Its cute, but I'd rather be waited on by a human being and wouldn't go to a fully automated place. Why? Automation costs jobs, pure and simple, and reduces human interaction.
> And you know what? I don't think it will lose > any 'real' jobs.
'real' jobs? First off, that's arrrogant as hell. :( That cashier job is 'real' as you put it to the person doing it for a living and getting a paycheck! And whatever you may do for a living is NO BETTER than that persons' job. They're working, it may not be glamourous as a tech job, but by god they're working and I respect that. If I am wrong by what you meant by 'real' job, I apologize, but I'm kind of fed up with the 'look down your noses at lesser work' attitudes I've encounter among techies. An honest day's work is an honest day's work, whether its as a cashier or a computer programmer.
And you're kidding yourself if you believe there will be no job losses. They'll not reassign the cashiers to cleaning or kitchen (they already got enough to run now now) rather they will just fire them and chain management will pocket bonuses for 'cutting costs'. Same with any waiters or waitresses lost....more 'cost cutting' bonuses for management. We're losing jobs the high-salary and middle-salary ranges of our economy, last thing we need is to eliminate jobs in our low-end...where will these people find jobs if this catches on?
> And it will create jobs, by adding a higher-tech > component to the existing job set for a fast food > restraunt, to maintain the self-order kiosks.
Well, if you count minimum wage workers trained just enough to maintain a terminal with little or no job security or benefits 'higher tech' (Yes, these are the people that maintain the few automated checkouts supermarkets here are experimenting with, I've talked with a couple of them at the supermarket). Most of these subcontractor 'tech' places even require their technicians to use their own cars and supply their own tools (with minimum mileage reimbursement).
> Sadly, I doubt they'll succeed, because I saw > hordes of regulars ignore them to mob the single > cashier.
I would go to the cashier myself. It keeps someone who needs a job employed, doesn't lead to 'tech' jobs that really aren't PLUS its a whole lot more 'human' than hitting buttons on a panel and swiping a card.
Our society, thanks to the 'geek' mindset and gadgetry-worship, is losing much of the simple contact with others and in effect, becoming more machine-like and cold, IMO. Not to mention the negative impact on employment. At some point, we as a society have to say 'Sure we can automate that, but its detrimental if we do, so we won't'.
No, I am NOT a luddite, I hold a BS in Electrical Engineering, worked 3 years with a major automotive manufacturer and spent the last decade in the IT field...BUT I am a firm believer keeping in tech in its place and used in a way that is not detrimental to our society at large.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-12 11:00 am (UTC)> And you know what? I don't think it will lose
> any 'real' jobs.
'real' jobs? First off, that's arrrogant as hell. :( That cashier job is 'real' as you put it to the person doing it for a living and getting a paycheck! And whatever you may do for a living is NO BETTER than that persons' job. They're working, it may not be glamourous as a tech job, but by god they're working and I respect that. If I am wrong by what you meant by 'real' job, I apologize, but I'm kind of fed up with the 'look down your noses at lesser work' attitudes I've encounter among techies. An honest day's work is an honest day's work, whether its as a cashier or a computer programmer.
And you're kidding yourself if you believe there will be no job losses. They'll not reassign the cashiers to cleaning or kitchen (they already got enough to run now now) rather they will just fire them and chain management will pocket bonuses for 'cutting costs'. Same with any waiters or waitresses lost....more 'cost cutting' bonuses for management. We're losing jobs the high-salary and middle-salary ranges of our economy, last thing we need is to eliminate jobs in our low-end...where will these people find jobs if this catches on?
> And it will create jobs, by adding a higher-tech
> component to the existing job set for a fast food
> restraunt, to maintain the self-order kiosks.
Well, if you count minimum wage workers trained just enough to maintain a terminal with little or no job security or benefits 'higher tech' (Yes, these are the people that maintain the few automated checkouts supermarkets here are experimenting with, I've talked with a couple of them at the supermarket). Most of these subcontractor 'tech' places even require their technicians to use their own cars and supply their own tools (with minimum mileage reimbursement).
> Sadly, I doubt they'll succeed, because I saw
> hordes of regulars ignore them to mob the single
> cashier.
I would go to the cashier myself. It keeps someone who needs a job employed, doesn't lead to 'tech' jobs that really aren't PLUS its a whole lot more 'human' than hitting buttons on a panel and swiping a card.
Our society, thanks to the 'geek' mindset and gadgetry-worship, is losing much of the simple contact with others and in effect, becoming more machine-like and cold, IMO. Not to mention the negative impact on employment. At some point, we as a society have to say 'Sure we can automate that, but its detrimental if we do, so we won't'.
No, I am NOT a luddite, I hold a BS in Electrical Engineering, worked 3 years with a major automotive manufacturer and spent the last decade in the IT field...BUT I am a firm believer keeping in tech in its place and used in a way that is not detrimental to our society at large.