5 ms·

A couple of months ago I was in a Walmart...I think it was on a holiday, perhaps July 4...and I was having trouble getting help for something that was in a lock

A couple of months ago I was in a Walmart...I think it was on a holiday, perhaps July 4...and I was having trouble getting help for something that was in a locked cabinet. I walked allll around the store looking for anybody to help me, and...I couldn't! So I went up to the self-checkout, where there are always at least two employees, and asked them if I could get some help. They went off for a minute and came back to tell me someone would meet me over there. Fine. When I got my item I told the employee, "you know, there's only like 5 people working here today, everybody in this store could just up and walk out with whatever they wanted. The 73 year old guy marking ppls receipts ain't gonna tackle anybody, and I wouldn't be surprised if the company tells you not to try to stop shoplifters anyway." She was not impressed by my powers of observation and ideas of economic self-interest.

simmerup 5y ago
What was she meant to say? ‘Yeah, go ahead and take it all’
- rhizome 5y ago
  "Ha ha you're probably right."
perl4ever 5y ago
I like self checkouts. But I also think there should be a law that all these huge stores must staff every checkout line that they build, every hour they are open for business. That would be a job-creation bill. Years ago, I used to work a late shift, and go to a supermarket in the middle of the night that was open 24-hours. There wouldn't be a lot of customers, but there would predictably be a few, of which a couple would be buying a month's worth of groceries. And there would always be exactly one register open, and all the self-checkouts inactive. I'm sure management didn't care if people had to wait half an hour, because they figure if you're going to go to the store in the middle of the night, you'll put up with the wait, and they don't want to pay people extra for the night shift.
- rlpb 5y ago
  > But I also think there should be a law that all these huge stores must staff every checkout line that they build, every hour they are open for business. That would be a job-creation bill. It would also mean higher prices, because the store would have to pay for the extra payroll. You can already choose to use a higher priced store that is better staffed if you want. If such stores don't exist, that's because people are voting with their wallets, and you are in the minority in preferring a higher price for that benefit. More likely, those people are actually just ordering online and paying for delivery. This is the free market economy in action. Your proposal would turn that on its head, while denying the poor the opportunity to get more for their money in return for their time.
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    This is not how the free market works. Prices are not set based on costs. Nobody buying stuff at retail has signed a contract to pay cost plus X%. Nobody with a store has to make the same margin on every product whether essential, luxury, or junk, either. >If such stores don't exist, that's because people are voting with their wallets There is no voting against what doesn't exist. >denying the poor the opportunity to get more for their money Spending more on people with lower wages doesn't cause general price increases in the long run, precisely because a great deal of the inputs aren't coming from those people. This is HN, think of all the high paid software and other engineers who indirectly enable a modern store. It's impossible to improve things only in the case where everyone is already equal.
    - rlpb 5y ago
      > Prices are not set based on costs. In a competitive market, prices follow costs. Businesses that raise price above cost lose business to businesses that do not. And obviously businesses that price below cost fail. Margins might vary per-item because of market dynamics. But ultimately this is what is going on. This is Economics 101. If you want to claim otherwise, I think you need some extraordinary evidence here. Whether you want to say that means prices are "set" on costs or not is semantics. > There is no voting against what doesn't exist. In a competitive market, what doesn't exist doesn't exist because it's not economically viable. It's not economically viable because the market doesn't want it. If you think otherwise, then maybe you should start up a business that does this - since according to you, you'll make a killing.
rascul 5y ago
> The 73 year old guy marking ppls receipts ain't gonna tackle anybody, and I wouldn't be surprised if the company tells you not to try to stop shoplifters anyway. You don't have to stop and show them your receipt.
- rhizome 5y ago
  I know, but he's still there to mark peoples's receipts.

simmerup 5y ago

What was she meant to say? ‘Yeah, go ahead and take it all’

rhizome 5y ago
"Ha ha you're probably right."

perl4ever 5y ago

I like self checkouts. But I also think there should be a law that all these huge stores must staff every checkout line that they build, every hour they are open for business. That would be a job-creation bill. Years ago, I used to work a late shift, and go to a supermarket in the middle of the night that was open 24-hours. There wouldn't be a lot of customers, but there would predictably be a few, of which a couple would be buying a month's worth of groceries. And there would always be exactly one register open, and all the self-checkouts inactive. I'm sure management didn't care if people had to wait half an hour, because they figure if you're going to go to the store in the middle of the night, you'll put up with the wait, and they don't want to pay people extra for the night shift.

rlpb 5y ago
> But I also think there should be a law that all these huge stores must staff every checkout line that they build, every hour they are open for business. That would be a job-creation bill. It would also mean higher prices, because the store would have to pay for the extra payroll. You can already choose to use a higher priced store that is better staffed if you want. If such stores don't exist, that's because people are voting with their wallets, and you are in the minority in preferring a higher price for that benefit. More likely, those people are actually just ordering online and paying for delivery. This is the free market economy in action. Your proposal would turn that on its head, while denying the poor the opportunity to get more for their money in return for their time.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  This is not how the free market works. Prices are not set based on costs. Nobody buying stuff at retail has signed a contract to pay cost plus X%. Nobody with a store has to make the same margin on every product whether essential, luxury, or junk, either. >If such stores don't exist, that's because people are voting with their wallets There is no voting against what doesn't exist. >denying the poor the opportunity to get more for their money Spending more on people with lower wages doesn't cause general price increases in the long run, precisely because a great deal of the inputs aren't coming from those people. This is HN, think of all the high paid software and other engineers who indirectly enable a modern store. It's impossible to improve things only in the case where everyone is already equal.
  - rlpb 5y ago
    > Prices are not set based on costs. In a competitive market, prices follow costs. Businesses that raise price above cost lose business to businesses that do not. And obviously businesses that price below cost fail. Margins might vary per-item because of market dynamics. But ultimately this is what is going on. This is Economics 101. If you want to claim otherwise, I think you need some extraordinary evidence here. Whether you want to say that means prices are "set" on costs or not is semantics. > There is no voting against what doesn't exist. In a competitive market, what doesn't exist doesn't exist because it's not economically viable. It's not economically viable because the market doesn't want it. If you think otherwise, then maybe you should start up a business that does this - since according to you, you'll make a killing.

rascul 5y ago

> The 73 year old guy marking ppls receipts ain't gonna tackle anybody, and I wouldn't be surprised if the company tells you not to try to stop shoplifters anyway. You don't have to stop and show them your receipt.

rhizome 5y ago
I know, but he's still there to mark peoples's receipts.