Two things I hate when it comes to UX
-
I have absolutely no desire at all to learn how to do any part of a large corporation's work for it on an unpaid basis.
Want my business? Employ checkout staff.
I have absolutely no desire at all to learn to interact with anyone when I go to the store.
What my business? Let me get in and out without talking to or making eye contact with anyone.
-
Yes, I do consider stuff like that. And I've come to the conclusion that having a mixture of full / [semi-]self serve checkout lines does just that.
Your taxes / welfare stuff sounds like something that's on the order of the anti-stab screwdriver problem to me.
I can see that point of view. The real solution is finding a way to get people the education they need so these jobs are no longer needed, because self checkout can work really well in simple use cases. The problem is that we haven't found that magic sauce that gets people educated and the end result is the welfare/jail cycle. I don't really have an answer, but if employing people in menial but useful tasks helps solve some of that problem, I'm all for it.
-
There are people for whom these jobs are very appropriate. The retarded and the very young, for instance.
But increased productivity at automating simple tasks is a bigger problem, and I'd rather move ahead and tackle that problem than reducing everyone's standard of living by enforcing Luddism.
-
There are people for whom these jobs are very appropriate. The retarded and the very young, for instance.
True, but checkouts aren't the only jobs they are good at.
@boomzilla said:But increased productivity at automating simple tasks is a bigger problem, and I'd rather move ahead and tackle that problem than reducing everyone's standard of living by enforcing Luddism.
I'm not against automating the jobs away; I'm against reducing the population's overall ability to earn wages for corporate profits under the guise of keeping my onions from going up $0.05/lb. I'd rather pay the $0.05.I'm not telling others not to use them, I'm saying they have consequences beyond "productivity" and I'm not willing to make that trade. Even if it costs me more and I have to buy one less 6 pack this month.
-
Let me get in and out without talking to or making eye contact with anyone.
Fifteen years ago I moved from the city to a small country town because this exact kind of asocial crazy was getting common enough to make me very sad.
People who honestly cannot find it within themselves to look another human being in the eye and smile when out and about doing their shopping have got something fundamentally wrong with them, and cities create a higher and higher proportion of those people every year.
-
I haven't found a particular angle that works best (at Home Depot).
Ah, that's a bummer. In my limited experience, any given machine tends to have a consistent preferred angle, or will take any angle.
-
Want my business? Employ checkout staff.
Who half the time forget to ask for your loyalty card, meaning you're overpaying if you don't remember. Or are 97 years old and as slow as molasses flowing uphill on an unseasonably cold day in January in the Northern Hemisphere. Etc.
-
slow as molasses flowing uphill on an unseasonably cold day in January in the Northern Hemisphere. Etc.
The Sahara is in the Northern Hemisphere. FYI.
-
People who honestly cannot find it within themselves to look another human being in the eye and smile when out and about doing their shopping have got something fundamentally wrong with them, and cities create a higher and higher proportion of those people every year.
One of the reasons I moved out of Boston, first to South Carolina, and then to Texas, is that the people are much friendlier. You won't find a woman who yells at you for holding a door open. People will smile and say "howdy" or "hi" when you walk by in the street (partially because if they've been out walking in the street in Texas in the summer, they're already touched in the head). Shit, in Dallas, people will even drive more or less properly through a four-way intersection that's lost it's programming and has gone to four-way blinking red. In Florida or Boston, that situation means you might as well be in Somalia.
Generally speaking, if I've only got a dozen or so items, I'd still rather go through the robot checkout, especially because a lot of people don't like them, which means the line is usually shorter.
-
The Sahara is in the Northern Hemisphere. FYI.
Shut up, you. I said "unseasonably cold". In a desert, assume that means "freak ice storm".
-
Damn, I think @boomzilla liked that post almost before I hit the Reply button.
-
True, but checkouts aren't the only jobs they are good at.
OK?
I'm not against automating the jobs away; I'm against reducing the population's overall ability to earn wages for corporate profits under the guise of keeping my onions from going up $0.05/lb. I'd rather pay the $0.05.
Well, when anyone starts whining about "corporate profits," my response is something along the lines of "Fuck off." The point of businesses is to make profits, not employ people. People get employed because they provide positive marginal utility to the business.
Automation is typically a productivity multiplier. It frees people up to do other things that are more valuable.
But mostly, the self checkout things make my life easier and more productive, so I'm happy they're there, even if it's only because some other people are using them so the "normal" lines are shorter.
-
I haven't found a particular angle that works best (at Home Depot).
