Link to article description:
link

Basically, WAL*MART is big enough to tell its suppliers (eg, Proctor & Gamble) how to do business. Sort of antitrust problems, but on the supplier side, rather than the consumer side. Although it is not much of a human interest story, it is a subject that is hugely important economically. Just a great, great article on an underdiscussed subject.

I wonder how long before grocery stores start letting advertisers to get their message into the automated checkout algorithm.
HAL: "Before you slide your card, would like like to add a nice National Enquirer to your purchase, Dave?"

quote:

---

Bound to be annoying as heck for the shoppers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
When I first saw those machines (at a Loblaws in Kingston, Ontario), I was pretty annoyed. I wondered how the cashiers felt about them. I remember asking a few of them at the time when I'd shop there, and their answers were non-committal. I couldn't tell whether they really didn't care, or whether they were being guarded and weren't allowed to tell us what they thought.

---

The way capitalism is supposed to work is that some chains would adopt the machines (and lower prices accordingly if the machines save money) and for other chains to stick to the old way with live cashiers (and presumably higher prices).

Then the market decides.

In other words, if the market is functioning (and I think there may actually be meaningful competition btwn grocery stores even in this WAL*MART age), the question isn't whether you like the machines or not, but rather how much extra the public is willing to pay to keep the live clerks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Farces:
The way capitalism is supposed to work is that some chains would adopt the machines (and lower prices accordingly if the machines save money) and for other chains to stick to the old way with live cashiers (and presumably higher prices).

---

Well, that was the funny thing! Because this is one of those "superstores" where the prices are way inflated. It wasn't like a No Frills or a regular supermarket, it was one of the luxury models with a GoodLife Fitness attached - you know the kind.

This scam is pure profit for the store because they negotiate a percentage of the take with the charity and also make use of the funds before passing them along.A national chain can really add to the bottom line by shilling for charity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
I often wonder about that too, whether perhaps deadening jobs SHOULD be automated. I'm always torn on it. Having been a cashier myself for years after high school, I hated the work, and it's pretty easy to become a misanthropist in a short period of time dealing with idiot customers all day long. (No, they weren't all idiots, but even if 1/5 or 1/10 of your customers are idiots, it's enough to make you feel like they all are.)

Hmm, that gives me a thread idea.

---

(And it's a great thread, lemme tell you).

I don't know about this automated till thing. I've always resisted being a Luddite. On the other hand, times are fairly good (employment-wise) in my region right now. But they won't always be. And if there is a spike in unemployment that is concurrent with the phase-in of automated check-outs, I believe there will be resentment. I've worked as a till-jockey for minimum wage - it sucked, but in a time of few jobs, I'd be thankful for employment, eh?

Alright, maybe I'm getting too dark about things, but if there are fewer service jobs, and a constant professional class, I see a vast employment (and therefore social) quagmire.

I'm not shedding any tears for the National Enquirer, though.

That's always what I think about as well. I think, okay, cashier jobs suck, but when I dropped out of high school, retail jobs were pretty much what I was qualified to do. And these days, even with a high school diploma, service sector jobs are pretty much it for opportunity to work. And not everyone is academically-inclined.

You know that old (and annoying) saying, "Well, someone has to collect garbage and dig ditches," that some people say when people talk about people dropping out of school and such? I've never liked that expression because it seems condescending and classist to me, but there's something to be said about turning that phrase inside out and saying that there has to be some kind of jobs out there for people to do if they haven't got a trade or post-secondary education or finished high school.

jester, you're right about the whole "becoming the store employee" thing. Of course, this has been happening for years. Fast food restaurants are a prime example. Back when fast food restaurants first started, there was table service. Then most of them gradually became what they are now - where you go to the counter, fetch your own food, and even clear your own table. But at least with fast food restaurants, the cost savings usually get passed along to the customer.

Although, really, you can get decent lunch deals at sit-down restaurants too - some places are just as cheap as fast food restaurants. I can go out to my favorite sushi restaurant near my workplace and get a lunch special that is delicious, filling, and nutritious, with a server, for a lower price than value meals at Subway or McDonald's - $4.99 before tax for vegetable tempura and rice, and the other lunch specials with fish or meat and veggies in them are the same price. Probably the tip will bring it about even, or possibly a dollar more than a combo deal at a fast food restaurant.

Another example is IKEA, where you assemble the furniture yourself and lug it home. But again, at least in that case, the cost savings are passed onto you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fitz:
Stupid question here but why would you folks want to become de facto employees of the stores that use these things? Bad enough that the banks have turned the convenience of ATMs into a profit centre for them while you do the bank's work for it, why would people encourage the proliferation of this sort of thing? On principle alone, I avoid self-checkout, even though I'm an impatient bastard. When the self-checkout is pointed out to me, I ask if I'm going to get a refund for the money I'm savind the store.

Great looks I get.

---

Sounds like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. You want to avoid doing the store's work and you essentially insist that the store does the checkout work for you, even though you'd get out of the store in half the time? I don't mind scanning a few things and getting out of there five minutes earlier.

It's like going to a grocery store and bagging one's own purchases (the stores that still have cashiers AND grocery baggers are almost always more expensive than the stores where you bag your own groceries. Yeah, it's nice to just stand there and have your bags packed by someone else but I'll take the 10% savings in my groceries and bag the stuff myself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:
Next,the auto checkout will inquire if you wish to add 10% to your bill to contribute to whatever charity the store is shilling for.

This scam is pure profit for the store because they negotiate a percentage of the take with the charity and also make use of the funds before passing them along.A national chain can really add to the bottom line by shilling for charity.

---

Are you aruging that companies should not contribute to charity?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Are you aruging that companies should not contribute to charity?

---

One - the scanners seem to be just as inaccurate as the ones where human checkers are AND they don't always scan the item. Then a real employee has to come and scan it for you anyway. AND in many of the self-scan aisles, there are employees who have to constantly service the customers and the machines - if you pay cash - at many of them - you still have to go to a real cashier.

From The New York Times.

"Optimal Robotics estimates that the four-station, one-attendant configuration provides a level of checkout service that would cost a supermarket an additional 150 labor hours a week. This means that the systems can pay for themselves in about nine months, the company says."

New York Times

(150 labour hours)*(39 weeks)*(Canadian Wage?) = $60-75,000 Canadian.

quote:

---

What is more cost effective? Invest the capital into self-scan technology or develop stable employment for current cashiers?

---

It is amazing how many people are addicted or conditioned to think that human beings should continue to be enslaved to 'the exchange of money for labour work ethic'.

This in a culture that also embraces the consumption of 'labour saving' and 'time saving' products.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
Since workers are more productive, the demand for labour increases, which leads to upward pressure on wages.

---

That's the part I don't understand. But I'm not an expert in economics.