Self serve checkouts (1 Viewer)

[your.knee]

they're great. quicker for me to use and i don't have to interact with humans. ew.

 

[red-butterfly]

i think they're alright if your buying one or two things but anything with a big trolley is just too time consuming

 

[shinji]

Well i operate them at Big W, 25hours p/w,(while doin the HSC :|) Big W and Woolworths have not cut employees or decreased their hours because of it. It opens more job opportunites and increased pay rates due to training in specialised areas.

Horses shit.

I don't see how training to take care of selfserve would automatically lead to pay rise. Regular staff members take care of self-serves. Do they get pay rises? no.

As has said before, in no way would this scheme increase t he need for more checkouts. Instead of 3-4 people operating normal checkouts; there is 1 person at a time operating 6 or so self-serves.

Simple maths.

 

[yoddle]

Fuck jobs 4 scum, cutting costs means lower prices and more cash in everyone's pockets in the long term. Awesome initiative.

I shop online whenever possible, rather than at local businesses, for the same reason.

I don't get far-right wing positions, please explain them to me.

 

[Graney]

I don't get far-right wing positions, please explain them to me.

Efficiency and productivity are best. Unnecessary bureaucracy and wasteful inefficiency hurts job creation. The best from of welfare is a job. Government are inefficient and unreliable at managing the economy. The government should not intervene to pick winners, the less government intervention, the more efficiently the economy will run.

Basically.

Classical liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In this case, the introduction of self-serve checkouts, by cutting staffing costs, the retailers will save money which they will reinvest in the market, generating job opportunities in other fields.

It will also allow retailers to lower prices in the long term, saving money for consumers and businesses who have to deal with the retailers. They will then invest this saved money in other areas, creating jobs.

 

[aussie-boy]

Efficiency and productivity are best. Unnecessary bureaucracy and wasteful inefficiency hurts job creation. The best from of welfare is a job. Government are inefficient and unreliable at managing the economy. The government should not intervene to pick winners, the less government intervention, the more efficiently the economy will run.

Basically.

Classical liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In this case, the introduction of self-serve checkouts, by cutting staffing costs, the retailers will save money which they will reinvest in the market, generating job opportunities in other fields.

It will also allow retailers to lower prices in the long term, saving money for consumers and businesses who have to deal with the retailers. They will then invest this saved money in other areas, creating jobs.

But what if the jobs created don't correspond to the ability levels of current checkout chicks? Surely it is better to lose $10 an hour (hypothesised cost difference between operating auto/manual checkouts) than to pay $20 an hour in welfare, when these people can't get a job?

This concept in economics seems to disregard the dumb members of the human race. Textbooks always argue for "retraining" but some people aren't just capable.

You could say that the high incomes created by the new jobs created could be used to subsidise the welfare of the dumb people, but do we really want to live in a society where everyone with an IQ under X is excluded from the workforce, simply because it is more economically efficient?

 

[yoddle]

Efficiency and productivity are best. Unnecessary bureaucracy and wasteful inefficiency hurts job creation. The best from of welfare is a job. Government are inefficient and unreliable at managing the economy. The government should not intervene to pick winners, the less government intervention, the more efficiently the economy will run.

Basically.

Classical liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In this case, the introduction of self-serve checkouts, by cutting staffing costs, the retailers will save money which they will reinvest in the market, generating job opportunities in other fields.

It will also allow retailers to lower prices in the long term, saving money for consumers and businesses who have to deal with the retailers. They will then invest this saved money in other areas, creating jobs.

I knew all that actually. But i asked because you used the term 'jobs for scum' when referring to checkout chicks (I am one), and from previous statements (or maybe it was zimmerman) about how you try and avoid supporting jobs, I thought that you must envision some utopia where people do not work. But the above statement is all above reinvesting to make jobs in other areas. I'm confused. Are these 'other areas' higher paying sectors, highly skilled sectors?

So is the poster above me right, that jobs are good, but only for smart people? Is that the general gist?

 

[Riet]

Checkout chicks are scum

 

[Graney]

But what if the jobs created don't correspond to the ability levels of current checkout chicks? Surely it is better to lose $10 an hour (hypothesised cost difference between operating auto/manual checkouts) than to pay $20 an hour in welfare, when these people can't get a job?

This concept in economics seems to disregard the dumb members of the human race. Textbooks always argue for "retraining" but some people aren't just capable.

You could say that the high incomes created by the new jobs created could be used to subsidise the welfare of the dumb people, but do we really want to live in a society where everyone with an IQ under X is excluded from the workforce, simply because it is more economically efficient?

Abolish unemployment benefits.

How do you decide what is the fair pay for the ability level of any employee, in any position?

The best way to do so, is by balancing what the employer is willing to pay vs. what employees are willing to accept. If the pay is too low, employees can always quit and find another job. No one is forcing them to work for $10 hour. If the pay is too low, no one will want to work for the employer and they will be forced to raise wages.

