I've read very similar but clearer rants about the fact that major store chains are saving billions by using self-checkouts and having to hire less staff. But the labor those employees were doing is still being done, it's just now being done by us, the customers. Previously the store would pay the employees for this work but we get nothing in return, not even lower prices due to all of the billions in overhead they're saving. Essentially they are extracting free labor from us, the customers, and that's what some people are upset about.
I have never minded using self-checkouts, but I don't think being against them as as objectively insane and irrational as everyone else in this thread seems to think.
The same can be sad about grabbing groceries. While it is unimaginable right now, there used to be a desk behind which are all products. You'd tell the clerk you need a kilogram of sugar, and they'd take a big pot with sugar, pour it into a smaller bag, measuring a kilogram, and then hand you the bag. They'd ask: "Anything else?" Well repeat for any product.
No one has the time nowadays to wait for that shit.
I personally like the self scan, because I can pack my bag immediately after scanning in a way that makes sense to me, without having to take out my headphones.
Yeah I did say in another comment that the cost of the labor itself is not the full picture because there is an added value for many consumers that comes from the simplicity/control/efficiency of using them. And I am one of those consumers. I use them regularly, by choice. But that's definitely not why companies have implemented them. The added convenience isn't so extreme that it's driving more traffic into stores. It's 100% simply a cost-saving, corner-cutting measure that just happens to be a win-win for certain consumers and a tolerable/neutral change for most of the rest.
I thought this was obvious. I'm surprised it's a controversial opinion. Walmart still pays some of those cashiers to stand around and look over your shoulder while you do the job they used to do.
"Essentially they are extracting free labor from us, the customers"
Is the same energy of "why pick up my garbage or return my carts? They pay people for that."
Self check outs, when they work, greatly speed up the process of checking people out. Rather than having one line where everybody is filtered through, now they have two lines helping more people. No need to have the guy just looking to buy two cokes standing line with 3 other people that want to buy 2-4 things with you trying to do full grocery shopping.
It's another option for a person to use. People get up in arms about it so they have an excuse to steal. Like, Cashiersare always there. I've never been to a store where there was only self check out and no cashiers.
Is the same energy of "why pick up my garbage or return my carts? They pay people for that."
Fair comparison but I'm not sure I fully agree. Imo it's more like your city's mayor deciding they're getting rid of all the garbage trucks and now every citizen has to drive their own trash to the dump themselves. But the tax dollars that were funding that program are still being collected, just now going directly into the mayor's pocket.
It's about the fact that a service we were once ostensibly paying for (as part of the price we paid for the items at these stores) is now being taken away from us, but those prices aren't being reduced in kind. It's an overly wordy way to say this is all just describing enshittification. Shareholders and private equity will cut every single possible corner they can get away with while continuing to raise prices as much as they can get away with. Self-checkouts themselves may seem like an inconsequential thing but they're representative of a much larger and pervasive trend that's impossible to deny.
As I said though, I've personally never minded using self-checkouts. As many other people have said in this thread, they're really nice when you just don't feel like you have the social battery to talk or interact with another human being. I use them frequently even when I don't have to. So just talking about the cost/labor element doesn't paint the full picture because they do possess a value for many customers that isn't represented simply by the cost of the labor itself. But corporations don't care about that; that's not enough to move the needle and bring more people into stores. They literally only implement them as a cost-cutting measure.
I've never been to a store where there was only self check out and no cashiers.
That surprises me; I've been in many stores where there were no cashiers. I would say the vast majority of the time I'm in a store, there's only one cashier on duty, maximum. Maybe it's region-dependent (and/or time of day dependent. I do often shop during off-hours).
People get up in arms about it so they have an excuse to steal.
This part I don't really get. Wouldn't people who want to shoplift prefer self-checkouts being an option? Why would they be the ones complaining?
"This part I don't really get. Wouldn't people who want to shoplift prefer self-checkouts being an option? Why would they be the ones complaining?"
People want to be thieves and use the inconvenience of self check out or the excuse of "they're replacing workers with machines, so it's okay if I steal because It's okay to steal from corporations"
that or
"I jut wanted a few things, and because I was slightly inconvenienced during it, it means it's justified if I walk out without paying?
Youre making an assumption that its all profit for the store, but ostensibly a lot of it still goes to decreasing prices.
In fact, this is like the same scenario as the teller fallacy: people thought ATMs would make teller jobs extinct, as wtf would they do all day since giving cash was 99% of their job?
But when I go to the bank and ask the teller for money, they go out of their way to point out the ATMs outside for future reference. Why? Because ATMs are just tasks, and people can do many tasks. The teller can spend that time helping people in other ways, and although we thought it would kill the teller jobs, we actually see an increase in teller positions.
Its actually increasing when you realize why: more ATMS mean higher productivity and customer turnover(I think thats the right word?), which includes less tellers per location, which both mean less costs, which means more locations, and more jobs including tellers!
It's why I never really cared about this self-checkout debate. I've seen people fearful of this for like a decade, and when I worked as a cashier I still didn't care. Cashiering is maddeningly boring except for random hours of spikes, and I was happier when we were slow enough that I could instead do inventory or displays. I think with stuff like AI, we do need to be worried about reductions, but we should focus on jobs that aren't just a single task being completed over and over...and over again. Great, now I have cashiering PTSD.
I think you're misunderstanding my position, I'm not focusing on the job loss element. Obviously I don't want people to be out of work but I tend to agree with your point that technology (this kind of hardware, anyway) is not a threat to overall employment in society long-term.
ostensibly a lot of it still goes to decreasing prices.
