Other News & General Chat

[Guest]

Has anyone noticed there are people boycotting self checkouts now? Apparently  its because they take jobs. Although I'm pretty certain you can always get a job at asda or Tesco if you want one as they can never get enough staff. Online shopping actually takes more retail jobs away than self checkouts. I dont mind people boycotting them for the right reasons but I get the impression most of them are probably anti immigration as well 

[nudge+]

11 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

Has anyone noticed there are people boycotting self checkouts now? Apparently  its because they take jobs. Although I'm pretty certain you can always get a job at asda or Tesco if you want one as they can never get enough staff. Online shopping actually takes more retail jobs away than self checkouts. I dont mind people boycotting them for the right reasons but I get the impression most of them are probably anti immigration as well 

What do self checkouts and immigration have in common?... 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, nudge said:

What do self checkouts and immigration have in common?... 

No what I mean is I wouldn't be surprised  if some of the people who are saying  self checkouts take our jobs are saying the same about immigrants 

[nudge+]

1 minute ago, Gunnersauraus said:

No what I mean is I wouldn't be surprised  if some of the people who are saying  self checkouts take our jobs are saying the same about immigrants 

Ah, right. I was scratching my head there looking for a potential connection  

I don't use self checkouts, either. I don't like big businesses making me do the work so that they can save payroll and maximise their profits while I still pay the same price for the items   Also, if I'm buying alcohol (which happens 90% of the time whenever I'm at the store), then I still have to wait for the cashier/attendant to approve it anyway. I also quite like short, non-binding human interaction. And they do make some jobs obsolete. 

[CaaC (John)+]

I prefer a self-checkout than a cashier but they will never take over a cashiers job as a lot of times the self-checkout will break down and then you have to wait for an attendant for assistance and if the store is busy and they only have one attendant on you can sometimes wait for around 5 minutes for assistance.

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, nudge said:

Ah, right. I was scratching my head there looking for a potential connection  

I don't use self checkouts, either. I don't like big businesses making me do the work so that they can save payroll and maximise their profits while I still pay the same price for the items   Also, if I'm buying alcohol (which happens 90% of the time whenever I'm at the store), then I still have to wait for the cashier/attendant to approve it anyway. I also quite like short, non-binding human interaction. And they do make some jobs obsolete. 

Ow yeah I forgot you were an alcoholic  I'm not sure if it really affects anything though. I'm pretty certain if you wanted a retail job you could get one. Like I said online shopping  costs more jobs. According to research anyway not sure how much research has been done 

[nudge+]

4 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

Ow yeah I forgot you were an alcoholic  I'm not sure if it really affects anything though. I'm pretty certain if you wanted a retail job you could get one. Like I said online shopping  costs more jobs. According to research anyway not sure how much research has been done 

With technology improving, self checkouts and similar technology will make cashiers - and many other jobs in general - obsolete in the future; the same thing that happened to phone operators, elevator operators, or gas station attendants, as well as many other professions that don't exist anymore. That's normal, and you can say that's the price of technological progress... It's also true that labour markets tend to adjust to changes and automation usually creates new jobs, and it's good if people can be retrained and take on new professions, but let's be honest, the transition is quite challenging for some, especially older workers. If many of lower skilled jobs get automated and become obsolete in the future, and if a significant part of global workforce has to shift occupational categories, learn new skills and be re-employed as a result, unemployment rates can potentially go through the roof, especially combined with the aging population.

[Guest]

 

@nudgeIt should be ok till most of the older workers retire.  Most of the shop worker jobs are minimum wage until you  get to managment level and will still require managers. Also there will be people who will need help and advice with some purchases. I'm not really worried about machines taking all our jobs yet. Normally there are jobs available if you will work for minimum wage. Retail may just not be one of them. But if it's not retail people working for the first time will find something else.  It would however be a massive issue if all low skill manual jobs are not needed though as some people arent able to manage more than a minimum wage job.

Edited September 21, 2021 by Guest

[Dr. Gonzo]

5 hours ago, nudge said:

What do self checkouts and immigration have in common?... 

Tbh, I think the people that are most concerned about self-checkouts coming for their jobs are a bit similar to the people who are worried about migrants taking their jobs because they'll work for cheaper.

