Should readers seek to write about a sure subject, then they need look no further than technology’s unforeseen consequences, for it is not difficult to show how they might come to overshadow its many benefits.
One place we might look to is the machine-based division that can be found in retail, supermarkets, grocery stores and other related businesses that have traditionally looked to humans to keep their commercial aspirations running as efficient as possible, for it must be borne in mind that technology has reshaped and disrupted the food retail industry once before in the form of checkout scanners and bar codes.
But more changes are steadily underway.
In a substitute for hiring more employees, large chains and local grocers aim to stay competitive and cost effective by automating their staff, a move that, we are told, will benefit all those involved. And not only stores, but everything that can be automated. But as automation and artificial intelligence spreads across the world and pervades entire economies, cashiers, as well as many others, have been left to contemplate their place in today’s highly automated society. How a cashier might feel about these cultural alterations is a question not usually contemplated in culture.
The cashier-free concept is gaining traction due to rising consumer acceptance and the technology’s ability to save shoppers time. As put by figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Advances in technology, such as self-service checkout stands in retail stores and increasing online sales, will continue to limit the need for cashiers."
Of course, the industry maintains that there will still be many jobs available to humans, though it is worth mentioning that airlines and banks made similar claims about job losses when they introduced check-in kiosks and ATMs, which consequently lead to declining employment and wages in both industries. According to a report by financial services firm Cornerstone Capital, 7.5 million retail jobs are at “high risk of computerization,” further noting that 3.5 million cashiers are likely to be targeted.
In 2017, Amazon purchased grocer Whole Foods, further accelerating fears of automation by the Seattle, Washington-based Amazon, though an Amazon spokesman denied that automation is in the works. “We will be joining a company that’s visionary," stated John Mackey, the grocer’s chief executive officer. "I think we’re gonna get a lot of those innovations in our stores. I think we’re gonna see a lot of technology. I think you’re gonna see Whole Foods Market evolve in leaps and bounds."
In February 2020, Amazon opened its “Amazon Go Grocery,” a store without cashiers or checkout lines, augmenting what the technology news website GeekWire called “surveillance-style shopping.” Shoppers enter by scanning a smartphone app, who then simply grab what they need, leave and later get billed on their Amazon account. Their tab is tracked by banks of cameras and sensors alongside artificial intelligence overhead, which track everything a customer takes. According to the article, the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union called Amazon a “clear and present danger to millions of good jobs” in a statement. In 2021, it was reported that Amazon would rebrand its “Go Grocery” stores to “Amazon Fresh,” in addition to closing its Redmond, Washington location.
Likewise, a 7-Eleven store in Irving, Texas, uses predictive technology with algorithms to separate individual customers and their purchases from others in the store, only to compile a shopper’s receipt after they have left the store. Furthermore, Mastercard has joined with retail tech company Accel Robotics to develop test concept stores, in which customers simply take what they need and walk out.
In China, certain retailers allow customers to use WeChat, a messaging app, to scan the items they want, show their phones and purchases to a retail associate, and simply walk away. It is thought that if Amazon, or any retailer for that matter, can create truly smart automated stores with no check outs and cut the number of their employees in half, they can effectively put an end to the traditional supermarket business model.
Aside from fully automated storefronts, internal components within the standard grocer business blueprint have long been automated. This assertion can be easily confirmed by a simple glance at the many automated checkout kiosks in stores and supermarkets across the nation, which has the wondrous benefit of transferring a notable portion of work from the store employee to the customer. One could reasonably expect the average American to also have little to say about this striking transfer of responsibility, but he took no notice of what was happening.
Nonetheless, there is also something to say about our nation’s self-checkout aisles in retail stores and supermarkets.
Amid a never-ending quest to increase efficiency through computer technology, it seems that it has also done quick work of contributing to both an influx of system errors and rising theft. And though self-checkout lanes can help a business model’s bottom line, it is also true that humans remain on standby to assist in error-prone transactions, which remain prevalent.
According to a 2021 report from the management platform Raydiant, over 67% of U.S. consumers have experienced a failure during self-service checkout.
