The strange thing is, if, in 1995, one were to write an article about building a computer in 1965, it would have involved a room full of gear for e.g. an IBM System/360. The rate of change has slowed.
It seems that a lot of businesses barely function. They're often stuffed with overpaid executives while the actual business wheezes along, barely managing to get its product out the door. More attention is usually paid to reducing competition, increasing one's moat, and restricting supply, so customers have little choice, as in the aerospace industry from this article.
This was table stakes not long ago. There seems to be an increase in apps/UIs blaming the network for what is clearly poor performance on the backend, as well.
As others mentioned, self-checkout has been widespread for 30 years. They had it at most stores in the 1990s. The answer is, simply, it's cheaper for companies to hire someone at a non-living wage than it is to install and maintain these systems. Perhaps if we had some policies with teeth -- if you're going to hire a person, they must be able to afford to plausibly live and work in the area. Else, your business isn't actually a functioning business and needs reconsideration.
Self checkout is now much better than it was 30 years ago. As far as the living wage requirement, that just leads to what we’re seeing here. You get replaced by machines. If sub living wage is the best available job why should the government ban that? How is closing the business better than hiring people at shitty wages they are happy to accept?
> How is closing the business better than hiring people at shitty wages they are happy to accept?
Because it brings down the market value of said person, basically ensuring they can't make a livable wage. These companies are cheating, in a way. They're paying well below market value for the labor because of asymmetrical power. Those people are working two or three jobs to make ends meet - so, their employers aren't paying what the labor actually costs. They just get the labor at a discount because employees have zero negotiating power.
It's sort of like getting a vacuum for 15 dollars because when the vacuum salesman rang my door, I held him a gunpoint.
Reducing the number of jobs available reduces wages. It does not increase them. All the people you just got fired will now take the other jobs for lower pay.
Employees have tons of negotiating power on this country. Unemployment rates are consistently close to structural minimum. There certainly are times when employers have monopsony power but there haven’t been any recently.
Of course, the AI talent war may end up being an expensive and misguided strategy, stoked by hype and investor over-exuberance.