As you say, self-checkouts and other forms of technology/automation changing the workforce can lead to big jumps in the number of unemployed people in the world. And as you mentioned, it's not the first time (obviously) technology has changed jobs and relegated some jobs into becoming obsolete.

Employers of low skilled labour view their employees, for the most part, as highly replaceable human capital. That employers might suddenly reject their current employees for: cheaper immigrant labour or machinery is not surprising. Especially with technology coming in to do the same jobs as a human, but with greater efficiency and a lower cost... it isn't surprising. That's just how people run businesses, lower cost for more efficiency is what you expect employers to go for.

And I do sympathise with people who suddenly face losing their job due to whatever is happening in the job market that is beyond their control. But at the end of the day, I think most low skilled workers are sort of in the same boat of being low paid and highly replaceable. As technology cuts into their jobs more and more, it is understandable to see a push back against that change. I especially sympathise with older people in those jobs.

But a lot of the people that are most impacted by shifts in the workplace like cheaper labour for immigration and technology... they're not powerless to adapt to the changes in the workforce. But so many people just do not want to learn the new skills that are needed to adapt to a changing workplace.

And I admit, it isn't always easy to transition people from their old jobs to new jobs where they'll need new skills or greater skills. So perhaps it needs to be more of a focus of governments to be able to transition workers from their old jobs to new jobs that will require new skills or being a more skilled labourer. But then I wonder how many of the same people will complain that the government is trying to get too involved in the lives of people by trying to make sure they can get employment in a changing world... and instead insist that the government should be stopping in to stop the world from changing.

But I don't think that's realistic. And I don't think many governments will step in to tell business they should not be looking to lower the cost of doing business (so long as automation doesn't negatively impact the quality of goods/services provided) and increasing profitability. The world didn't mourn the death of the telephone operator or the lift attendant...

[nudge+]

30 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Tbh, I think the people that are most concerned about self-checkouts coming for their jobs are a bit similar to the people who are worried about migrants taking their jobs because they'll work for cheaper.

As you say, self-checkouts and other forms of technology/automation changing the workforce can lead to big jumps in the number of unemployed people in the world. And as you mentioned, it's not the first time (obviously) technology has changed jobs and relegated some jobs into becoming obsolete.

Employers of low skilled labour view their employees, for the most part, as highly replaceable human capital. That employers might suddenly reject their current employees for: cheaper immigrant labour or machinery is not surprising. Especially with technology coming in to do the same jobs as a human, but with greater efficiency and a lower cost... it isn't surprising. That's just how people run businesses, lower cost for more efficiency is what you expect employers to go for.

And I do sympathise with people who suddenly face losing their job due to whatever is happening in the job market that is beyond their control. But at the end of the day, I think most low skilled workers are sort of in the same boat of being low paid and highly replaceable. As technology cuts into their jobs more and more, it is understandable to see a push back against that change. I especially sympathise with older people in those jobs.

But a lot of the people that are most impacted by shifts in the workplace like cheaper labour for immigration and technology... they're not powerless to adapt to the changes in the workforce. But so many people just do not want to learn the new skills that are needed to adapt to a changing workplace.

And I admit, it isn't always easy to transition people from their old jobs to new jobs where they'll need new skills or greater skills. So perhaps it needs to be more of a focus of governments to be able to transition workers from their old jobs to new jobs that will require new skills or being a more skilled labourer. But then I wonder how many of the same people will complain that the government is trying to get too involved in the lives of people by trying to make sure they can get employment in a changing world... and instead insist that the government should be stopping in to stop the world from changing.

But I don't think that's realistic. And I don't think many governments will step in to tell business they should not be looking to lower the cost of doing business (so long as automation doesn't negatively impact the quality of goods/services provided) and increasing profitability. The world didn't mourn the death of the telephone operator or the lift attendant...

I see two biggest concerns, mainly - automation happening too fast and the labour market failing to adapt and make a smooth transition. I believe there was an extensive report by McKinsey a while ago, and it estimated that about 50% of paid activity done by humans can be automated by using current technology available now, and depending on the speed that automation is implemented, up to 800 million workers could be displaced by 2030, with further 400 million in need of changing occupational categories. And it doesn't affect only lowest-skilled workers, either. Those are massive numbers, and the effects of that, especially in developing countries, could be disastrous (although it will likely take longer for developing countries to adopt automation, too). 