At Home Depot, IME, the problem is not usually with the scanners, but with big or awkward items that can't easily be positioned on the scanners, or occasionally with packaging that has multiple bar codes, and you're trying to scan the wrong one. The solution in these cases is to go through a non-self-check line, where the checker has a portable scanner (although even they occasionally have trouble with scanning the wrong bar code), but for small stuff, self-check every time.
-
a lot of people don't like them, which means the line is usually shorter.
This. #1 reason why I use them, though becoming less so as more people around here get used to them.
-
OK?
I'm not against automating the jobs away; I'm against reducing the population's overall ability to earn wages for corporate profits under the guise of keeping my onions from going up $0.05/lb. I'd rather pay the $0.05.
Well, when anyone starts whining about "corporate profits," my response is something along the lines of "Fuck off." The point of businesses is to make profits, not employ people. People get employed because they provide positive marginal utility to the business.
Automation is typically a productivity multiplier. It frees people up to do other things that are more valuable.
But mostly, the self checkout things make my life easier and more productive, so I'm happy they're there, even if it's only because some other people are using them so the "normal" lines are shorter.
Anyone who cares more about money than people should die in a fire.
When profits are the only goal, why bother with environmental regulations? Let's just dump raw sewage or chemical waste in the water.
Why bother paying employees? Who cares if our employees are too poor to buy anything so we have no one to buy what we produce.
I'm not against corporate profits. I'm against profiteering and oligarchy. There's a big difference. A functional economy needs both producers and consumers. If you automate the latter away, you're just dooming yourself to obsolescence.
-
This. #1 reason why I use them, though becoming less so as more people around here get used to them.
Indeed. My local Wal-Mart recently went from 4 to 8 of them, and now they're full of people who are upset because they didn't read the "no cash accepted" sign on the register they chose, or are unable to figure out you're only slowing yourself (and everyone else) down if you keep on pressing the "skip bagging this item" button because the cashier's going to get signalled to come check on you, etc.
-
Anyone who cares more about money than people should die in a fire.
Sure. I never said anything like that, though.
When profits are the only goal, why bother with environmental regulations? Let's just dump raw sewage or chemical waste in the water.
If you want to beat up straw men, who am I to stop you?
-
People get employed because they provide positive marginal utility to the business
...and absent regulatory capture and egregious abuse of market power, businesses only exist because they provide positive marginal utility to their customers.
Reducing the number of staffed checkout lanes in order to fit in a cluster of self-serve machines has reduced one of my local supermarkets' marginal utility to me to a great enough extent that I have now taken almost all my business to its competitors.
-
Who half the time forget to ask for your loyalty card, meaning you're overpaying if you don't remember.
I also don't shop at stores with loyalty cards. What bullshit.
-
Sure. I never said anything like that, though.
It was my response to your fuck off comment.
@rad131304 said:
When profits are the only goal, why bother with environmental regulations? Let's just dump raw sewage or chemical waste in the water.
If you want to beat up straw men, who am I to stop you?
Ok, but as you automate away tasks to machines, you reduce the consumer base. On an individual corporation basis, this is not an issue, but the mass scale this is currently going we continue to reduce the total available jobs far faster than the number of people displaced through automation. This can only negatively impact our economy.
-
...and absent regulatory capture and egregious abuse of market power, businesses only exist because they provide positive marginal utility to their customers.
Yes, absolutely.
Reducing the number of staffed checkout lanes in order to fit in a cluster of self-serve machines has reduced one of my local supermarkets' marginal utility to me to a great enough extent that I have now taken almost all my business to its competitors.
Well, that's a decision each business will need to make. I wouldn't be surprised to find that there's someone who has left the one you go to because they don't have automated check out.
It was my response to your fuck off comment.
I know, but it wasn't a particularly good response.
Ok, but as you automate away tasks to machines, you reduce the consumer base.
Yes, just like how we automated farming and now there's no one out there to eat all the food.
This can only negatively impact our economy.
Bullshit. Now, there are negative impacts, especially among the stupid and the unmotivated. I'm not sure what the best answer to that is, going forward. Maybe it is making them dependents on the state, but that has a lot of negative consequences, too. But like I said, I do think it's something other than Luddism.
NB: I don't think that @flabdablet's eschewing automated checkouts is Luddism.
-
I also don't shop at stores with loyalty cards. What bullshit.
I try to avoid it myself, but the closest store by a good margin is a Kroger. After that my choices are a Target with a tiny grocery section and two different Wal-Marts (and we know how much you like those) that are, unfortunately, in Dallas proper, which means as of 1/1 I have to pay a fee to use a plastic bag, and a different store with a loyalty card.
