Tomorrow all the unemployed?

[Gaston]

@ Gaston: Admittedly this store is a demonstrator, but its vocation is precisely to prowl the system before its generalization. Therefore, that it currently calls for more employees (moreover, highly qualified), it is quite possible, but once the "adjustments" are made, these people will no longer be necessary or rather will be sufficient to ensure the maintenance of a whole host of stores all over the world.

That's where I'm not sure.
For the "IT" part, that's correct, but for the physical part, the sensors (cameras, ...) we see that the multiplication of sensors multiplies the number of hours of maintenance on the spot (unlike an airplane or a car, we cannot send the store "to the garage" to carry out maintenance).

[Ahmed]

It is however possible and even probable that a very different system, based on AI be implemented which would radically simplify the stuff of current sensors ...? Anyway, the service "filler" will be able to change the HS gadgets, no need to know much about it ...

[chatelot16]

@ Chatelot: reducing staff is not absurd for a company, since it is called increasing productivity, it is even vital at its level.

what productivity? the productivity calculated with the current rules ... if the rules are absurd, the company must follow them and have the behavior imposed on it, even if it is absurd

the role of the state is to govern! Establish rules for the best business behavior

if the state wants to reduce the problem of unemployment it is necessary to move all the charges and bad tax which penalize the employment

it is not only the social charges, there is also the property tax, on the building essential to have employees ... taxes which are not calculated on the profit but on the surface ... to stop from them. paying the only solution is to completely close the site ... so every time a big company has a decline in production it has to close factories

if property taxes were proportional to the profit the company could keep staff to make the task less productive without losing money

why do we see a bunch of industrial buildings to rent? because vacant buildings are exempt from property taxes ... try to buy one of these buildings for rent? and you see that the owner does not want to rent them at a reasonable price ... they are rented only for not paying the taxes ... so they are for rent at an exaggerated rate

but I have not yet said everything ... there is a multitude of charges, taxes and false expenses that are absurdly harmful to the job ... as long as the state does not understand that to govern is to set up the good rule the decadence will continue

[sen-no-sen]

For the "IT" part, that's correct, but for the physical part, the sensors (cameras, ...) we see that the multiplication of sensors multiplies the number of hours of maintenance on the spot (unlike an airplane or a car, we cannot send the store "to the garage" to carry out maintenance).

The main argument of the cashiers' designers is based on the idea that there would be no job cuts but job transformations according to a principle. Schumpeterian of "creative destruction".
In short, jobs with low level of qualification would be replaced by jobs much more remunerative in other fields (engineering, computer etc ...).
So there would be no search for cost optimization in such stores, but simply a fight for more innovation!
This argument is obviously a pretty pill to be swallowed by the most naive.

The first generations of "self-service checkout" (I love it!) Were in fact a subtle way for consumers to do the job of a checkout attendant ... without of course being paid!
Such systems have not created any additional jobs in the field of electronics in that it was simply a marketing maneuver based on the principle of novelty or replacing arms paid by arms. unpaid.

In Amazon's approach, we typically have a qualitative leap in technological development, or indeed jobs are created especially in view of the complexity of the task at hand.
However, it should be understood that this technology emanates from a centralization process, so the R&D office which laid out such a device does it for the whole planet and the electronic components are certainly (pre) manufactured in a factory itself. automated (like Foxconn for example)
So if we count the number of jobs created on one side and the destruction on the other, the result of the balance will be without appeal ...
According to forum global economic there would be 7 million jobs destroyed in the world by 2020 because of automation against 2 million new jobs, a net loss of roughly 5 million ...

[Gaston]

The main argument of the cashiers' designers is based on the idea that there would be no job cuts but job transformations according to a principle. Schumpeterian of "creative destruction".

I do not focus on the topic of employment, but the cost to the company.
I doubt that this kind of store is in the short term more profitable than a classic store (with cashier), so I doubt their rapid generalization.
For me, this store is just an advertising showcase for Amazon.

And in terms of job destruction, the mail order is in my opinion much more effective than the simple removal of cashiers (and there, Amazon is very involved ...)

[sen-no-sen]

The main argument of the cashiers' designers is based on the idea that there would be no job cuts but job transformations according to a principle. Schumpeterian of "creative destruction".

I do not focus on the topic of employment, but the cost to the company.
I doubt that this kind of store is in the short term more profitable than a classic store (with cashier), so I doubt their rapid generalization.
For me, this store is just an advertising showcase for Amazon.

Obviously!
This was the same case with "Drives", a certain number have already closed their doors for lack of profitability, ditto with "Macron coaches", and so on.
As society evolves more and more quickly, companies are driven to constantly renew the innovation map, often at the cost of substantial financial losses.
Amazon symbolizes this "revolution 2.0", its goal is therefore to impose a new concept, profitability will follow ... or not, its financial capacity being significant, it does not risk much with such a publicity stunt.

One point remains crucial:in the long run, no monopoly is profitable *, their only purpose is to burst with loss and noise.


