Amazon Go, the Grocery Store

[tarheelhockey]

No, it's only the most superficial marker of quality of life. Handmade products unquestionably have more fetish value in themselves and people with surplus income like to buy them. Machine-made and/or cheaper products are bought because people are able to/need to ignore the way it was produced to afford the things commercial culture tells them they need. Consumers make decisions based on their most basic concern - saving money so they can buy more things, since they are inundated by incitements to buy things and keep buying things. That in no way guarantees that making cheaper products has a net positive impact on "quality of life" especially among the producers.

This is Philosophy 101 bullcrap.

Three-quarters of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. For three-quarters of the nation, that extra few bucks at the grocery store or that extra $50 on the cost of a phone matters. They aren't shopping at Walmart because they like the atmosphere. They're shopping there because it gives them the ability to rub two coins together at the end of the month. Trivializing their economic decisions as vapid consumerism is getting into stereotypical college-communist territory.

Also, there's some extremely heavy irony in the fact that in the middle of this manifesto you highlighted the fact that the wealthy enjoy spending a little extra on things that taste of human sweat. Ringing endorsement of a return to manual labor, there.

There are plenty of premium stores where I live that charge extra for "handmade/hand-picked", "small batch", "pollinator-friendly", etc. exclusive products. All such tags have a fetish value for consumers. They tell their economically privileged customers "our product isn't part of the problem" to ease their consciences or make them feel like they have a special product for their special, unique lives. Purchasing isn't driven by the cheapest option in many cases.

Exactly. Your business proposition is aimed at people who can afford to spend surplus wealth on things which are produced inefficiently. In other words, people whose quality of life is no longer tied closely to their spending habits.

This does not describe the vast majority of people, whose quality of life is actually quite directly tied to their net income in a given month.

 

[Deficient Mode]

Political talk is over this way folks

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=160

Gross.

Except automation makes certain things cost much, much less. A computer made with no automation would likely cost 2, or even more, times as much, while not being as performant. Of course it's not about "check outs" here that I'm referring to, more about automation in general, and I guess that's why you are not against it.

Regarding the other part : I don't mind the "interaction" with the cashier. Just a simple "hello, thank you". I've never even used the "self checkouts" lines. But I mind it when I'm stuck in a line, and it causes me to have to wait much longer for transportation, for example. I've shopped at Costco a few times, and the lines there are just unsufferably long. Not to mention that there's a second line after the cashier line where some person has to check your receipt and what you bought. At the grocery I go to, when I go during normal hours, I can easily wait over 5-10 minutes in line. This is why I usually go past 9 PM. Over the course of a year, this adds up to insane amounts of time lost to waiting.

In the long run, I do firmly believe automation of check out processes would do good to more people than it would do "harm" to. In a similar way as online shopping (which you support).

Online shopping at least keeps people employed, especially when it's done off of Amazon. It also allows consumers to buy products that aren't available in their area and allows small businesses to reach consumers they otherwise couldn't. Like how I could buy citrus trees online despite living in a cold northern city where no nurseries sell them.

That's different than getting rid of cashiers or delivery people for no reason at all.

 

[Deficient Mode]

This is Philosophy 101 bullcrap.

Three-quarters of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. For three-quarters of the nation, that extra few bucks at the grocery store or that extra $50 on the cost of a phone matters. They aren't shopping at Walmart because they like the atmosphere. They're shopping there because it gives them the ability to rub two coins together at the end of the month. Trivializing their economic decisions as vapid consumerism is getting into stereotypical college-communist territory.

Also, there's some extremely heavy irony in the fact that in the middle of this manifesto you highlighted the fact that the wealthy enjoy spending a little extra on things that taste of human sweat. Ringing endorsement of a return to manual labor, there.

Jesus ****ing Christ. Now you're going to play the populist. At no point did I criticize the consumer without surplus income. They have to spend that way. Just that a little perspective would ****ing do. That the purchasing choice of a non-affluent person isn't proof that their quality of life is going up. You just said three quarters of the nation is living paycheck to paycheck. You know why? Because the cost of living is rising under capitalism much faster than income. You want to pretend that poverty was just there in the first place and automation/efficiency was the only thing that brought any money at all to these people, when the same thing that's pushing more people into relative poverty is also pushing for more automation.

I didn't say we should return to manual labor either, and I guess the mocking tone of my comment about rich people was lost on you. Cheap clothes made in Southeast Asia smell a lot more like human labor, sorry.

 

[Siamese Dream]

Being born at the right time at the right place (right family for instance) offers sheltering. Being smarter, more creative, more confident, charismatic, leadworthy, etc. are all things that can be caused by genetics and that can lead to having more money, despite not necessarily putting in as much effort as others.

Jesus Zaide you can't even do being a post-Darwinist right

A lot of the early eugenicists said the rich procreating a lot was causing degeneration as well as the lower classes, and preferred it to be the middle class who should have the most children.

 

[Bee Sheriff]

Jesus Zaide you can't even do being a post-Darwinist right

A lot of the early eugenicists said the rich procreating a lot was causing degeneration as well as the lower classes, and preferred it to be the middle class who should have the most children.

but the richest are the most successful and smartest!!!