“’Unexpected item in the bagging area.’ ‘Please place item in the bag.’ ‘Please wait for assistance.’ If you’ve encountered these irritating alerts at the self-checkout machine, you’re not alone,” noted one article from CNN Business. “According to a survey last year of 1,000 shoppers, 67% said they’d experienced a failure at the self-checkout lane. Errors at the kiosks are so common that they have even spawned dozens of memes and TikTok videos.”
The article goes on to say, “The machines are expensive to install, often break down and can lead to customers purchasing fewer items. Stores also incur higher losses and more shoplifting at self-checkouts than at traditional checkout lanes with human cashiers. Despite the headaches, self-checkout is growing… This raises the question: why is this often problematic, unloved technology taking over retail?”
As observed by the news website, “The move to self-checkout has created unintended consequences for stores as well. Retailers found that self-checkout stations were not autonomous and required regular maintenance and supervision… Although self-checkout counters eliminated some of the tasks of traditional cashiers, they still needed to be staffed and created a need for higher wage IT jobs… In the biggest headache for store owners, self-checkout leads to more losses due to error or theft than traditional cashiers.”
CNN adds, “Customers make honest errors as well as intentionally steal at self-checkout machines. Some products have multiple barcodes or barcodes that don’t scan properly. Produce, including fruit and meat, typically needs to be weighed and manually entered into the system using a code. Customers may type in the wrong code by accident. Other times shoppers won’t hear the ‘beep’ confirming an item has been scanned properly… Other customers take advantage of the lax oversight at self checkout aisles and have developed techniques for stealing. Common tactics include not scanning an item, swapping a cheaper item (bananas) for a more expensive one (steak), scanning counterfeit barcodes attached to their wrists or properly scanning everything and then walking out without paying. Stores have tried to limit losses by tightening self-checkout security features, such as adding weight sensors. But additional anti-theft measures also lead to more frustrating ‘unexpected item in the bagging area’ errors, requiring store employees to intervene.”
The point is that it can be useful to survey technology’s unforeseen consequences before they become integrated into culture, that it can be sensible to select human service over error-prone technology, that technology’s true conclusions are never settled, that, perhaps, something other than maximum efficiency through the computer can be worthy of being a culture’s chief aim.
Indeed, for it is worth recalling, in automation technology and elsewhere, the drawbacks of the computer. I do not mean to suggest here that the computer is an unnecessary technology, or that it should restrict its usage in society. I mean only that it is well to take into account both technology’s advantages and its handicaps.
I should like to make my final point through the observations of Neil Postman, in his book Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. “There can be no disputing that the computer has increased the power of large-scale organizations like the armed forces, or airline companies or banks or tax-collecting agencies. And it is equally clear that the computer is now indispensable to high-level researchers in physics and other natural sciences. But to what extent has computer technology been an advantage to the masses of people? To steelworkers, vegetable-store owners, teachers, garage mechanics, musicians, bricklayers, dentists, and most of the rest into whose lives the computer now intrudes? Their private matters have been made more accessible to powerful institutions. They are more easily tracked and controlled, are subjected to more examinations; are increasingly mystified by the decisions made about them; are often reduced to mere numerical objects. They are inundated by junk mail. They are easy targets for advertising agencies and political organizations. The schools teach their children to operate computerized systems instead of teaching things that are more valuable to children.”
The author continues: “…[they tell people] that with personal computers the average person can balance a checkbook more neatly, keep better track of recipes, and make more logical shopping lists. They also tell them that their lives will be conducted more efficiently. But discreetly they neglect to say from whose point of view the efficiency is warranted or what might be its costs.” He adds that, should users grow skeptical, then the technology’s promoters will simply “dazzle them with the wondrous feats of computers, almost all of which have only marginal relevance to the quality of [their] lives but which are nonetheless impressive…The result is that certain questions do not arise. For example, to whom will the technology give greater power and freedom? And whose power and freedom will be reduced by it?”1
I feel I must emphasize again that I am not saying that our culture should not utilize computers, automation techniques, or self-checkout technology.
But, should a computer error come to pass, it may be wise to be prepared to standby for assistance.
Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, Neil Postman, P. 10-11