Hacker News Reader

Comment by jmathai | Hacker News Reader

I purposely checkout with human cashiers despite the fact that self-checkout is almost always faster.

Sometimes technology provides so much benefit that it's a no-brainer to adopt. I don't think that's the case for self-checkout stations. They're marginally better but come at a cost that I don't believe is worth it.

A single self-checkout station probably replaces 2 cashiers. Not to mention they take up less space. It makes a lot of sense for the store owners but I don't think it makes much sense for the community.

View on HN

There are some unintended side effects of self checkout lines you’re not considering that in my experience make them considerably (>2x) faster. They self select for people who have fewer items, are competent at using the machine, and are incentivized to be quick. Check outs manned with people are always slammed with customers with piles of groceries and even the express lane is staffed with a person who has no incentive to scan quickly.

I agree there's a lot of benefits to self checkout and I think that's the future we're headed towards --- and I don't think that's a bad thing.

I was only trying to say that technology impacts people in good and bad ways and we should have a holistic view of it when we think about how we, as a society, adopt and legislate it.

> A single self-checkout station probably replaces 2 cashiers. Not to mention they take up less space. It makes a lot of sense for the store owners but I don't think it makes much sense for the community.

That's not a reasonable position. The same could be said about many technological changes. Replacing jobs with technology, especially unskilled jobs, is always a win for society as a whole.

I don't understand how stating that the interests of store owners and the community may not be aligned is not reasonable.

There's many examples of things which are a win for society as a whole that we look back and realize were terrible ideas --- aparthied, slavery, gender discrimination, etc. The common theme typically being that a marginalized population is further marginalized for the benefit of another part of the population.

But this is just my opinion.

Do you live in Oregon or NJ? Was wondering if your opinion applies to self serve gas stations also (it's ok if it does or doesn't, just more food for thought). This can also extend to changing your own oil, or doing your own landscape work, cleaning house, etc.

Personally I hate having to use the self checkout (typically stores lately have only had one cashier open, with 20 people in line). Especially if I have a larger cart of groceries. A handful of items is fine, as it strikes a balance of (in)convenience and speed of checkout.

In fact, there are many things I hate about shopping -- you have to first put items in your cart, then take them out of the cart and put them on a belt, then put the bags back in the cart, take them out again to put them in your car, then take them out again at home, and finally put everything away. This is why I now shop at a local grocery store that doesn't use the conveyor belt, instead the cart goes right up to the cashier and they take it directly out of the cart, then put bagged items directly in another cart lined up on the other side.

I don't think my opinion applies to self serve gas stations. Pumping your own gas happened a while ago and I imagine at a slower pace which allowed society as a whole to adapt to this change.

I think self checkout, while similar, is being adopted at a faster rate and at a different time when other jobs are also being similarly impacted.

I'm not saying self checkout is bad. I'm only saying we need to think about the overall impact (both positive and negative) on society and proceed accordingly.

You are only delaying the inevitable. You are also tying someone to a job that provides no value other than a paycheck. I would rather go with Andrew Yang’s plan.

I don't disagree that it's inevitable. But I think there's value in slowing down this type of progress so society has more time to adapt.

That's why I called out that the value added by self checkout stations is only marginal.

Self driving cars, for example, will also disrupt many people's jobs but perhaps the upside of safety (if that turns out to be true) may be a reasonable trade-off to expedite its adoption.

I don't know Andrew Yang's plan but it maybe just as reasonable.

I've often wondered about how to deal with a future where there is a lack of lower skilled work. After all, half the population is below the median when it comes to skill, IQ, or self motivation.

I'm thinking that future education will need to focus more on teaching kids self motivation skills, and coping skills for picking up whatever is needed for the future workplace. Some people have no problem with learning new things, but for others it is a major chore.

Imagine what we could all do with the extra time and money we get from automated checkouts?

And you would trade that so the store can have people standing around waiting for you to decide to pay for groceries?

Yes it does -- the cashiers will not be permanently unemployed but will find other, more productive work.

I'm not convinced it is that easy for someone working as a cashier to find another job. Especially if low skill work is being replaced by robots.

Also given that cashiers are already at or near the poverty level they're likely going to be more impacted by job interruption.

Your response makes sense in theory but does not take into account the fact that these are real people with families and rent to pay who likely don't have many options or much financial padding.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com