[Dr. Gonzo]

7 minutes ago, nudge said:

I see two biggest concerns, mainly - automation happening too fast and the labour market failing to adapt and make a smooth transition. I believe there was an extensive report by McKinsey a while ago, and it estimated that about 50% of paid activity done by humans can be automated by using current technology available now, and depending on the speed that automation is implemented, up to 800 million workers could be displaced by 2030, with further 400 million in need of changing occupational categories. And it doesn't affect only lowest-skilled workers, either. Those are massive numbers, and the effects of that, especially in developing countries, could be disastrous (although it will likely take longer for developing countries to adopt automation, too). 

One day my job will be replaced with some AI software.

So I should probably learn about coding so I can fix the bugs in it.

[nudge+]

8 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

One day my job will be replaced with some AI software.

So I should probably learn about coding so I can fix the bugs in it.

I started learning AI for two reasons -  because it always interested and fascinated me, and because I want to be ready for the battle when it arrives

[MUFC]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-58684030

[Beelzebub]

What a shity world would be if shit like programming would be everywhere.

I'm just gonna take a dog and a goat move to the mountains and start a barn. 

[Bluewolf]

11 minutes ago, Khan of TF365 said:

I'm just gonna take a dog and a goat move to the mountains and start a barn.

So you are not going with the chicken then??? 

[Beelzebub]

On 22/09/2021 at 01:56, Dr. Gonzo said:

But I don't think that's realistic. And I don't think many governments will step in to tell business they should not be looking to lower the cost of doing business (so long as automation doesn't negatively impact the quality of goods/services provided) and increasing profitability. 

They can apply taxes and stuff to keep automation expensive enough. They do with other stuff like cars, everyone wants a car but all know everyone having it is a bad idea. They must be kept expensive enough.

[Stan]

5 hours ago, Khan of TF365 said:

What a shity world would be if shit like programming would be everywhere.

I'm just gonna take a dog and a goat move to the mountains and start a barn. 

The goat will leave you and jump from mountain to mountain. 

[Beelzebub]

Meng Wanzhou Huawei CFO returns to China.

Edit: China also released two Canadians, classic hostage swap situation. US is probably like the guy sitting in the car observing it and giving the nod to release

Edited September 26, 2021 by Khan of TF365

[Dr. Gonzo]

On 25/09/2021 at 20:21, Khan of TF365 said:

Meng Wanzhou Huawei CFO returns to China.

Edit: China also released two Canadians, classic hostage swap situation. US is probably like the guy sitting in the car observing it and giving the nod to release

Didn't Canada hold her on behalf of the US?

[Beelzebub]

15 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Didn't Canada hold her on behalf of the US?

Yes now will have to rethink their relations with China.

[Dr. Gonzo]

22 minutes ago, Khan of TF365 said:

Yes now will have to rethink their relations with China.

Tbf, I think US policy has indicated they're currently rethinking relations with China - with the trade war starting 4 years ago and continuing even with a president from a different party. I know from some of the clients my company has at work, companies that have relied on trade with China are having to make serious adjustments with their international business to shift with US policy. More and more businesses are looking to India and Indonesia as alternatives to China as well.

And it's clear China's also rethinking their relations with the US... and much of the west tbh. And I think moves like banning cryptocurrencies entirely are in part a reflection of that (as well as keeping in line with their current policy of keeping as much of China's RMB in China as possible).

[Stan]

Horrible cunt. 

 

 

[MUFC]

Regarding Sarah Edward. What the fuck possesses somebody to do what that police officer did? I just don't get it.

[nudge+]

28 minutes ago, MUFC said:

Regarding Sarah Edward. What the fuck possesses somebody to do what that police officer did? I just don't get it.

Law enforcement jobs do attract people with psychopathic tendencies. 

[MUFC]

4 hours ago, nudge said:

Law enforcement jobs do attract people with psychopathic tendencies. 

I never knew that to be honest. It's confusing as he's a police officer himself. I mean could he have done this before? WAs it something he'd planned for years or fantasied all his life? Or a spur of the moment thing?