>

Sure is for MY convenience. I can pack my groceries so much more efficiently than any cashier I ever met. I bring my own bags and can usually get everything into 2-3 bags tops. If I use a regular checkout, they will put like 3 items per bag and waste so much space.  Until they stop being so inefficient with space, I will continue to use self checkout.
To /u/PinkCrystal1031, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.
In our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:

Instead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.
Steelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.
Avoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.
Ask questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.

Please also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track.  Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do. >

Things can have multiple reasons. Self check out can both be more convenient for customers and so companies can spend less on staffing costs. Both things can be true. >

I don't even thinks its complicated. The world has never been more automated and there are more people employed than ever. It's a net job creator, full stop. >

It definitely seems to be. Automation seems to change the types of jobs people do more than replacing jobs. >

Be the Machine -> Oversee / Program / Fix / Engineer the Machines >

I prefer checking myself out, now I don't have to sit awkwardly feeling guilty that this person is doing a task I could be doing myself. Plus I don't have to worry about judgement if my list happens to be odd that day. Its just easier for me as a person, if the company saves money from this then so be it. I'd prefer they reinvest that money into their workers but I'm not the boss of any grocery chain >

I agree with what you're saying, but I just want to say.. I've worked multiple service jobs and believe me, no one is judging you, because you stop noticing everything. I worked at a coffee shop and whenever I turned around to make someone's order and turn around to give it to them, I sometimes already had forgotten who it was for. This task took a maximum of 30sec. 
So never feel awkward for buying condoms, lube and a 6 cucumbers is all I'm saying >

Hahaha I absolutely love this! Mostly cause condoms, lube and cucumbers is pretty close to the checkout items I had once 
And I know deep down service workers aren't judging. But I could be buying even just a leaf of bread and some batteries and feel like I'm being a bother still. I'll have to keep your words in mind next time I'm condemned to a proper checkout line >

What is the problem that self-check out causes? People sometimes need help? So they go from needing 100% assistance to needing help some of the time? That's not a problem: that's an improvement. >

Automation of a human experience, contributing to the growing issue of social isolation, and reducing the number of unskilled jobs for those in society who would usually work them. >

That is actually good, because it creates pressure on the system to create a universal basic income. Do you want people to 'slave' away at a mind numbing job for decades just so that the employment stats look right? I don't think that is humane, and I am all for automation replacing as many humans as possible, so that they can do what they are passionate about. >

And you really think your government is suddenly going to start providing financially for your vulnerable citizens? Why? 
The reality is that removing jobs will hurt real people. Solutions won’t be forthcoming. More people will slide into poverty, more elderly and disabled people will be isolated.
Automated checkouts have been a thing for years. What’s the latest on that universal income plan? >


And you really think your government is suddenly going to start providing financially for your vulnerable citizens? Why? 

Not 'suddenly' but as I said it creates the pressure to do this. Many places also already have something close to this in place. In Germany we have the 'citizen money' (literal translation), and they basically pay for your apartment + a fixed amount of money every month (~500EUR/USD) + more if you have children, etc. if you lost employment. So now it is basically just a matter of increasing that fixed amount of money to an amount that allows people to participate in society beyond just surviving. I know that other countries who currently lack such systems have more of an uphill battle, but it is most certainly possible. >

Of course it’s possible. Lots of things are possible. You are naive to expect these things to happen just because an increased need has arisen. That’s not how government works. >

Increased need driving social, political, and stability pressure is how governments and societies overtime have been forced to change or respond. You're naïve to think he is talking on a scale you're thinking in. It might not become standard in our lifetime and generations will suffer stuck in the transition. But a solution of sorts will happen and future generations will read about it in history books being confused why it took so long and why so many of us just let it happen. Just like we do with hundreds of things that happened in history that took time or drastic measures to force change. >

