4 ms·

Efficient for whom? Most grocery stores I frequent have replaced several lanes of "efficient" cashiers with the much slower (for shoppers) self-checkout system

by alttag 15y ago

Efficient for whom? Most grocery stores I frequent have replaced several lanes of "efficient" cashiers with the much slower (for shoppers) self-checkout systems. Yes, the lines may be shorter, and the store needs fewer checkers (one can cover multiple self-check lanes), so the store is saving money. But I feel a loss in service quality and am not convinced my checkout time (waiting + service) has been shortened. So, yes, it's more efficient for the _store_, but not for _me_ as a customer. Maybe that's what you're saying—there are two sides to efficiency. Corporations maximize it for themselves, sometimes at the expense of customers. Every once in a while one is enlightened enough to realized that improved customer efficiency is a long-term win.

grandalf 15y ago
Everything is a tradeoff. Your grocer probably feels that customers appreciate lower prices in exchange for that setup. There may also be an upscale grocer down the street that tends to provide ample staffing at checkout lanes. The problem due to the monopoly held by the postal service, its system is not subject to competition. Competition might result in competitors trying new approaches with similar staffing (improving processes, etc.) or in different staffing levels and even better service. It's hard to know what all the clever people actually doing the work would have come up with, since their jobs will never exist when there is only one entrenched monopoly.
arohner 15y ago
> Most grocery stores I frequent have replaced several lanes of "efficient" cashiers with the much slower (for shoppers) self-checkout systems. Yes, the lines may be shorter, and the store needs fewer checkers (one can cover multiple self-check lanes), so the store is saving money. But I feel a loss in service quality and am not convinced my checkout time (waiting + service) has been shortened. Yes, I don't use them either, for the same reasons. But other people do. They've chosen to use that line. If the lines get too long, I can choose to go to another store. Having 1 cashier for each customer in the store would obviously be impractical too. But an equilibrium forms. People get short, not unreasonable wait times, and the store saves money (lowering prices for the customers). At the DMV, that equilibrium doesn't happen, because people don't have that choice. They can't choose to go to another "store".

by alttag 15y ago

grandalf 15y ago

Everything is a tradeoff. Your grocer probably feels that customers appreciate lower prices in exchange for that setup. There may also be an upscale grocer down the street that tends to provide ample staffing at checkout lanes. The problem due to the monopoly held by the postal service, its system is not subject to competition. Competition might result in competitors trying new approaches with similar staffing (improving processes, etc.) or in different staffing levels and even better service. It's hard to know what all the clever people actually doing the work would have come up with, since their jobs will never exist when there is only one entrenched monopoly.

arohner 15y ago

> Most grocery stores I frequent have replaced several lanes of "efficient" cashiers with the much slower (for shoppers) self-checkout systems. Yes, the lines may be shorter, and the store needs fewer checkers (one can cover multiple self-check lanes), so the store is saving money. But I feel a loss in service quality and am not convinced my checkout time (waiting + service) has been shortened. Yes, I don't use them either, for the same reasons. But other people do. They've chosen to use that line. If the lines get too long, I can choose to go to another store. Having 1 cashier for each customer in the store would obviously be impractical too. But an equilibrium forms. People get short, not unreasonable wait times, and the store saves money (lowering prices for the customers). At the DMV, that equilibrium doesn't happen, because people don't have that choice. They can't choose to go to another "store".