Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Self Serve: Who does it really serve?
I've been meaning to discuss this topic for a long time but I didn't want to leave a flippant remark about it when in fact it is a deep discussion to be had. Have you noticed that more and more things are becoming self serve? I think it was in 2003 that I encountered my first self serve checkout lane in a supermarket. It was puzzling. My first response was that robots were taking our jobs. Then, after trying it out and taking an inordinate amount of time checking the items (the computer has sensors to make sure you are actually bagging items -these sensors cause many delays as the computer keeps telling you to put the items in the bag, even if you just want to carry and go) I realized, it's not computers taking jobs, we are taking the jobs. By willingly doing work for free that used to be paid work, we are giving the supermarket permission to externalize the labor onto us.
I think many of us assume that self-help means reduced cost for us so we automatically take part. There is no tangible reason to believe that the prices go down when we participate more. In fact, since most companies make decisions solely for the sake of greater profit, a large chain supermarket wouldn't invest the money into new machines just to pass the savings to the customer. More importantly, even if we are saving, how much are we saving at the expense of some one's job? A really lovely and concise analysis in Obamanomics by John R. Talbot regarding the increase in a fast food hamburger cost relative to raising the minimum wage to $10 applies. By increasing the minimum wage, even if fast food joints pass the cost onto the consumer, we pay $0.10 more for our burger. If this is true, the amount we save for the inverse situation as in the supermarket, if the savings is actually passed onto us, is pennies to the dollar and fewer jobs for all of us.
In the case of checkout lines, much like Fastrak or whatever automated toll system you use, we are willing to take on this added function in our lives for the sake of time conservation. This is the same reason why I tried out the self-serve lane in the supermarket. All the other lanes were so long and I was always going going going (not anymore!) just to save a few minutes here and a few minutes there, so I can do 4 errands during my lunch hour so that I don't have to do these errands after work before other businesses close, so that I can make it to pick up my daughter from daycare on time. In effect, the initial time investment learning the device made me as late. Similarly, you have to go online to order a Fastrak device. Eventually, after a short spell, going on those self-serve lanes saves you time b/c you have already made the time investment and now can breeze through. But what happens next is that everyone else gets the same bright idea so the self-serve lane is no longer any faster than the other lanes. This is how they phase everyone into the system. Slowly, they increase the number of self-serve lanes and decrease the number of service lanes, indoctrinating more and more people into the system. But once we are all indoctrinated, there won't be a service lane (maybe one for those stubborn old geezers who remember in their day they used to get service with a smile) and we are all going the same speed, waiting on the same lines as we used to, only the jobs are gone.
Don't get me wrong, I love my Fastrak and in that case, there is no continuous added labor for me and it does go faster since there is no stopping and getting change. But then it really is a case of robots taking the jobs.
Service is a very touchy topic for lots of reasons. We are increasingly a nation of predominantly service oriented jobs. What else is left when manufacturing is gone? Though most of us are service providers for a living, we still have a taint of class distinctions when we think of being servers or being served. I left my service industry (waitressing) job for an office job b/c there is a sense that service industry people are disrespected by others. Those others also most likely do service jobs but for some reason serving food as apposed to pushing papers seems more demeaning. For a while, I regretted leaving the service industry because the pay was always pretty great, that is if you are a trained waitperson working in a descent establishment. Ultimately, I didn't want to be schlepping trays when I am 50.
So for those of us who eat at places where we bus our own tables and pick up our trays we feel like we are taking part in a non-classist system. We don't get served, we serve ourselves. There isn't someone being demeaned by our dirty plates and bad attitudes. And often the prices are reasonable where there is no server. But is it too much to ask to have reasonably priced food at an establishment that has a server? That's yet another job we are eliminiating in our quest to feel socially responsible. And, the cashier has a tip jar so we end up tipping anyway! Would it be so terrible to charge an additional $0.50 for each plate so that someone who brings you your food while you take a load off can get paid a decent hourly wage plus tips too? When I worked in service, I worked mostly in NYC back when we worked for tips only. The food I served was two to four times the cost of what is served at these self-serve places. But given California requires wait persons to receive at least minimum wage too, a person can make a living wage serving inexpensive food and we can afford to pay a little more so that we all have more jobs.