I guess I’m more concerned about the human beings who exist right now. >

Think about it this way. 1000 people were slaves before slavery was considered evil. 100 slaves suffered to cause pressure to force change. Now infinite number of people won't be slaves. Those 1000 have no idea and died in a world they didn't know could be better. Those 100 suffered worse than they would have if they kept shut because they knew world should be better. But now everyone for rest of time will benefit from that forced change. First mover group or transition group will always suffer the most. During industrial revolution, it was the same. During any major shift in standard and life, its always been the same. Paperboys and paper printing companies used to oppose the internet too. They said it will cause too many jobs to be lost and it will destroy entire work communities that depend on selling in person and traveling, etc and we need to stop internet from becoming widespread accepted technology/idea. Same thing. 
Governments and society should be forward looking. That's how we minimize how long we are in transition and how we take care of people in transition. If governments and society simply focused on the transition group, then there will be even greater resistance or lack of resources to push to the next stage to make a norm. That'll cause the transition stage to be longer and for more people overtime to suffer in it. 
Thats why I said you and the other commentator are talking about different scales. Making 100 lives comfortable today by making 1000 lives worse tomorrow is not a net positive. Even if you're taking care of the human beings who exist now, you're simply taking it away from a greater number of human beings who will exist tomorrow. >

I understand your general point. 
I just fundamentally disagree on the premise.
I think it is more valuable to look after the human beings who already exist, than to sacrifice them in the name of those who don’t yet exist.
We are coming at this from different places. Nothing wrong with that. >

I'd like to change your view, but maybe not in the direction you were expecting.
Self checkout absolutely is a cost saving thing. Stores do it so they can pay fewer workers and save a lot of money on labor costs. 1 worker can process 5 people checking out at the same time instead of only 1 at a time.
Yes, this causes problems. Sometimes customers need help, and sometimes they steal using a few common methods. However, these problems don't add up to the amount the business saves in labor costs! The businesses doing self checkout should keep it that way because it overall saves them money. 
They've done the calculations and it turns out that losing some product to theft is minor compared to saving so much on labor. And most people tend not to steal. So sure, you might have 5x as much theft at self checkout than regular checkout. But it still isn't enough theft for them to lose money on it.
Also, it means some people would complete their purchase instead of abandoning their cart when it's super busy because they can get through checkout faster. That likely won't add up to as much as they lose on theft, but it's another mediating factor to consider. >

I was in Berlin where they don't have self checkout and honestly it's infuriating. You could have one item and the guy in front you is buying half the store and you have to wait 15 mins. It's one of those "it used to be better but not really" things. >

I'll counter this.  There are plenty of times I find myself in the ONLY full-serve line in a giant store, with dozens of other people.  Self-checkout is an absurd amount of work when you have a lot of items, both because most self-checkouts are designed with small carriages in mind AND because self-checkouts make customers do more work than full checkouts expect of the cashiers in hopes of reducing shrink.
Literally, self-checkouts are proof that businesses are happy to reduce efficiency and customer experience to increase profits.  Automation being used to make more total work.
TLDR: People avoiding self-checkouts to wait in very long lines is proof that "it used to be better" is a true statement. >

Are the only "other problems" with it that people don't like bagging their own groceries? That doesn't seem like a huge issue to me.
Personally, I think it's in the end going to be good that jobs like this are phased out, we just need appropriate assistance to those in poverty or a universal basic income or something to fill the gap. >

Dunno if it’s a US thing, but the idea of someone bagging my groceries (i’m UK) is absurd to me. It basically just doesn’t happen unless you’re old or something, oh and if like the Scouts is doing a fun raiser sorta thing.
So for me a self checkout is just better for when I only have a few items, as people with full trolleys generally use the regular cashiers. >

Did I just have a stroke ? >


I find self-checkouts faster for a small number of items.
Any mistake I make is entirely my own and not the fault of a cashier
Those who are introverted don't have to interact with a cashier
Personal products that might otherwise be embarassing to purchase can be purchased discretely at a self-checkout.
There can be more self-checkouts open than cashiers.
Self-checkouts are not the problem because they are only used by big-box stores. Your issue isn't self-checkouts but supporting big-box stores. 

