Slashdot Mirror
Robots Could Wipe Out Another 6 Million Retail Jobs (cnn.com)
According to a new study this week from financial services firm Cornerstone Capital Group, between 6 million and 7.5 million retail jobs are at risk of being replaced over the course of the next 10 years by some form of automation. "That represents at least 38% of the current retail work force, which consists of 16 million workers," reports CNN. "Retail could actually lose a greater proportion of jobs to automation than manufacturing has, according to the study." From the report: That doesn't mean that robots will be roving the aisles of your local department store chatting with customers. Instead, expect to see more automated checkout lines instead of cashiers. This shift alone will likely eliminate millions of jobs. "Cashiers are considered one of the most easily automatable jobs in the economy," said the report. And these job losses will hit women particularly hard, since about 73% of cashiers are women. There will also be fewer sales jobs, as more and more consumers use in-store smartphones and touchscreen computers to find what they need, said John Wilson, head of research at Cornerstone. There will still be some sales people on the floor, but just not as many of them. Rising wages are also helping to drive automation, as state and city governments hike their minimum wages. Additionally, several major retailers including Walmart, the nation's largest employer, have increased wages in order to find and retain the workers they need. The increased competition from e-commerce is also a factor, since it requires retailers to be as efficient as possible in order to compete.
Just have a headline reading "AI to take over all jobs forever." and renew it every week with a link to which jobs it'll be replacing this time. Honestly, it'll just save everyone time.
Retail work is some of the most thankless, soul-flaying work there is.
It is also work that adds very little value. A checkout clerk isn't actually producing anything. A self-checkout kiosk can already do the same job, and is often better because the lines can be shorter.
A good cashier adds value to the company by upselling at the time of purchase "This shirt looks great, but did you see that we have scarves on sale? See the one I'm wearing? That blue one would go great with that shirt". I've watched it work on my wife, and it's quite effective. I don't see the same capability being effective with a checkout kiosk.
Perhaps not so effective at a grocery store or Home Depo, but automated checkout kiosks are already popular at those stores.
Try to buy 24 cans of cat food, dog food, or similar products.
Oh.. or .. all 3 bags are full. I have to call for assistance as I move one of the bags to the cart.
The code for this vegetable is not available. Search for it by name. You happen to have the code for onions, bulk memorized?
Oh... Beer. Wait.. wait.. wait..
Beep (didn't scan)... beep.. beep... beep. wipe off moisture on glass.. beep. straighten crumpled bar code.. beep.. call for assistance.
---
Banks are not charging them a fee in MY neighborhood. They even get free *everything*. You want to drive off a customer with a six figure checking, savings, and brokerage account over a teller fee?!?!? Young and stupid might perhaps.
---
Yes, self service will continue to improve.
And packagers and managers and executives will continue to cut corners negating some of the benefits of that improvement.
Cashier lines are 2x to 5x faster if you have over 20 items that includes frozen products and more if you have coupons or booze. Cashiers know the code for bulk onions is 4335 off the top of their head. They can approve a booze purchase in under 30 seconds.
---
I agree ATMs are great now. But bills and checks are a much simpler use case. The more likely replacement is "click and save" where you order on your smart phone and pull up and they load your car with the already paid for groceries which they picked for you. For an up charge of $3 to save you at least 15 and maybe up to 30 minutes of your time.
Self service are not appropriate for many of the use cases. And they will be until you can pull your basket up and simply load the products onto the belt and it processes them without manual intervention.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
"More painters, more singers, more writers and some people to create art I didn't even know I'd love"
Many people produce "art" that no one else is willing to pay for. How are these "artists" supposed to earn a living wage - via grants bestowed by government or something?
"Some of the progress will suck. There is no denying that some things will suck for some people"
I think you misspelled 'tens of millions' there.
"My job is automating things [...] doesn't look like there is any chance of automating my part anytime soon"
Ahh, I see. Your income security is OK. For now. Everyone displaced (in part) by the automation you're doing should just go and be an artist, rock star or YouTube hero, I guess.
Although I can appreciate where you're coming from; those who do still have jobs in an increasingly automated workforce will be relentlessly worked and constantly in fear of losing their own jobs as the ratio of employed to unemployed gradually but consistently diminishes.
No, he's quite correct. Doomsayers of automation just assume that money will dry out and people will just do nothing.
Realistically, better technologies tend to allow economies to scale to new heights. Infrastructure reduces your dependence on other people, which means you can accomplish more for less, which means you become more productive, which is why for example, the US is a lot more productive than say Liberia. Automation does the same thing.
The word "computer" used to universally refer to a person's job title, whereas now it universally refers to a machine. Imagine if you had no computers at your disposal; much of your work (for example, making a spreadsheet for bookkeeping) would take considerably longer to accomplish, taking away from your time to do other more productive things that could make you more money, and/or you could use that extra time (or money) to take a longer vacation, or have nice things.
Which by the way, having nice things and vacations are what wealth is; money is not wealth, and neither is income. You can in fact be wealthier with less money; for a real world example of this, look at the techies that live in San Francisco. Most people outside of that area can have a better quality of life on far less income.