The reason I posted my question about self checkout was hit on the head by the "automation is coming" comment. I like even better the comment further back in the thread that asked, "Just because we can do something, does that mean we should?"
I will not use self checkout unless forced by a lack of cashiers (that's happened once at a big box hardware store). I have been laid off twice in my work career, the second time for 9 months. It was the most harrowing thing I've been through. It gave me a whole new understanding of what/why employers are doing to the work force. To state it simply, the Walmart near my home has two groups of 6 self check counters, each of which is watched by one employee. To my way of thinking, that puts 10 people (5 at each group) out of work. To Walmart's way of thinking, the cost of losses by people not scanning every item that passes across the register is more than offset by the money they save not paying an employee a living wage and benefits - mostly the benefits.
There's a trickle down effect here that the proponents of automation aren't thinking of. Walmart needs people to earn a wage so they can spend it in their stores. Truckers need gainfully employed persons spending money on goods that were moved by truck. Likewise for trains, planes and many of the other business that are using automation. When GM and Ford use robots to do the welding on their assembly lines, a skilled worker is not earning that wage who might otherwise need to purchase one of their cars to get to work.
I understand the some of the truth that pushes employers to prefer automation is the quality of the workforce that's available. I've run into too many that would rather sit at home playing video games earning from their investments than take a skilled job that contributes to society, not understanding that the investments they wish to make aren't free.
The still greater truth is that the employers that would prefer to automate want to do so to increase profits. Less cost input equals greater margin, more for the investor. And more often than not, the greatest stakeholders in a business are the management, not the skilled employees.
To bring this rant back around to the original discussion, I'm not thrilled about the idea of riding on an automated train. While it may be true that automation doesn't make "human error," it also can't exercise "human judgement." Humans may be more prone to error but when automation fails, the failures are usually more catastrophic. I don't like the way cockpit crews are shrinking, not thrilled that trains have less and less crew and don't like self check. Called me old fashioned but when humans are totally removed from all of these I'll stick to my car - and it won't be driverless.
More important to me is the cost to the humans who need gainful employment rather than the risk involved. I don't insist that everyone adopt my way of thinking but am happy to explain it those who are willing to listen. If that wasn't you, then I apologize for having taken your time.