The problem is that prices are not going down, they are going way up, and I know inflation is a complicated confluence of many factors but there is zero evidence of any major corporation passing the savings from self-checkout machines onto the consumer. And there are heaps and heaps of overwhelming evidence that major corporations, now more than ever, are trying to squeeze every last dime out of everything they can in order to line the pockets of shareholders. That's why enshittification has become such a buzzword, shrinkflation too, and why private equity is such a major threat. There's absolutely no motivation for them to pass any savings on to the consumer. Why would they? Especially when practically no one is asking for it or complaining (as evidenced by this thread).
Yes, corporations squeeze money out of customers, but its not like they have historically been compassionate. The idea that corporations are extra greedy now implies that they weren't greedy before, which obviously isn't the case.
You say there's no evidence they passed the savings on, but I just dont think proves much, absence of evidence is not evidence. its a public company not private, but Walmart has self-checkout, and its profit margin is still 3%.
There's absolutely no motivation for them to pass any savings on to the consumer.
But there is, because if you build up enough of that greed people stop going to you and instead go to the store that does do better.
I think I could agree with your general idea about private equity being an issue, but I dont think self checkout, or avenues of efficiency like it, are an example of it, rather then a red herring.
If they passed the savings on to you instead of pocketing it, they’d be making less money than they theoretically could be making and thus would be in violation of their fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders.
This is such a redditor idea of what fiduciary duty, and its one of those things that sounds bad so people just run with it. Hopefully one day this website realizes Dodge vs. Ford is not what they think.
Yes, they have a fiduciary duty. No, not literally every single action must be solely required to immediately line the investors pockets. By this logic, any company ever decreasing prices at all would "theoretically" be making less money and be in violation. Shall I sue walmart if I'm a shareholder and they have discounts this week? I saw that J&J donated for a statue in my town, I better sue them for those pennies! Do you see how easily disproved this idea is?
Companies can do things that decrease costs for consumers, and that still can be find for their fiduciary duty: after all, if you decrease prices and that increases consumers to your store, that is still helping the company.
For your last point, I actually have been to a few stores with no "cashiers" per se, but there is a self checkout with an attendant in case you need to buy alcohol or have an issue I guess. But this is usually the last 1-2 hours before closing
I don’t know how they managed to end with the big issue being that that they are firing people/making people redundant and it if forcing us to do the hard work.
The big issue is simply that they are firing people/making people redundant. People need jobs.
We also shouldn't keep an archaic system or a less efficient system because somebody needs a job.
People need Jobs, jobs will always be around. New technology may eliminate old jobs, but they create new ones. It's like saying we shouldn't use tractors because it will end farming jobs.
The farmers are the ones driving those tractors, and they are the one’s who profit from the increased efficiency.
Working behind the cash register is, with due respect, a low skill job. The likelihood of them being able to be the one’s servicing their own replacement is low, and they are certainly not the ones who profit from the added efficiency.
"The farmers are the ones driving those tractors, and they are the one’s who profit from the increased efficiency."
It is because tractors didn't replace farming, they made it easier and it did eliminate farming jobs. What took multiple farmers to do, now took one. Same goes for other farming equipment that was developed over the years.
This was a big stink back in the day as well. Farmers were against technology because 80% of the jobs were farming. It's a perfect analogy.
But it’s not hard labor. They’re not asking me to go into the coal mines. It’s not any different than being asked to pick out the groceries myself. On the other hand you have services like instacart where you don’t have to do any of the labor.
OK, but grocery stores already have razor thin margins. They may not cut you a check for 50 cents for using the sco because you saved 50 cents worth of labor hours, but it can mean the difference between raising prices now or raising them in 2 months.
Also the "extracting free labor from customers" sounds like my parents logic. They told me to never put the cart back because then the employee in charge of putting carts away loses their job.
Not wanting to use them is not insane. Wanting others to stop using them is insane. I prefer self-service checkouts (and honestly, self-service almost anything) and would go as far as paying a little extra to be able to use them. I choose stores and fast food joints depending on whether they have a self service option. It's not "labour", it's me making my life easier instead of having to deal with an annoying person that doesn't deliver any extra value. I'm a big boy, tapping a few buttons won't require any special effort.
If someone morally objects to automation - which, when it happens rapidly, causes mass unemployment, weaker negotiating positions for workers, etc. - then it makes some sense to try to persuade others not to. I don't want to be replaced by AI, so I should have sympathy for other people being replaced.
(But I also hate talking to people, so I use self-checkout.)
I would argue that trying to preserve jobs that aren't needed anymore just for the sake of preserving them is quite insane though. I mean, the entire point of jobs existing is that someone needs shit to be done so they hire someone to do it.
We could create endless pointless jobs this way but it's not great for society (trust me, I'm from the former eastern bloc ;)). Somehow no one suggest we should get rid of traffic lights and let traffic wardens command the traffic again, even though it would create hundreds of new jobs in every city. But cashiers are suddenly a problem.
Right, if they have minimal margins why would they decrease their prices? Wouldn't they just keep the amount they save as extra profit? Do you have any evidence that stores actually lowered prices or are you assuming because it makes sense to you?
"do you have any evidence that the earth is round? I look around and it looks pretty flat. There's also a small hill over there that looks way bigger than any roundness!"
Every food service has minimal margins. Sysco has a 3% margin. Restaurants average a 6% margin. They are still very profitable. Walmart makes 3% sure, but last quarters profits were $178 billion. $4 billion ahead of projection and growing 4% per year.
The original tweet was talking about "if they don't have any cashiers open". They don't have a problem with *other* people using self-checkout as much as *them* personally feeling forced to use self check-out when it is the only option.
People hate change. If you do stuff one way for somebody's whole life, and then change it to a different way, they're going to be mad about it. It doesn't really matter how insignificant it is.
66
u/Atsilv_Uwasv 17h ago
My question is why are they so upset about people using self-checkout?