3 ms·

Self-checkout is a system where you as a honest person are paying so that other people can steal goods. Owners of supermarket have calculated that the increase

Self-checkout is a system where you as a honest person are paying so that other people can steal goods. Owners of supermarket have calculated that the increase in theft is off-set by the savings of not paying wages to cashiers. But those losses have to be paid by somebody, and that somebody is of course the customers who don't steal goods. I'd rather not be the person who has to pay extra so that another person can steal. That's an undignified existence, and hence why I also boycott self-checkouts. I don't care what "rationalists" say. Also, a store with a lot of self-checkout lanes and few cashiers will attract thieves and repel honest customers who want good service. The result is a worse store in every way, until it folds and closes - as owners have probably planned for a few years.

gruez 1y ago
>Owners of supermarket have calculated that the increase in theft is off-set by the savings of not paying wages to cashiers. But those losses have to be paid by somebody, and that somebody is of course the customers who don't steal goods. >I'd rather not be the person who has to pay extra so that another person can steal. This doesn't make any sense. If the whole premise is that "the increase in theft is off-set by the savings of not paying wages to cashiers", then doesn't that imply that not having self-checkout is going to be more expensive than you overall? After all, regardless of whether the cost is losses from theft or cashier salaries, the customer has to pay for it at the end. Are you arguing that you want to pay more, because the extra money will go to a cashier than a thief?
- carlosjobim 1y ago
  > then doesn't that imply that not having self-checkout is going to be more expensive than you overall Yes, certainly it does! I'd rather that my money goes to pay salaries for cashiers, than pay for the goods that thieves steal. The first option is sustainable, honest, and good for the community. The second option breeds crime and decay. I'm not an atomized production-consumption unit, I'm a human being, and so are the cashiers. Plus that service is friendlier and faster with cashiers. We're not supposed to be psychotically seek efficiency and cost-savings in every nook and cranny like some of these store owners.

gruez 1y ago

>Owners of supermarket have calculated that the increase in theft is off-set by the savings of not paying wages to cashiers. But those losses have to be paid by somebody, and that somebody is of course the customers who don't steal goods. >I'd rather not be the person who has to pay extra so that another person can steal. This doesn't make any sense. If the whole premise is that "the increase in theft is off-set by the savings of not paying wages to cashiers", then doesn't that imply that not having self-checkout is going to be more expensive than you overall? After all, regardless of whether the cost is losses from theft or cashier salaries, the customer has to pay for it at the end. Are you arguing that you want to pay more, because the extra money will go to a cashier than a thief?

carlosjobim 1y ago
> then doesn't that imply that not having self-checkout is going to be more expensive than you overall Yes, certainly it does! I'd rather that my money goes to pay salaries for cashiers, than pay for the goods that thieves steal. The first option is sustainable, honest, and good for the community. The second option breeds crime and decay. I'm not an atomized production-consumption unit, I'm a human being, and so are the cashiers. Plus that service is friendlier and faster with cashiers. We're not supposed to be psychotically seek efficiency and cost-savings in every nook and cranny like some of these store owners.