My faith in the laws of economics has been reaffirmed.

[coloradoatheist]

It's an interesting question

Theoritically if the spoilage numbers (what they lose from people cheating the system as suggested) is higher than the cost of of paying the cashiers than the should go back to cashiers. So why haven't they?

It's an economic concept known as "sunk costs". If they go back to humans, all the money invested in machines is lost. If they keep tinkering with the system, it protects their egos.

Yes, but going forward the accountant at the stores, especially the big ones would say to dump the checkout machines and go with the cashiers again. Even Wal-Mart who was a late adopter would stop using the checkout machines.

- - - Updated - - -

Quite. I read The Economist every week, and, as far as I can make out, these 'laws' cover the only the doings of rational and total selfish beings such as may exist on Mars but are lacking here. Mostly they mean quite simply, 'we back the rich!'

Yes, the underlying assumption is that humans are rational is blatantly false.

What's the definitional of rational that you are using?

 

[Bronzeage]

It's an economic concept known as "sunk costs". If they go back to humans, all the money invested in machines is lost. If they keep tinkering with the system, it protects their egos.

Yes, but going forward the accountant at the stores, especially the big ones would say to dump the checkout machines and go with the cashiers again. Even Wal-Mart who was a late adopter would stop using the checkout machines.

- - - Updated - - -

Quite. I read The Economist every week, and, as far as I can make out, these 'laws' cover the only the doings of rational and total selfish beings such as may exist on Mars but are lacking here. Mostly they mean quite simply, 'we back the rich!'

Yes, the underlying assumption is that humans are rational is blatantly false.

What's the definitional of rational that you are using?

If the engineers who designed the system thought it was impossible to improve the operation, a return to human cashiers would be a viable option. The engineers are probably working on an optical recognition system, or an RFID system, which would confirm that the scanned item actually showed up in the bagging area.

Every human decision is rational, by definition. The problem arises when we don't have all the information which led to the decision.

Beyond that, a perfectly rational decision, based on sound information, can lead to bad results.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Yes, but going forward the accountant at the stores, especially the big ones would say to dump the checkout machines and go with the cashiers again. Even Wal-Mart who was a late adopter would stop using the checkout machines.

- - - Updated - - -

Quite. I read The Economist every week, and, as far as I can make out, these 'laws' cover the only the doings of rational and total selfish beings such as may exist on Mars but are lacking here. Mostly they mean quite simply, 'we back the rich!'

Yes, the underlying assumption is that humans are rational is blatantly false.

What's the definitional of rational that you are using?

If the engineers who designed the system thought it was impossible to improve the operation, a return to human cashiers would be a viable option. The engineers are probably working on an optical recognition system, or an RFID system, which would confirm that the scanned item actually showed up in the bagging area.

Every human decision is rational, by definition. The problem arises when we don't have all the information which led to the decision.

Beyond that, a perfectly rational decision, based on sound information, can lead to bad results.

But the stores that have the self checkout didn't get rid of their other lanes. They could close the self-checkout registers for the time being and go back to cashiers. Wal-Mart has tons of empty cashier stands. Even though I think they might lose some extra with the shrinkage, it's not as big of a problem as one would imagine.

 

[untermensche]

What so-called "laws" have been reaffirmed?

People stuck in an oppressive economic situation will be stressed?

The law which is most often quoted as, 'You get what you pay for."

Human to human interactions contain many nuances which are intrinsic to the process and we don't notice them. The cashier position was a combination of money taker and loss preventer. The electronic system could only take money, so when loss prevention was eliminated, losses increased.

The tendency to steal is not a general human tendency. It occurs more in some cultures than others. It is something influenced by culture.

The problems you speak of are cultural not economic.

 

[dismal]

It was to save the CORPORATION money, not the customers. To increase THEIR bottom lines, not ours.

Right. They'll just jack up prices to cover losses.

Here in PA we lose 43 million bucks every year to people who don't pay turnpike tolls. Guess who picks up the tab.

This is why in civilized places they have replaced human toll takers with technology that will either read your toll tag or read your license plate and send you a bill with the additional cost you impose tacked on.

Well, part of the reason. The other part is the lanes move faster.

Wait, I hope that doesn't dash the "laws of economics".

 

[Treedbear]

I like the automated checkouts. My favorite grocery and the local Home Depot have an attendant right there all the time so errors get corrected quickly. If the cashiers all have lines that's where I head. Otherwise I support my local cashier and help them keep their jobs. I'm a nice guy but I have to draw the line somewhere. Not to worry though. There's still plenty of people intimidated by technology.

 

[Bronzeage]

The law which is most often quoted as, 'You get what you pay for."

Human to human interactions contain many nuances which are intrinsic to the process and we don't notice them. The cashier position was a combination of money taker and loss preventer. The electronic system could only take money, so when loss prevention was eliminated, losses increased.

The tendency to steal is not a general human tendency. It occurs more in some cultures than others. It is something influenced by culture.

The problems you speak of are cultural not economic.

There is a human tendency to take what is desired and use it for one's purposes. Whether any particular act of taking is considered stealing, is a completely cultural distinction.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The law which is most often quoted as, 'You get what you pay for."

Human to human interactions contain many nuances which are intrinsic to the process and we don't notice them. The cashier position was a combination of money taker and loss preventer. The electronic system could only take money, so when loss prevention was eliminated, losses increased.

The tendency to steal is not a general human tendency. It occurs more in some cultures than others. It is something influenced by culture.

The problems you speak of are cultural not economic.

How many cultures with written rules don't include stealing as one of the rules?

