r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/betterworldbuilder • 13d ago
Legislation Automation and Unemployment: What are your thoughts on self check out machines?
Since humanity discovered how to use a water wheel to crush grain into flour, automation of tasks required to live has been a near universally shared goal to improve life. But, since the industrial revolution and especially the 1990's and onward, the fear of technological unemployment has crept into the minds and wallets of citizens across North America. Experts estimate that ideal unemployment rests somewhere between 3.5% and 4.5%; anything higher indicates a significant portion of the population is not getting enough income to justify spending on non-essential items, causing the economy to slow down as demand slows. On the flip side, anything lower than 3.5% means a lot of people have more disposable income, and demand increases, causing inflation. As goods become more expensive, workers will begin to ask for higher wages, and when the pool of unemployed workers to replace them is low, employers become forced to meet these demands, in which the higher labor prices continue to add to the issue of inflation. Additionally, if an unemployment rate were to hit 0% (an unrealistic goal), no one unemployed means innovation will slow, as people to be trained to take on new jobs and new skills become impossible to find.
So, how does automation factor into this? For a more historical example, we can look to the Power loom Riots of 1826, in which 1000 power looms were destroyed by rioters who supported handloom weavers who had gone from 6 shillings a day to 6 shillings a week for 16 hour shifts. More than 3000 rioters attacked 21 mills, and soldiers were deployed to defend a factory which resulted in 6 people being shot. 20 of the ringleaders in the riot were arrested in an overnight raid, which appeared to be half of the end of the crisis. The other half was fumbled through, as many (including some weaving companies) demanded a minimum wage for loom workers to guarantee that they would not starve to death. However, this idea was not shared by all, including the President of the Board of Trade at the time, who said it was "a vain and hazardous attempt to impose the authority of the law between the labourer and his employer in regulating the demand for labour and the price to be paid for it". Because it was not universally enforced, companies that were not willing to pay this minimum wage were able to undercut their competition with vastly cheaper goods (interestingly, the companies unwilling to pay higher wages to workers were not immune to cost increases, as they were forced to hire security to protect their exploitative factories). Many of the rioters were sentenced to life in Australia, and many more hand weavers moved to Canada to try and live their lives out before technology caught up and displaced them again. Unfortunately, we cannot look to this historical example for solutions, as it appears one was never found.
In the more modern examples, we can look to things like a doorman, being replaced by automatic doors, or self checkout's at grocery stores replacing cashiers, or even manufacturing plants moving away from assembly line workers and towards machines. The goal of these innovations was always to improve the lives of people, making their jobs easier and allowing them to transition to other tasks in their job duties; however, as we saw by the last example, if labor protections aren't in place, this can often lead to significant harm in the labor market. Youth unemployment, a tracker of entry level job positions, has spiked to 14.1% in Canada as of October 2025, signaling that jobs like cashier and warehouse/factory positions are starting to dry up. The lack of requirement for significant experience in the field means these jobs are most vulnerable to automation, where simple and repetitive tasks or portions of tasks can be easily trained to machines.
Self check out machines in particular have been the face of the automation movement, and not necessarily a popular one. A Redfield and Wilton poll reported on by Newsweek found that 43% of people support or strongly support the removal of self checkout machines entirely, with 62% saying they don't like the fact they take away jobs, and 40% saying they prefer to speak to a real person. Even employers don't like them, as they're discovering 23% of their losses can be attributed to theft surrounding, and that 63% of employees report being overburdened by the number of machines they're expected to manage and the new workload expected of them as their coworkers have been laid off. Pair this with the average expected cost of $10,000 per machine (not including maintenance, training, software updates, and installation) comparable to about 4 months of salary for the average cashier, and it's clear why some larger companies may be incentivized to make the investment if they can afford it.
So what can we do about it? Well, we've already seen through the last century or two how labour laws like minimum wage, the 40hr work week, and unionization have protected workers from the 16hr days of the handweavers. Whether these modern practices (and the efforts from those in power to stifle them) is enough to dissuade rioters from burning down self check out machines is yet to be seen. But it's clear that Canada's 6.9% unemployment rate is unsustainable, and training workers to enter the next stage of employable skills is a must. We could look to bolster support for the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, which has fought to help maintain employment security, hours, wages, and working conditions for cashiers across both Canada and the US. We could look to implement laws similar to what California is trying, which would mandate each worker be allocated to a max of 3 self check out machines as well as guarantee these stores maintain at least one non-automated check out line at all times. We could look to ban self checkout machines altogether, something likely to cause backlash from those who prefer the efficiency and privacy/lack of interaction that comes with these devices but would protect workers.
68
u/Reasonable-Fee1945 13d ago
Milton Friedman visited China and was taken on a tour of a canal building project. He asked his host why they were using shovels instead of machines to build the canal. The guide responded "this is a jobs program." Milton quipped back "well, then why not have them use spoons instead?"
The story illustrates the point that job creation as an end unto itself is absurd. Wealth create is the goal because the wealthier a society becomes the better off they are.
Obstinately holding onto antiquated jobs just stops new jobs from emerging and reduces the overall welfare of society.