What is lost upon Zaide's small, dense brain is that there is wisdom in the humility one may have as a result of not being among the world's elite.

 

[Kairi Zaide]

Jesus Zaide you can't even do being a post-Darwinist right

A lot of the early eugenicists said the rich procreating a lot was causing degeneration as well as the lower classes, and preferred it to be the middle class who should have the most children.

what do you think i meant with sheltering

 

[Bee Sheriff]

what do you think i meant with sheltering

I bet you know a lot about that

 

[Kairi Zaide]

I bet you know a lot about that

Why?

 

[Bee Sheriff]

Why?

You fit the part

 

[Kairi Zaide]

You fit the part

Do you mean that I've been "sheltered" the same way I am incinuating in that post?

 

[tarheelhockey]

At no point did I criticize the consumer without surplus income.

You most definitely did: ... because people are able to/need to ignore the way it was produced to afford the things commercial culture tells them they need. Consumers make decisions based on their most basic concern - saving money so they can buy more things, since they are inundated by incitements to buy things and keep buying things.

The bolded is a bunch of bullcrap. Talk to someone who's working 2 jobs to feed their children and keep the heat on for the holidays about how "their most basic concern" is "affording the things commercial culture tells them they need". I'm sure they won't take it as an arrogant criticism.

That the purchasing choice of a non-affluent person isn't proof that their quality of life is going up.

You're right that it's not a direct proof. It is, however, a very strong indicator of a person acting in a particular manner out of self-interest. And there's quite the strong correlation between acting in one's own best interests and enjoying an increased quality of life.

You want to pretend that poverty was just there in the first place and automation/efficiency was the only thing that brought any money at all to these people, when the same thing that's pushing more people into relative poverty is also pushing for more automation.

The first half of that sentence is basically true. Most people lived a subsistence-level existence until the automation and efficiency of the Industrial Revolution lifted them out of poverty and eventually into something like a middle-class lifestyle. As a result, most of the past 200 years has seen a steady improvement in quality of life for virtually everyone in every category of measurement.

What you're fixated on is a specific phenomenon of the late 20th and early 21st Century, in which some sectors of the economy are getting the shaft during transitions in an increasingly globalized and tech-oriented economy. Namely -- unskilled laborers who do monotonous jobs which can easily be done by a well programmed machine. For those people, the solution is for public policy to support education and opportunities in new industries. Either that, or a stronger social safety net. Or both. But not to attempt to resist the inertia of automation and efficiency which has been under way for hundreds of years and is clearly not about to stop any time soon.

 

[Siamese Dream]

but the richest are the most successful and smartest!!!

What is lost upon Zaide's small, dense brain is that there is wisdom in the humility one may have as a result of not being among the world's elite.

Meanwhile it was old Queen Vic herself, the "Grandmother of Europe" who was a carrier of the haemophilia recessive gene and passed it down to the other royal families

 

[Siamese Dream]

what do you think i meant with sheltering

It's almost as if rich people can still have kids with learning difficulties or just generally be dumb yet still survive and have money because of who their parents were

 

[Kairi Zaide]

It's almost as if rich people can still have kids with learning difficulties or just generally be dumb yet still survive and have money because of who their parents were

Yes!

 

[Deficient Mode]

You most definitely did: ... because people are able to/need to ignore the way it was produced to afford the things commercial culture tells them they need. Consumers make decisions based on their most basic concern - saving money so they can buy more things, since they are inundated by incitements to buy things and keep buying things.

The bolded is a bunch of bullcrap. Talk to someone who's working 2 jobs to feed their children and keep the heat on for the holidays about how "their most basic concern" is "affording the things commercial culture tells them they need". I'm sure they won't take it as an arrogant criticism.



You're right that it's not a direct proof. It is, however, a very strong indicator of a person acting in a particular manner out of self-interest. And there's quite the strong correlation between acting in one's own best interests and enjoying an increased quality of life.




The first half of that sentence is basically true. Most people lived a subsistence-level existence until the automation and efficiency of the Industrial Revolution lifted them out of poverty and eventually into something like a middle-class lifestyle. As a result, most of the past 200 years has seen a steady improvement in quality of life for virtually everyone in every category of measurement.

What you're fixated on is a specific phenomenon of the late 20th and early 21st Century, in which some sectors of the economy are getting the shaft during transitions in an increasingly globalized and tech-oriented economy. Namely -- unskilled laborers who do monotonous jobs which can easily be done by a well programmed machine. For those people, the solution is for public policy to support education and opportunities in new industries. Either that, or a stronger social safety net. Or both. But not to attempt to resist the inertia of automation and efficiency which has been under way for hundreds of years and is clearly not about to stop any time soon.

I only had to emphasize the fetishist side of purchasing decisions because you were completely ignoring it. It's not bullcrap. The behavior of people is impacted by advertising, and advertising pervades our culture. Companies wouldn't advertise if it weren't effective. I have no idea how any of this is even remotely controversial. It plays into the equation if bigger companies that make automated products can also spend more money on advertising it. Our brains aren't completely autonomous, and we're not independent subjects. Most kids can't even distinguish between advertising and non-advertising content. You want to say that our choices demonstrate that we're happy. Well, they're not entirely our choices all the time.

