3 ms·

I avoid self checkout if possible. If I’m paying for the groceries, why should I also do the work of scanning and bagging everything? I’ll let someone else hand

I avoid self checkout if possible. If I’m paying for the groceries, why should I also do the work of scanning and bagging everything? I’ll let someone else handle it for me. And don’t try to pass it off as a “convenience” for the customer. It was never about that. I would call it “automating” a job away but that would be too generous. No, it’s just asking the customer to do a job for free and selling it as more convenient. No thanks.

Gigachad 3y ago
Honestly this feels a lot like pumping your own petrol, having someone operate the elevator for you, or going in to a physical bank. Eventually no one will care and it frees up people to do more useful jobs.
- justsomehnguy 3y ago
  I'm not a fan of the corp using self-checkout to increase their profits through cutting the headcount, but I always prefer shop workers to do the actual inventory and other floor tasks than sitting at the cash register.
- watwut 3y ago
  It is not freeing people to do more useful jobs. It is just making them unemployed. I like self checking, sure, but the employment result of it is not better jobs.
  - chris-orgmenta 3y ago
    > It is not freeing people to do more useful jobs. It is just making them unemployed. Only if the creation of jobs is slower than the displacement... Which I agree it is, with this tech (and our slow response in gov, universities etc.). But sometimes (sounds callous but just pondering this small part of the equation), maybe jobs need to dry up in order to compel workers to move on? And this tech will open up other opportunities. Else we are just all herders/farmers/hunter-gatherers indefinitely. Regardless, it's quicker for me to scan my goods than for someone else to do it (and with half the people, since I've freed someone up). Same for most other people around me, from what I see (1/4 or 1/5 seem to need help or prefer talking to the cashier). It's a net win for society in the long run - And I think that employment changes are very liquid in this industry, so I am not as concerned as if it were a coal miner for example. (My concern is more that supermarket workers probably correlate strongly with hand-to-mouth living, and governments should ensure there are appropriate retraining/growth paths. Which they don't, at least to my satisfaction. Which loops us back to us both pretty much being in agreement, I would guess) I don't want us to handicap ourselves (tying our bionic arm behind our backs to artificially reduce productivity, in the name of keeping jobs)
    - watwut 3y ago
      I like self checkouts too. I am not arguing against them. It is just that these jobs going away is not helping former employees nor freeing them up. Economy is always going through changes, I am not arguing to stop progress. > maybe jobs need to dry up in order to compel workers to move on Nah. This is just lying to ourselves to feel better. Workers do not need to be compelled and it does not help them at all. The changes may be helping overall economy in the long run or just be irrelevant overall, but individuals on the receiving end are just not helped.
      - chris-orgmenta 3y ago
        > Nah. This is just lying to ourselves to feel better. Workers do not need to be compelled and it does not help them at all. "maybe jobs need to dry up in order to compel workers to move on" was meant to indicate a benefit to society, not the individual. I.e., society demands that they move on, for better or worse. I don't think anyone's pretending that they're doing the individual a favour, in the short run at least.
  - civilized 3y ago
    Your theory predicts ever-climbing unemployment rates, but the prime-age labor force participation rate is near its all time high [1] and unemployment is at an all-time low [2]. [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060 [2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE
    - watwut 3y ago
      It does not. I never ever said or implied that self checkouts are the only process going in economy that would influence how many people are unemployed. "My theory" would predict "ever-climbing unemployment rates" only if: - self checkout was only thing going on in the economy, - cashiers represented overwhelming majority of employees. Otherwise you are making overly large prediction from a single small data point. ------------- Let me say opposite theory: if self checkout would be "freeing people for more useful jobs", cashiers salaries would be raising prior self checkouts. As employers would compete for people, they would pay cashiers as much as those "more useful jobs". That did not went on. These were and are minimum salary jobs.
g-b-r 3y ago
For many others instead it's convenient, so I hope they will keep being one of the possibilities
crazygringo 3y ago
For me it's because there's zero line rather than a five minute wait or worse. I'll do the work so I can save the time. It's a godsend that way.

Gigachad 3y ago

Honestly this feels a lot like pumping your own petrol, having someone operate the elevator for you, or going in to a physical bank. Eventually no one will care and it frees up people to do more useful jobs.

justsomehnguy 3y ago
I'm not a fan of the corp using self-checkout to increase their profits through cutting the headcount, but I always prefer shop workers to do the actual inventory and other floor tasks than sitting at the cash register.
watwut 3y ago
It is not freeing people to do more useful jobs. It is just making them unemployed. I like self checking, sure, but the employment result of it is not better jobs.
- chris-orgmenta 3y ago
  > It is not freeing people to do more useful jobs. It is just making them unemployed. Only if the creation of jobs is slower than the displacement... Which I agree it is, with this tech (and our slow response in gov, universities etc.). But sometimes (sounds callous but just pondering this small part of the equation), maybe jobs need to dry up in order to compel workers to move on? And this tech will open up other opportunities. Else we are just all herders/farmers/hunter-gatherers indefinitely. Regardless, it's quicker for me to scan my goods than for someone else to do it (and with half the people, since I've freed someone up). Same for most other people around me, from what I see (1/4 or 1/5 seem to need help or prefer talking to the cashier). It's a net win for society in the long run - And I think that employment changes are very liquid in this industry, so I am not as concerned as if it were a coal miner for example. (My concern is more that supermarket workers probably correlate strongly with hand-to-mouth living, and governments should ensure there are appropriate retraining/growth paths. Which they don't, at least to my satisfaction. Which loops us back to us both pretty much being in agreement, I would guess) I don't want us to handicap ourselves (tying our bionic arm behind our backs to artificially reduce productivity, in the name of keeping jobs)
  - watwut 3y ago
    I like self checkouts too. I am not arguing against them. It is just that these jobs going away is not helping former employees nor freeing them up. Economy is always going through changes, I am not arguing to stop progress. > maybe jobs need to dry up in order to compel workers to move on Nah. This is just lying to ourselves to feel better. Workers do not need to be compelled and it does not help them at all. The changes may be helping overall economy in the long run or just be irrelevant overall, but individuals on the receiving end are just not helped.
    - chris-orgmenta 3y ago
      > Nah. This is just lying to ourselves to feel better. Workers do not need to be compelled and it does not help them at all. "maybe jobs need to dry up in order to compel workers to move on" was meant to indicate a benefit to society, not the individual. I.e., society demands that they move on, for better or worse. I don't think anyone's pretending that they're doing the individual a favour, in the short run at least.
- civilized 3y ago
  Your theory predicts ever-climbing unemployment rates, but the prime-age labor force participation rate is near its all time high [1] and unemployment is at an all-time low [2]. [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060 [2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE
  - watwut 3y ago
    It does not. I never ever said or implied that self checkouts are the only process going in economy that would influence how many people are unemployed. "My theory" would predict "ever-climbing unemployment rates" only if: - self checkout was only thing going on in the economy, - cashiers represented overwhelming majority of employees. Otherwise you are making overly large prediction from a single small data point. ------------- Let me say opposite theory: if self checkout would be "freeing people for more useful jobs", cashiers salaries would be raising prior self checkouts. As employers would compete for people, they would pay cashiers as much as those "more useful jobs". That did not went on. These were and are minimum salary jobs.

g-b-r 3y ago

For many others instead it's convenient, so I hope they will keep being one of the possibilities

crazygringo 3y ago

For me it's because there's zero line rather than a five minute wait or worse. I'll do the work so I can save the time. It's a godsend that way.