Walmart Is Cutting 7,000 Jobs Due To Automation (yahoo.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Yahoo: The clairvoyant folks over at the World Economic Forum warned of a "Fourth Industrial Revolution" involving the rise of the machine in the workforce, and the latest company to lend credence to that claim is none other than Walmart, which is planning on cutting 7,000 jobs on account of automation. But the Walmart decision may be a bit more alarming for those in the workforce. As the Wall Street Journal reports (Warning: may be paywalled), the most concerning aspect of America's largest private employer might be that the eliminated positions are largely in the accounting and invoicing sectors of the company. These jobs are typically held by some of the longest tenured employees, who also happen to take home higher hourly wages. Now, those coveted positions are being automated. The Journal reports that beginning in 2017, much of this work will be addressed by "a central office or new money-counting 'cash recycler' machines in stores." Earlier this year, the company tested this change across some 500 locations. "We've seen many make smooth transitions during the pilot," said Deisha Barnett, a Walmart spokeswoman.

Comments

All according to plan

[Anonymous Coward]

The sooner robots replace the workforce, the more leisure time we will have to enjoy life.

Re:All according to plan

[PopeRatzo]

(Fun fact: That didn't truly begin until Henry Ford started the idea of taking Saturdays off and having an 8x5 40 hour work week to retain quality workers; a concept that many misattribute to labor unions.)

I'm sorry, but you've got that wrong:

In the United States, a few limited eight-hour-day laws were on the books shortly after the Civil War. One, in Illinois, was passed in 1867, followed in 1868 by a law covering certain classes of federal workers. But neither law was well-enforced, and in most sectors, working hours of 10 to 12 hours were common. So a reduction in the work week became a leading issue for the nascent labor movement.

The issue came to a head in 1884, after the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions -- a predecessor of today’s AFL-CIO -- called for all workers to have eight-hour days by May 1, 1886. When that deadline wasn’t met, labor leaders upped the ante by calling for demonstrations. In Chicago, peaceful marches morphed into violence, with an explosion marring a rally at Haymarket Square on May 4, 1886, leaving seven police officers and four workers dead. Subsequent trials, executions and clemencies for the accused made the eight-hour week a top issue nationally and internationally.

All of this occurred decades before Ford founded his company in 1903.

Ford didn't implement the 40 hour workweek until 1926.

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

http://www.businessinsider.com...

Re:All according to plan

[PopeRatzo]

The army of North Korea has 1,200,000 soldiers.

Yes, but do they carry the 80oz jar of pickles for under $5?

Re:All according to plan

[Ziest]

guaranteed minimum income

Never going to happen in this country. The status quo hangs on to their ideology like a junkie and his heroin. When the pitchforks come out then maybe, but I suspect the 1%, once they finish strip mining this country, will flee leaving us to rot.
 

Re:All according to plan

[RichPowers]

This benefits all shareholders, of which the Waltons are the largest.

Do you own index or mutual funds in a 401(k) account to fund your retirement? If yes, the "blood" is on your hands, too. You proportionally benefit as much as the Waltons when jobs are cut and money is freed up for other purposes, including returning it to the people who own the enterprise.

Anyone here a California public employee counting on a pension? How do you think CalPERS is going to achieve those rosy 7% returns to fund the payments to future retirees? Dividends, share repurchases, and growth from allocating retained earnings -- the shareholders own this money, after all -- in value-additive projects. Cutting the fat is one way of freeing up additional free cash for these purposes.

I think it's interesting how millions of Americans are shareholders who benefit from these moves as much as the fat cats.

Re:All according to plan

[sjames]

In some ways the goalposts have moved but not in a simple linear progression. Because of technology, the poor can have cheap TVs and phones. But in trade, they now cannot afford a place to call home. If they tried the popular solution from the middle ages of pick out an un-occupied spot and build a house, the city would come arrest them and bulldoze the place. They can no-longer make a job for themselves by planting on the commons and selling whatever surplus they grow (In many places, you are not even permitted to plant crops on the land you own).