* Even cash-generating sectors such as the oil / gas sector are not immune: investments to sustain their cash flow in order to finance all their structures must be constantly increased, which necessarily ends with result in higher expenses than the final rendering.

[Ahmed]

It should not be forgotten that the concept of "creative destruction" of Schumpeter was born in a very different era, but from now on it no longer applies. As recalled Sen-no-sen, the results of the evolution of jobs are now clearly negative and this trend will necessarily continue in view of the overall economic situation. The language should take this reality into account and no longer continue to speak of "job seekers", but this anachronism is anything but innocent (one could speak of "excluded from employment" or "victims of economic war", for example ...), since the responsibility is reversed.

I may repeat myself, but I find these incantations (in the political discourse) fascinating and revealing to the creation of jobs, without regard for any utility (we speak of jobs indefinitely), simply the utility extrinsic to provide an income that will be spent in consumption, which increases growth ... (and we start the cycle again ...).

Sen-no-sen, you write:

One point is important: ultimately, no monopoly is profitable *, their only purpose is to burst with losses and noise.

We can generalize: capitalism is profitable only temporarily and locally, this is considered from a microeconomic point of view over quite short periods and macroeconomic over a much longer period. In the latter case, it is the success of the accumulation that makes the continuation of the process more and more uncertain.

[Ahmed]

Gaston,you write:

And in terms of job destruction, the mail order is in my opinion much more effective than the simple removal of cashiers (and there, Amazon is very involved ...)

No doubt, but the strategy implemented in the case of convenience stores is not simply to remove cashiers, I think there is the desire to find a model that would be the counterpart of virtual stores, but adapted to this context particular. That this model is still unfinished is probably true, but these are only the first steps. There may be some waste and perhaps also temporarily successful adaptations that will destroy the signs that have not been able to adapt (well, still unemployed!).

[lilian07]

Tomorrow all unemployed ... What is the reason for destroying employment?
One of the most obvious is that the machines more advantageously replace the man and that this trend will go to an end. The likely end of human work.
There are two realities in this world of work, giant companies are the ones who now master AI.
These companies will seek the latest human jobs (education, medicine, ....) and Europe wins in this area because the AI ​​today is not a super-brain contrary to what we can believe ( tomorrow it will be 2040 ... 2050 ...).
Before we went looking for geniuses in computer science or mathematics to code powerful algorithms and take the advantage over the competitor (in Europe we were good ...).
Today these geniuses can be bought by the GAFA (Google, Facebook ....) or the Chinese (Alibaba, ....) and even worse there is more genius with the AI, the game of Go was won by an AI and the best player is an AI.
Why does an AI that has no spirit of initiative gain man in particular areas "reading and Go play"?
AI is above all a huge mass of "data" and a supercomputer which learns from our daily experience through our smartphones and computers to produce a huge database and extract attitudes from it.
At this game it's the GAFA that started to revolutionize the world of work ... WhatsAPP has been sold 16 billion with 25 employees ... the price is the mass of users.
Today, we need a supercomputer that learns by its mass of users (data-learning) to take intelligent initiatives and the Chinese will probably win the battle against the GAFA because the Chinese represent the 3 / 4 users with the best calculators ...
Europe is nothing in this area ...

[sen-no-sen]

Crossroads: on 273 stores threatened, 227 will close
Closing during the summer

From Paris to Nice, the note lists the list of convenience stores (Carrefour Contact, Carrefour Marché and Carrefour City) which will have to go out of business before the end of the year.

The supermarket giant, contacted on Saturday by the regional newspaper, confirmed the information: "These are indeed 227 stores that have not found buyers and will close during the summer," he said. ad.

In Nouvelle-Aquitaine only the Carrefour Contact stores in Tulle and Ussel, both in Corrèze, were threatened with closure. They did not find a buyer.

The first French distributor has nevertheless specified that last minute offers can be examined, if they are considered serious, until June 4.
"Not all employees will be reclassified"

2100 jobs are at stake in the 273 stores threatened, and the supermarket chain has not yet specified how many employees were kept by the buyers. "The human resources department is mobilized to promote the internal reclassification of the employees concerned," said the group.

In detail, Midi Libre explains that 76 employees have already been reclassified internally, and that management will offer "local reclassification offers" to employees not included in the coming weeks.

Frédéric Roux, CGT delegate of the Carrefour group, denounced this Sunday a social breakdown. “It's a huge waste,” he regrets at the microphone of Europe 1. “From July, employees will enter a period of internal reclassification. Carrefour will offer them positions in the group. the same position, several employees will have to apply and not all will be reclassified ".

https://www.sudouest.fr/2018/05/20/carrefour-sur-273-magasins-menaces-227-vont-fermer-5072062-10407.php

A new and sad example of monopolization phenomenon.
The giant Carrefour launched an offensive on the superettes of proximities by aiming the hegemony, but to too much want to win one ends up losing ...