In the USA in 1914, industrialist Henry Ford astonished the world by offering a $5 per day wage, which more than doubled the rate of most of his workers. He ran a successful PR campaign which presented himself to be a 'friend of the workers', but it was actually strongly in his business interests to offer this higher wage. The move proved extremely profitable; instead of constant turnover of employees, the best mechanics in Detroit flocked to Ford, bringing in their human capital and expertise, raising productivity, and lowering training costs.

Decent wages save businesses money, especially where there is any training involved. It is always in the business interest to offer a wage that will enable them to retain their staff.

I knew all that actually. But i asked because you used the term 'jobs for scum' when referring to checkout chicks (I am one), and from previous statements (or maybe it was zimmerman) about how you try and avoid supporting jobs, I thought that you must envision some utopia where people do not work. But the above statement is all above reinvesting to make jobs in other areas. I'm confused. Are these 'other areas' higher paying sectors, highly skilled sectors?

So is the poster above me right, that jobs are good, but only for smart people? Is that the general gist?

No, it's about efficiency and wealth creation. If you have needless jobs created by ineffiency, that is wasting the possibility for development in other areas. When this money is reinvested, it will create new jobs across a range of industries and skill levels. There will be entry level laboring and customer service positions created in the expansion of other businesses.

 

[CountVonChocula]

i love them tbh

 

[yoddle]

Abolish unemployment benefits.

In the USA in 1914, industrialist Henry Ford astonished the world by offering a $5 per day wage, which more than doubled the rate of most of his workers. He ran a successful PR campaign which presented himself to be a 'friend of the workers', but it was actually strongly in his business interests to offer this higher wage. The move proved extremely profitable; instead of constant turnover of employees, the best mechanics in Detroit flocked to Ford, bringing in their human capital and expertise, raising productivity, and lowering training costs.

Decent wages save businesses money, especially where there is any training involved. It is always in the business interest to offer a wage that will enable them to retain their staff.

No, it's about efficiency and wealth creation. If you have needless jobs created by ineffiency, that is wasting the possibility for development in other areas. When this money is reinvested, it will create new jobs across a range of industries and skill levels. There will be entry level laboring and customer service positions created in the expansion of other businesses.

How is the money reinvested? What other industries will it be invested in and why are the new customer service jobs created there less efficient than ones at supermarkets? Surely with technology the loss of all kinds of jobs could be justified in the name of efficiency?

Your Henry Ford case example is in a First World country. Something like this isn't practical in a Third World country with almost non-existent labour laws and where torrid conditions are out of sight and out of mind of Western consumers.

 

[Fortify]

They're great, except for the fact you need to put everything in the 'bagging' area each time you scan an item.

 

[aussie-boy]

Abolish unemployment benefits.

How do you decide what is the fair pay for the ability level of any employee, in any position?

The best way to do so, is by balancing what the employer is willing to pay vs. what employees are willing to accept. If the pay is too low, employees can always quit and find another job. No one is forcing them to work for $10 hour. If the pay is too low, no one will want to work for the employer and they will be forced to raise wages.

In the USA in 1914, industrialist Henry Ford astonished the world by offering a $5 per day wage, which more than doubled the rate of most of his workers. He ran a successful PR campaign which presented himself to be a 'friend of the workers', but it was actually strongly in his business interests to offer this higher wage. The move proved extremely profitable; instead of constant turnover of employees, the best mechanics in Detroit flocked to Ford, bringing in their human capital and expertise, raising productivity, and lowering training costs.

Decent wages save businesses money, especially where there is any training involved. It is always in the business interest to offer a wage that will enable them to retain their staff.

This rant on wage setting has little relevance to the topic at hand. Personally, I support the minimum wage... but am not going to argue about this issue here.

No, it's about efficiency and wealth creation. If you have needless jobs created by ineffiency, that is wasting the possibility for development in other areas. When this money is reinvested, it will create new jobs across a range of industries and skill levels. There will be entry level laboring and customer service positions created in the expansion of other businesses.

How can you be so sure that equally mindless and easy jobs will be created in other industries? Its such an idealistic notion.

You can't deny that ultimately, we will reach a stage where there are no such jobs left - everything that doesn't require significant intellect can be done by a machine. What, in your utopian textbook world, happens to the dumbest of humans then?

 

[jaredtomas]

I love them. Especially handy when buying certain personal items.

 

[rokkuguhyo]

They're convenient for people who don't like human interaction.

 

[cassieagill]

i love em, in and out soooo much faster, especially when i'm just getting a bottle of water or something

 

[electrolysis]

They're great, except for the fact you need to put everything in the 'bagging' area each time you scan an item.

this i hate + having to wait for the person to come and confirm the signature :mad1:

 

[Uncle]

then return the conventional checkouts so i can do treadmill exercises on the conveyor belts

 

[Tangent]

nah, SSC are interactive, have pretty lights and are more sociable than the average check out chick

 

[SnowFox]

this i hate + having to wait for the person to come and confirm the signature :mad1:

Why signature? PIN?