An income is no longer optional, but the ability to have an income is not guaranteed.

As has always been the case, the nobility doesn't trouble itself with these things.

Re: All according to plan

[saloomy]

The reason your doom and gloom is wrong is specifically that the economy doesn't shrink. It grows. Yes, automation reduces positions in the economy for work by people, but every person not working is his or her salary in terms of cost not invited to produce goods and services. So the price falls, so the affordability rises. The rising affordability means that everyone will have more. The reason the economy rises is that the AVERAGE person has more ability to consume than prior. And no, not just the 1%, the ordinary individual. It makes no sense in being able to make a million cars automatically if only 500 people can afford them. The more for less economy only works if more people can have more stuff for less. High unemployment is not a natural state, people will always find work, and be able to afford more with it. The 1% will make sure that people have propensity to consume. It's the natural order, and they have to have people buying their shit or they will no longer be in the 1%. Maybe most individuals will eventually own stock in the infradtructure.

Re:All according to plan

[Mr. Shotgun]

but I suspect the 1%, once they finish strip mining this country, will flee leaving us to rot.

So what you're saying is when the revolution comes invest in anti-aircraft missiles?

Re: All according to plan

[Maxo-Texas]

Actually for almost 80% of the population, you are wrong.

Ability to afford a new car, a new house, a college education, high quality clothing, high quality food has been falling since 1980.

The top 20% are doing fine.

Having a smart phone doesn't make up for eating poorly (lotsa cheap carbs- no nutrients), being unable to get decent housing ($160,000 even 25 miles from town try buying that on $35k a year after taxes), or decent clothing (cheap knits that shred in a few years-- if that long).

Re: All according to plan

[turbidostato]

"The reason the economy rises is that the AVERAGE person has more ability to consume than prior."

You know that thingie called statistics. If I have one million in the bank and the other nine have zero, we all AVERAGE 100K in the bank. Still no good for those other nine.

"people will always find work"

What's that? the fifth law of thermodinamics, or something?

No, man, sorry: for most of History, people was absolutely unable to find work and it was more that a short elite forced them into work. What if that short elite has no work for them anymore?

"The 1% will make sure that people have propensity to consume. It's the natural order"

Again, have you ever opened a History book? Was a consumist society the "natural order" of ancient Egipt, or Greece, or Rome, or Middle Ages, or pre-revolution Europe? Was it the "natural order" along imperial Chine, traditional Japan, most Africa history or precolombine America?

Looking at the History book, it seems much more that your "natural order", if any, is for an elite taking benefit of most of the goodies squeezed out of a mass of people let just above the starving level. What if that elite manages not to need that mass of people to squeeze their goodies anymore?

shades of The Twilight Zone

[davidwr]

There are many bromides applicable here ... too much of a good thing, tiger by the tail, as you sow so shall you reap. The point is that too often Man becomes clever instead of becoming wise, he becomes inventive and not thoughtful, and sometimes, as in the case of Mr. Whipple, he can create himself right out of existence. As in tonight's tale of oddness and obsolescence in the Twilight Zone.

closing narration, The Brain Center at Whipple's

Not really

[eclectro]

Everything is not rosy with Walmart's penchant to do away with workers. One thing is an exploding crime problem at their stores because there is not enough personnel around. Who wants to go shopping in a crime zone? That and a popular local Walmart has an extremely hard time keeping the store shelves stocked. It's wonderful to have low prices, but I usually am wasting my time going there only to see empty shelves.

So disposing of workers only goes so far. I simply do not believe that our android workers will arrive in the near future to mitigate these problems created by lack of workers.

100% Automation coming soon.

[frnic]

And there is no economic model to tell us how that is going to work. But, not far in the future - many of us will see it, if we don't kill ourselves off first, all manual labor will be automated. And soon after that there will be no labor required to produce any products - production and distribution will be totally automated. At that point labor will have no value and our world economy will cease to exist.

