I often use the automated check-out in stores. They’re great. But the automated check-out machines, while great, need a employee to hover around helping people with machines that malfunction or aid customers who don’t know how to operate them. Every time a new machine or technology is created, humans are needed to build and maintain those machines. So some jobs are lost through machines, but others are created. It’s called creative destruction after economist Joseph Schumpeter.
I flat out refuse to use the auto-teller, as there is no discount for using it.
Charge less for using it, I’ll consider it, but why should I pay the same price to do a job that is included in the price of my goods?
Then there is the human interaction of chatting with the cashier, and the folks in line.
True, and in the past it's always worked, in general, that the jobs lost were replaced by on average better jobs.
Unfortunately, past performance is no guarantee of future performance.
Most of the new jobs created by automation are quite literally beyond the capabilities of those laid off from the old jobs. As an example, it is likely most jobs based on driving vehicles will disappear relatively soon as vehicles drive themselves.
How many truck drivers can be effectively retrained to write apps for the iPad? Not many.
I cannot prove it, but I suspect our economy will become more and more productive at producing "stuff," but each year fewer people will be required or capable of doing the work that is still in demand.
People generally forget that 50% of the population is of below-average intelligence, and each year I believe there will be reduced demand in the market for workers of below-average intelligence.
But I hope I'm wrong.
The usual deal I see is one employee for four automated machines, however. If automation doesn’t save some labor it often doesn’t make sense.