing away with government come true the majority of farms would close within two years and serious food shortages would happen by three to four years, and food prices would probably triple. These prices would not stabilise at a higher level but starting to fluctuate wildly. Investment to start a (new) farm is extremely high, and income to recoup that investment would be marginal as well as unpredictable thanks to weather. Prices can not be arbitrarily set by the producer either as an impoverished population can pay only so much before they start taking rather than buying.

This IS great! No more misunderstood/misinterpreted orders, no more “gotcha” upsells with hidden price tags, no more Miss Thangs who are more concerned with their physical appearance or upcoming art installations than actually doing the job that pays the bills—-or Mr HotStuff who’s more concerned with charming the ladies than actually providing service for the gratuity to be received. I’m also presuming that if my water glass is empty, it will truly be my fault for not refilling it rather than my fault for having the audacity to want it be refilled.

From the employer end, this means fewer people to call in sick because their best friend’s cousin’s daughter is distraught because their pet bichon frise needs its nails trimmed and no one else can comfort it in its moment of need. And of course fewer people to stand around planning/commiserating about their weekend plans instead of actually providing the service for which they were hired.

Yeah, there are those great “job creators” at work
again.  The only rich people I’ve ever known fell into
two categories, the rich-by-inheritance who never gave
anyone a meaningful job, and the wealthy movers and shakers in
business who spend every waking hour trying to figure
out how to cut down their labor force through increased
productivity (automation or increased workload) and
off-shoring.  So please, when can we get rid of this
“job-creator” baloney??

Can we just replace Congress with a big iPad?

@Queennie
<heavy sarcasm>That alternative business you mentioned may well end up being the only job available in the trickle down voodoonomics since it is hard to outsource and difficult to automate ... (that, plus a lack of schooling is a definite pre for employability in that sector)</heavy sarcasm>

First the manufacturing jobs went overseas but don’t worry we were told the rapidly growing service industry will provide jobs..sure for a lot less pay but at least it’s a job. Then over the phone services, (telesales, tech support etc.) went overseas. Then legal services (research) and medical services (x ray reading etc)sailed away from our shores.Now we can replace the food service workers with I pads. No more jobs for the kids in fast food outlets or waiter or barista jobs for the university graduates. No more tired out single moms waitressing to support the kids. The only upside to this erosion of ordinary jobs for ordinary people is that when the ranks of the unemployed reaches critical mass (and that point is traveling toward us at a steadily increasing pace)then the consumer society will implode and reality will finally reach the oligarchs and send them crashing down from their towers of blind gluttony.
.