What would you do in such a situation? Oh, I just remembered, a Whole Paycheck[1] opened up, but it's (1) in Dallas too and (2) slightly farther than the Wal-Mart.
[1] unDraxed that for you.
-
I also don't shop at stores with loyalty cards. What bullshit.
Why do you think it's bullshit?
-
they didn't read the "no cash accepted" sign on the register they chose
One of my local Wal-Marts has 6 self-check registers (at least one of which is always out of order, but then at least 80% of their (nominally) attended registers are unavailable at any given time). Half of these are non-cash. In addition to the signs, when you scan the first item, the screen displays a message that says, "This machine only accepts credit or debit cards. It does not accept cash, nor does it return cash. Do you wish to continue?" You have to accept this to continue, so if you want to pay with cash or get cash back (and didn't read any of the multiple signs before you even started), you just say no and wait for the next available register that takes cash. Nothing to get upset about (although that doesn't keep stupid people from getting upset anyway, of course).
-
Why do you think it's bullshit?
I think he has said before that he objects to the data gathering in exchange for lowered prices (or non-raised prices as he probably puts it) is some kind of extortion (though I can't remember what hoops he jumped through/goal posts he shifted to make it different from avoiding website analytics stuff that someone mentioned in a previous argument about it). But this is vague memories so treat details as I'm lying.
-
Why do you think it's bullshit?
"We can give you lower prices, but we don't fucking bother" is the message I get from loyalty cards.
I think he has said before that he objects to the data gathering in exchange for lowered prices (or non-raised prices as he probably puts it) is some kind of extortion (though I can't remember what hoops he jumped through/goal posts he shifted to make it different from avoiding website analytics stuff that someone mentioned in a previous argument about it).
What the fuck are you talking about?
-
Ok, but as you automate away tasks to machines, you reduce the consumer base. On an individual corporation basis, this is not an issue, but the mass scale this is currently going we continue to reduce the total available jobs far faster than the number of people displaced through automation.
We should get rid of our cars and hire people to carry us around on their shoulders. And get rid of our toilets and hire people to carry our shit to... wherever it goes now. And get rid of our phones and internet and hire people to deliver messages.
Plenty of work for everyone!
-
Why do you think it's bullshit?
Because they raise prices so that they can give you a "loyalty discount" that still leaves prices higher than places that don't use them.
Plus they're RECORDING YOUR SHOPPING HABITS WHAAARGARBL!
-
"We can give you lower prices, but we don't fucking bother" is the message I get from loyalty cards.
Except that they give them when you have the card, so they aren't not giving them to you, are they? Perhaps you're not familiar with the economy of repeat vs new business?
-
Nothing to get upset about (although that doesn't keep stupid people from getting upset anyway, of course).
Clearly you must be going to a special Wal-Mart that doesn't have any People of Wal-Mart as customers.
-
Yes, just like how we automated farming and now there's no one out there to eat all the food.
It's not that the demand goes away, it's that the demand becomes pent up because the normal consumers can't afford it but still want it. But hey, misunderstand the economic argument all you want.
I know, but it wasn't a particularly good response.
So we're even?Bullshit. Now, there are negative impacts, especially among the stupid and the unmotivated. I'm not sure what the best answer to that is, going forward. Maybe it is making them dependents on the state, but that has a lot of negative consequences, too. But like I said, I do think it's something other than Luddism.
Because the transition from high skilled to low skilled employment is the same a s the transition from low skilled to no employment? I call bullshit on that argument.
-
We should get rid of our cars and hire people to carry us around on their shoulders. And get rid of our toilets and hire people to carry our shit to... wherever it goes now. And get rid of our phones and internet and hire people to deliver messages.
Plenty of work for everyone!
Except that de-automation has no improvement but by adding middle men. And the more likely scenario would be that we would return to walking and dumping the shit out the windows. That de-automation doesn't sound so awesome to me, either, mostly because of the consequences.
-
"We can give you lower prices, but we don't fucking bother" is the message I get from loyalty cards.
"We'll give you lower prices if you consistently give us your business."
But there's the assumption that having a loyalty card makes a customer loyal.
What happens if they pear into your wallet as you retrieve your loyalty card and see a competitor's loyalty card?
"This is what we do to traitors!"
Maybe they'll start hiring Cheaters to follow you around.
-
What the fuck are you talking about?
My memories of your complaints were this:
@blakeyrat said:"We can give you lower prices, but we don't fucking bother" is the message I get from loyalty cards.
But what they do is allow stores to run analytics on what things get bought together, by same people, and so on. In previous conversations I remember people comparing said analytics to web analytics due to you having worked in them to wind you up. Basically the argument is that allowing them to do better analysis saves them money thus giving you cheaper prices, rather than doing that doing that for everyone these lowered prices are given to those allowing said analytics (using the loyalty card).