Re:100% Automation coming soon.

[evilviper]

100% Automation coming soon. And there is no economic model to tell us how that is going to work.

It won't be 100% automation, it will be 99% automation, and we have a historical example in agriculture. It used to be that nearly everyone had to be a farmer, producing their own food to survive. Now a tiny fraction of the population can run the machinery to produce ample food for everyone.

So manufacturing and distribution is heading this way too? Great! I'm tired of paying $1000 for a refrigerator... When they get down to $10, you can tell me how horrible near-complete automation is for our economy. I've seen this happening in my own lifetime... The most basic power tools cost several weeks of salary a few decades ago. Now you can buy a complete drill for about 1-hour of minimum wage salary. Clothing used to be an investment, too, and sewing machines were everywhere so rips could be fixed. Now you just throw out anything with any imperfections.

When this model transfers over to home construction, medicine, and other skilled-labor-intensive industries, we'll be in good shape. Your biggest monthly costs getting driven down to 1% the price will let even the poorest live comfortably. And when you don't have to pack into a few big cities to get a high-paying job to survive, the expensive cities will slowly dissipate. People will disperse to cheaper areas and do some trivial little jobs that never-the-less easily pays for all their living expenses.

Overblown

[JeffOwl]

#1 Walmart employs around 2 million people worldwide. This does not even move the needle. #2 This has been happening for years. First it was the adding machine, then the electronic calculator, then the big computers, then the smaller ones. This should not come as a shock to anyone.

So much for higher education...

[ErichTheRed]

So, in the US, we automate agriculture enough to get the workforce down to 2% of the population. Then we automate enough of the manufacturing sector to reduce it to 8% of the population, not including the millions of offahored factory jobs. Then we tell everyone they have to go to college and get at least a 4 year degree to have any hope of a stable future. The vast majority of people at non-top tier universities are doing the minimum required to get a degree, majoring in business or psychology or communications. In the past, all of those people were absorbed into random entry-level positions doing the kind of work Walmart is now automating. It's a ritual - party through 4 years, show up at the campus career center during your senior year, do a few interviews and pick Random Large Employer to work for as a Random Paper Processing Position. What exactly are people proposing that we do with these "C students," who number in the millions and contribute to society through taxes, buying stuff and raising little C students?
- Most of them don't have the aptitude for tech careers (many of which are being automated as well...)
- Most of them can't be trained in a skilled trade without asking them to go back through another 4 years of apprenticeship
- Almost none can become doctors, lawyers, etc. because the competition is so keen to get in to medical/law school
- They can't be investment bankers or management consultants, because those professions only recruit from the Ivy League

I know it's no one's dream to process paperwork, but it has traditionally been one of the most stable ways for middle-skilled people to earn a living and have a career. Students starting out as a Associate Paper Processor have the opportunity to become a Senior Paper Processor, then a Paper Processor Supervisor, Manager of Paper Processing, Director of Document Services, and so on. For everyone in corporate IT, think of all the paper processors we directly support, working away in their cubicles. Most are incapable of doing any more than a defined procedure on an input stack of work. If you suddenly say all these people are unemployed, what do you propose replacing their jobs with? When that good salary goes away, the government doesn't get its payroll tax, the unemployed person chooses not to buy a house and therefore doesn't pay property taxes into the system, they choose not to procreate and reduce the birth rate to an unsustainable level. And, they don't buy anything, meaning businesses can't sell the products they make.

I'm not saying we become Luddites and stop the automation, but we as a whole need to think about what we're going to do with a very large disaffected population. Look how much support Trump has among factory workers who are still unemployed or underemployed even though everyone's being told the economy is in OK shape. I'm one of those people who feels that full employment above all else should be the goal, even if we do make-work for some of it. You can't have millions of people sitting around with nothing to do and no purpose -- it will lead to massive crime over the long run as people get bored and tired of being broke.