So the point I am making, if it isn't obvious, don't serve yourself. It might make you feel more egalitarian but you're just taking jobs away from yourself and others. If you're thinking, well, I have a specialized degree and therefore one lost service industry job doesn't effect me, think again buddy. There are lots of smart people who serve food b/c the money is good and fast. If hard pressed to find a job, those same people can be competing for the same specialized degree and eventually, your job.
I think many of us assume that self-help means reduced cost for us so we automatically take part. There is no tangible reason to believe that the prices go down when we participate more. In fact, since most companies make decisions solely for the sake of greater profit, a large chain supermarket wouldn't invest the money into new machines just to pass the savings to the customer. More importantly, even if we are saving, how much are we saving at the expense of some one's job? A really lovely and concise analysis in Obamanomics by John R. Talbot regarding the increase in a fast food hamburger cost relative to raising the minimum wage to $10 applies. By increasing the minimum wage, even if fast food joints pass the cost onto the consumer, we pay $0.10 more for our burger. If this is true, the amount we save for the inverse situation as in the supermarket, if the savings is actually passed onto us, is pennies to the dollar and fewer jobs for all of us.
In the case of checkout lines, much like Fastrak or whatever automated toll system you use, we are willing to take on this added function in our lives for the sake of time conservation. This is the same reason why I tried out the self-serve lane in the supermarket. All the other lanes were so long and I was always going going going (not anymore!) just to save a few minutes here and a few minutes there, so I can do 4 errands during my lunch hour so that I don't have to do these errands after work before other businesses close, so that I can make it to pick up my daughter from daycare on time. In effect, the initial time investment learning the device made me as late. Similarly, you have to go online to order a Fastrak device. Eventually, after a short spell, going on those self-serve lanes saves you time b/c you have already made the time investment and now can breeze through. But what happens next is that everyone else gets the same bright idea so the self-serve lane is no longer any faster than the other lanes. This is how they phase everyone into the system. Slowly, they increase the number of self-serve lanes and decrease the number of service lanes, indoctrinating more and more people into the system. But once we are all indoctrinated, there won't be a service lane (maybe one for those stubborn old geezers who remember in their day they used to get service with a smile) and we are all going the same speed, waiting on the same lines as we used to, only the jobs are gone.
Don't get me wrong, I love my Fastrak and in that case, there is no continuous added labor for me and it does go faster since there is no stopping and getting change. But then it really is a case of robots taking the jobs.
Service is a very touchy topic for lots of reasons. We are increasingly a nation of predominantly service oriented jobs. What else is left when manufacturing is gone? Though most of us are service providers for a living, we still have a taint of class distinctions when we think of being servers or being served. I left my service industry (waitressing) job for an office job b/c there is a sense that service industry people are disrespected by others. Those others also most likely do service jobs but for some reason serving food as apposed to pushing papers seems more demeaning. For a while, I regretted leaving the service industry because the pay was always pretty great, that is if you are a trained waitperson working in a descent establishment. Ultimately, I didn't want to be schlepping trays when I am 50.
So for those of us who eat at places where we bus our own tables and pick up our trays we feel like we are taking part in a non-classist system. We don't get served, we serve ourselves. There isn't someone being demeaned by our dirty plates and bad attitudes. And often the prices are reasonable where there is no server. But is it too much to ask to have reasonably priced food at an establishment that has a server? That's yet another job we are eliminiating in our quest to feel socially responsible. And, the cashier has a tip jar so we end up tipping anyway! Would it be so terrible to charge an additional $0.50 for each plate so that someone who brings you your food while you take a load off can get paid a decent hourly wage plus tips too? When I worked in service, I worked mostly in NYC back when we worked for tips only. The food I served was two to four times the cost of what is served at these self-serve places. But given California requires wait persons to receive at least minimum wage too, a person can make a living wage serving inexpensive food and we can afford to pay a little more so that we all have more jobs.