-
Because they raise prices so that they can give you a "loyalty discount" that still leaves prices higher than places that don't use them.
I've found a fair amount of stuff at my store where Walmart is cheaper, but that's not for everything. Nearly everything at Target is more expensive. There are also more expensive "regular" grocery stores that are similar or more expensive, most of which have loyalty stuff. Big box stores typically have lower marginal prices, but you're getting a volume discount plus paying a membership fee. Obviously, regional differences will apply.
Several chains here also have deals with gas stations, so I build up discounts on gas, too.
-
Basically the argument is that allowing them to do better analysis saves them money thus giving you cheaper prices
Kind of like not blocking scripts so websites can do web analytics...
-
I wouldn't be surprised to find that there's someone who has left the one you go to because they don't have automated check out.
I rarely go to the supermarket two blocks from my house, for two reasons. First, and more importantly to me, I can get 90-95% of the same grocery items for less money at one of my local Wal-Marts (including a full selection of fresh meat and produce at one of them). The second is that the supermarket does not have any self-check registers.
-
But hey, misunderstand the economic argument all you want.
Yes, that's what I said.
So we're even?
Not really. Your economically ignorant rant against corporate profits and your non sequitur puts you decidedly behind.
Because the transition from high skilled to low skilled employment is the same a s the transition from low skilled to no employment? I call bullshit on that argument.
Go right ahead. That wasn't my argument, so it's no skin off my nose.
-
Reducing the number of staffed checkout lanes in order to fit in a cluster of self-serve machines has reduced one of my local supermarkets' marginal utility to me to a great enough extent that I have now taken almost all my business to its competitors.
The invisible hand does it's invisible work.
-
Plus they're RECORDING YOUR SHOPPING HABITS WHAAARGARBL!
I assume they're doing that anyway when I use my debit card, with or without a loyalty card.
-
I guess you can look at it as them "purchasing" your buying habits.
But whatever. The store I go to doesn't do loyalty cards, and I like it that way. Even if I am paying a few cents more.
-
-
Keeps the kid busy scanning stuff instead of otherwise getting into trouble.
A rather overlooked feature if you ask me ...
-
@rad131304 said:
Because the transition from high skilled to low skilled employment is the same a s the transition from low skilled to no employment? I call bullshit on that argument.
Go right ahead. That wasn't my argument, so it's no skin off my nose.
Except it was; the Luddites were textile workers protesting against the automation that allowed low skilled workers to perform the jobs previously held by artisans; there was also a productivity boost (as in one employee could do the job of 6). The use of automated cashiers replaces people for machines 1:1. The corporate headcount drops, but you still employ the IT dude, you just reduce your unskilled workers significantly or completely. While one cashier might be able to monitor multiple cash lanes, I have no idea if this exchange is faster or slower - given my experience at many locations, it is probably neither on aggregate. If my experience is representative of actual dwell times at the checkout, then the productivity increase is not experienced by the end consumer at all, which means it has no benefit for the consumer.
Explain how that's like the Luddites again? Because I'm really not seeing it.
-
Yes, that's what I said.
That you misunderstood the economic argument? Because it sure sounded like the opposite....
-
Why must I scan my items one by one, put each, one by one, into the container, and wait while it realises the shit sits in its container?
Loss prevention.
It's weighing each time to check for a difference in weight.
-
Explain how that's like the Luddites again? Because I'm really not seeing it.
That's one way to look at it. You could also look at it based on how productive people were, which was my point. We could only employ people who can do the addition and multiplication required for grocery checkout, and that would be more highly skilled than letting them use modern cash register technology. If you think high vs low skilled is the important part of that story, then we're not going to see eye to eye.
The low skilled people were able to do the job of multiple artisans. This freed up labor to do more interesting things. Obviously, there's friction involved in any such transition, but I still believe that it's a big plus on the whole and I'd rather find a way of dealing with the people who are casualties of that friction than taking action to lower our overall standard of living.
-
That you misunderstood the economic argument? Because it sure sounded like the opposite....
No, that's pretty much it. You misunderstood the economic argument.
-
reduce your unskilled workers significantly or completely.
increasing the value of labor, and obsoleting jobs that cannot pay a person to raise a family.
Now, what again is wrong here?
-
Labor is a fucking moving target.
We professionals get that, but the
drebsoccupiers don't, and they need to be informed that you can't keep doing the same exact thing the same exact way your whole life and expect to keep (or even improve?!...) your standard of living.