 

[Sarpedon]

Once upon a time, self service grocery stores were the new thing. Before, you would walk up to the clerk, tell him what you wanted, and he'd get it from where it was secured behind the counter. (there are still grocery stores like this in Russia, or were 10 years ago). This took a lot of the employee's time, limiting the number of customers he or she could serve, but had the advantage of low theft. Self-serve stores have a higher incidence of theft, but save on wages by allowing fewer employees to serve more customers. The self serve check out merely reflects the fact that employee time is worth more than the greater incidence of theft resulting.

 

[untermensche]

The tendency to steal is not a general human tendency. It occurs more in some cultures than others. It is something influenced by culture.

The problems you speak of are cultural not economic.

There is a human tendency to take what is desired and use it for one's purposes. Whether any particular act of taking is considered stealing, is a completely cultural distinction.

The notion of "property" is an invention.

The amount of respect for the "property" of others is a cultural phenomena, not an economic reality.

 

[coloradoatheist]

There is a human tendency to take what is desired and use it for one's purposes. Whether any particular act of taking is considered stealing, is a completely cultural distinction.

The notion of "property" is an invention.

The amount of respect for the "property" of others is a cultural phenomena, not an economic reality.

How is it only a human thing when even animals in some sense show a sense of property and territory?

 

[untermensche]

The notion of "property" is an invention.

The amount of respect for the "property" of others is a cultural phenomena, not an economic reality.

How is it only a human thing when even animals in some sense show a sense of property and territory?

Animals, beyond humans, do not have culture.

A young human may have desires for sole possession of some object.

But codifying this immature desire into a recognized right is purely a cultural invention.

 

[coloradoatheist]

How is it only a human thing when even animals in some sense show a sense of property and territory?

Animals, beyond humans, do not have culture.

A young human may have desires for sole possession of some object.

But codifying this immature desire into a recognized right is purely a cultural invention.

And I disagree. I think you too easily dismiss genetics and the roles it plays in peoples lives, whether it's for IQ or if it's involved the understanding that theft is a wrong.

 

[Bronzeage]

The tendency to steal is not a general human tendency. It occurs more in some cultures than others. It is something influenced by culture.

The problems you speak of are cultural not economic.

How many cultures with written rules don't include stealing as one of the rules?

There are no cultures which don't have a rule against stealing. Every culture has their own rule about what can be stolen and what cannot be owned.

Whether a thing can be owned depends mostly upon whether you can defend it from others. This is the reason we can't own air and only small parts of the ocean.

In our present day, we can't come to a consensus as to whether intellectual content which can be viewed on the internet can be owned by the person who created it. There are those who believe downloading a copy of a song or a movie is not a form of theft. There are those who think it is. The only reason this is an issue is because there it's easy to steal a copy of a movie and very difficult to prevent it.

- - - Updated - - -

Animals, beyond humans, do not have culture.

A young human may have desires for sole possession of some object.

But codifying this immature desire into a recognized right is purely a cultural invention.

And I disagree. I think you too easily dismiss genetics and the roles it plays in peoples lives, whether it's for IQ or if it's involved the understanding that theft is a wrong.

Why is theft wrong?

 

[untermensche]

Animals, beyond humans, do not have culture.

A young human may have desires for sole possession of some object.

But codifying this immature desire into a recognized right is purely a cultural invention.

And I disagree. I think you too easily dismiss genetics and the roles it plays in peoples lives, whether it's for IQ or if it's involved the understanding that theft is a wrong.

You talking about genetics and a relationship to IQ or the idea of "property" is a fantasy story without one gene to back it up.

Fantasy stories are endless.

But they are not evidence of anything.

IQ tests look at specific modes of thinking people are exposed to from a young age in some. They look at individual effort in some. They look at the small amount of effort in some. They look at genetic "gifts" in some. And they look at serious deficits in some.

They look at many things in other words. Not some specific feature of the human. They get a fuzzy very general picture and sometimes a false picture and not close to the whole story. Despite the claims made by the believers. They like any religious adherent have to be put in their place. Their claims about the tests are nonsense. And nonsense doesn't stop becoming nonsense when a lot of people believe it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I like the automated checkouts. My favorite grocery and the local Home Depot have an attendant right there all the time so errors get corrected quickly. If the cashiers all have lines that's where I head. Otherwise I support my local cashier and help them keep their jobs. I'm a nice guy but I have to draw the line somewhere. Not to worry though. There's still plenty of people intimidated by technology.

Home Depot around here always does only 4 registers per attendant, few age-restricted purchases and has basically zero lost geezers trying to figure out the system, it works quite well. I actually ended up waiting about 20 seconds not long ago and that was notable because it usually doesn't happen.

 

[ZiprHead]

We have Menards around here. Much better than Lowes or Home Depot, and no self checkouts. Always plenty of checkers ready to go. When their line is empty, they stand at the entrance to let you know their line is open.
https://www.menards.com/main/home.html

 

[fast]

The tendency to steal is not a general human tendency.

Tendency? That shit is so prevalent that I thought it must of been written in the genetic code.

 

[untermensche]

The tendency to steal is not a general human tendency.

Tendency? That shit is so prevalent that I thought it must of been written in the genetic code.

In what culture are you seeing this?

 

[fast]

Tendency? That shit is so prevalent that I thought it must of been written in the genetic code.

In what culture are you seeing this?

The culture in which I live. I suppose that is the American culture. Surely this tendency isn't America specific. Is it capitalism? Lack of honor? Because people are poor? Skin color? Maybe severe punishment and harsh ridicule have mitigated the prevalence in societies that have come before us, but without such things to suppress thievery, I would have imagined that it would flourish. When not caught, the short term benefits are rewarding, so if there should be a skewing, I would have thought the default tendency would be steel. Maybe character is better taught in other cultures.