So the point I am making, if it isn't obvious, don't serve yourself. It might make you feel more egalitarian but you're just taking jobs away from yourself and others. If you're thinking, well, I have a specialized degree and therefore one lost service industry job doesn't effect me, think again buddy. There are lots of smart people who serve food b/c the money is good and fast. If hard pressed to find a job, those same people can be competing for the same specialized degree and eventually, your job.
Monday, March 9, 2009
One of the things that keeps me from writing is abhorance of redundancy. I read something somewhere and I don't see why I should write about it when someone else can read the same thing I read and think about it on their own. Well, by this standard, my blog is becoming more and more obsolete. At the onset, I was writing about something that wasn't being talked about much. The concept of working less, the idea that refocusing our minds away from incessant production of wealth for the nation would assist us in living more fulfilling lives full of art and invention; that ultimately, this would result in more expendable income for wage earners who have seen no growth in their income while America boasted about our amazing growth that is mostly distributed to share holders and CEOs.
Now, thanks to the recession, article after article talks about how the shrinking economy will refocus our youth's attention to civic duty. That the bottoming out of the art market will see an increase in innovation since artists aren't really making art for the sake of the market. Along with the obsessive reporting of how we need to and are becoming a greener nation and a greener world, I feel as if the recession has taken away my platform, yet another job lost.
Well, I'm not crying about it. I think it's amazing that mainstream news is filled with this stuff. Everyone is trying to cheer everyone else up and soberly discussing what it means to live with less. It's incredibly refreshing.
In fact, I am beginning to feel like there is a lot more for me to write about as other bloggers and journalists ruminate over the same things, perhaps from a different direction than where I was coming from. In the end, we are trying to get to the same place, a place where our economy is secure, and by extension our individual lives are secure.
Also, since the collapse of the finance industry, the language that is being used is becoming less and less ambiguous. As people continue to clarify what is going on and how we got here, there is more clarity in the way money is discussed. Hopefully this will lead to a more engaged populace who can tell the difference between an article that is boasting about corporate gains and one that actually is regarding the positive effect that gain has on the wage earner.
I like Paul Krugman's blog a lot! I like how he now posts 3 to 4 times a day, sometimes one liners. It's adorable. But because he writes with an assumption that people understand economics already, reading his work needs to be supplemented with other stuff, for instance, listening to This American Life's episodes regarding finance and banking.
Now, thanks to the recession, article after article talks about how the shrinking economy will refocus our youth's attention to civic duty. That the bottoming out of the art market will see an increase in innovation since artists aren't really making art for the sake of the market. Along with the obsessive reporting of how we need to and are becoming a greener nation and a greener world, I feel as if the recession has taken away my platform, yet another job lost.
Well, I'm not crying about it. I think it's amazing that mainstream news is filled with this stuff. Everyone is trying to cheer everyone else up and soberly discussing what it means to live with less. It's incredibly refreshing.
In fact, I am beginning to feel like there is a lot more for me to write about as other bloggers and journalists ruminate over the same things, perhaps from a different direction than where I was coming from. In the end, we are trying to get to the same place, a place where our economy is secure, and by extension our individual lives are secure.
Also, since the collapse of the finance industry, the language that is being used is becoming less and less ambiguous. As people continue to clarify what is going on and how we got here, there is more clarity in the way money is discussed. Hopefully this will lead to a more engaged populace who can tell the difference between an article that is boasting about corporate gains and one that actually is regarding the positive effect that gain has on the wage earner.
I like Paul Krugman's blog a lot! I like how he now posts 3 to 4 times a day, sometimes one liners. It's adorable. But because he writes with an assumption that people understand economics already, reading his work needs to be supplemented with other stuff, for instance, listening to This American Life's episodes regarding finance and banking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)