Even poor consumers want to buy things that aren't their most basic concerns. That's why you see people lining up at Walmart on Black Friday and fighting each other for discounted electronics. I think everyone should be able to afford nice things, but having a television is not the most basic human need, and we all feel compelled to have one. We feel bad if we can't afford things that other people can, and others feel good showing off the things they can buy with their wealth.

I am fixated on the present day. It's because almost none of these tech people are benevolent, and American politicians have only become more economically conservative in the past 40 years, and the "safety net" that we once had has been reduced. There is reason to be suspicious of how it will be implemented.

 

[Bee Sheriff]

It's almost as if rich people can still have kids with learning difficulties or just generally be dumb yet still survive and have money because of who their parents were

Even the ones who build their own fortune can be dumb. They just have to be lucky enough to find either an

A.) Successful niche that is ran and consumed by idiots--like the youtubers Zaide adores

B.) Be the first to corner a market, holding a manipulative hand

The ones who are truly intelligent and superior are the ones who revolutionize and overtake an existing market, or at least find a way to turn their industry into an economic positive, rather than doing something like turning to automation and being a detriment to the working class

 

[tarheelhockey]

I am fixated on the present day. It's because almost none of these tech people are benevolent, and American politicians have only become more economically conservative in the past 40 years, and the "safety net" that we once had has been reduced. There is reason to be suspicious of how it will be implemented.

Again, this has to be addressed as a matter of social policy. If the safety net needs to be more robust, so be it. But efficiency and automation is going to happen, there's no sense in being resistant to it. The market demands it, therefore agents in the market will provide it. At the end of the day, all arguments aside we know this is going to happen and it's a matter of how/whether we move forward as a society.

 

[Fixed to Ruin]

Economists have show that a higher minimum wage is good for the economy as people who have more disposable income will spend it.

The problem people are not taking into account is that people still exist and as jobs become more difficult to find it will hit people hard as the still need to eat, require shelter, etc. It will hit a breaking point and this could cause major revolts around the world.

It's a boost for the people who retain their jobs. It's not a boost for the cashiers and fast food workers who lost their jobs. Their salary goes to 0.

That's why i support basic income. Even though I don't agree that minimum helps anyone in the long run, I recognize that as automation takes more jobs away from lower skilled labor there will need to be something done to allow people to live a normal life.

It also creates a floor for society. If everyone makes 30,000$/yr for example it allows for the basic needs to be met. If you feel like making more than that then you can work a job ... maybe even part time. I also think basic income will create more entrepreneurs. Most people with really good ideas can't act on them because they aren't able to take the risk of not having any income for a period of time while their business is in it's infant stages.

I'd rather start thinking of new ways to move society forward and allow things like Amazon Go to flourish rather than stop technological advances. We need completely new ideas. Not expanding on old ideas from 80 years ago

 

[rynryn]

they delivered some whiskey and beer to me for a $7 charge within two hours of me ordering. why would i go there? just order it and have it delivered.

 

[Kairi Zaide]

Even the ones who build their own fortune can be dumb. They just have to be lucky enough to find either an

A.) Successful niche that is ran and consumed by idiots--like the youtubers Zaide adores

B.) Be the first to corner a market, holding a manipulative hand

The ones who are truly intelligent and superior are the ones who revolutionize and overtake an existing market, or at least find a way to turn their industry into an economic positive, rather than doing something like turning to automation and being a detriment to the working class

Well this is what automation does...

 

[Finnish your Czech]

http://www.assembly.pe.ca/progmotions/onemotion.php?number=83&session=2&assembly=65

 

[KaseMeOutside]

What do you guys think? Apparently over three million people are cashiers in the US, what is going to happen to their jobs?

http://www.businessinsider.com/amaz...ll-even-know-whether-you-put-something-back-4

I agree this is bad, might be good for amazon and convienence, but this is not going to be good for the economy if stuff like this catches on

 

[John Price]

It's a boost for the people who retain their jobs. It's not a boost for the cashiers and fast food workers who lost their jobs. Their salary goes to 0.

That's why i support basic income. Even though I don't agree that minimum helps anyone in the long run, I recognize that as automation takes more jobs away from lower skilled labor there will need to be something done to allow people to live a normal life.

It also creates a floor for society. If everyone makes 30,000$/yr for example it allows for the basic needs to be met. If you feel like making more than that then you can work a job ... maybe even part time. I also think basic income will create more entrepreneurs. Most people with really good ideas can't act on them because they aren't able to take the risk of not having any income for a period of time while their business is in it's infant stages.

I'd rather start thinking of new ways to move society forward and allow things like Amazon Go to flourish rather than stop technological advances. We need completely new ideas. Not expanding on old ideas from 80 years ago

 

[RayP]

Political talk is over this way folks

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=160

Broken link. Please fix.

 

[Ceremony]

seafoam? Without Michelle Williams for an avatar? I will not be reading this thread again, thank you.