Being a cashier isn't a meaningful career. You are literally standing on your feet all day scanning barcodes, directing people to use a credit/debit machine and if your soul hasn't been completely crushed, you're making small talk with the customers. Again, it's a problem with "big box stores". Where as if you were in a small locally owned business, supporting a customer in thier purchase, the exchange of money for the goods purchased is only a small portion of the job. We eliminated other meaningless jobs.


Switchboard operators

Postal workers handling manual mail sorting
Gas pump attendants
Librarians handling manual card catalogs (Freeing up Librarians to do other things)
Parking meters attendants
Movie projectionists >

I agree with all of your points except that checking isn't a meaningful career. I've got checkers who very much enjoy their jobs. Once they have seniority they can choose whatever shifts and days they want to work, they have no problem getting 40 hours if they choose, and they make $24 per hour. Our average wage is $20+ for checkers. Also great benefits and a 401k or pension depending on the contract. >

Those are all great points but they still don’t define * career*. No one grows up dreaming of being a cashier. No one gets to the end of their life thinking “damn, I contributed to society by being a cashier. What a fulfilling career that was. “
It is a “cog in the machine” job. 
A job where we have inserted a human in a gap in process that we couldn’t otherwise figure out how to fill. Like people in factories that pluck plastic forks off the mold injection and package them into boxes.
People deserve better jobs than standing around scanning barcodes for 40 hours a week. >

I think you are conflating how cheap-ass Walmart does self-checkout versus how it is implemented better at others stores, let me give you a few examples. 
In the majority of Walmarts I've gone to in different parts of my country (USA), while Walmart has widely rolled out self-checkout, they haven't massively reconfigured their stores to support an increase of self-checkout. 
In all 3 of the Walmarts I frequent in my city, they have 4 self-checkout stations at the non-grocery entrance and 6-8 at the grocery entrance. 
That means that at most you have 10-12 stations. So if the people that have take the most time with self-checkout, which in my observation is the elderly, people with small children, and people with a lot of groceries, if those individuals are using 6 stations at any given time, that means 50% of the total capacity is bogged down by people that are going to take a long time at the station. 
Now compare that with a large grocery chain in my area, Meijer, which reconfigured its stores to account for the increase of self-checkout and has 16-20 self-checkout stations on the grocery side and 6-8 on the non-grocery side. 
They are literally doubling the capacity of Walmart and in my experience lines move much quicker because the faster shoppers are able to move more quickly through their self-checkout and it keeps the line moving. 
The other self-checkout process that speeds up the process is shop-and-go. 
If you don't know what that is, it allows you to use the store's app to scan groceries as you shop with your phone and then you go to a separate self-checkout station where you transfer the order from your phone to the station and you pay at the station. 
I have found shop-and-go to be a massive improvement on the speed of my shopping experience because I bring insulated reusable shopping bags with me and can bag my items as I go, so by the time I get to the self-checkout it's extremely fast to transfer to the station and pay with either my phone or credit card and walk out because my groceries are already bagged. 
Walmart was testing this feature in some markets but decided to not roll it out widely. 
These are only 2 examples of ways that Walmart has implemented it poorly because they are cheap but actually work well at other stores. 
But there are other benefits such as for people that have anxiety about talking to strangers or making small talk, self-checkout is a massive improvement. 
Or autistic or other neurodivergent individuals, self-checkout is a massive improvement for compared to dealing with a cashier. >

That shop and go feature is available at Sam’s Club (which is Walmarts version of Costco) and it makes checking out very fast while also helping me spend less since I see the running total every time I add something to my cart.
It’s interesting that they implemented it there but not at regular Walmart. >

I'm facebook friends with someone who a person they are friends with works at Walmart in their corporate offices. 
For clarity, I'll call my friend A and the Walmart corporate person B. 
So a couple of years back A made a post not that dissimilar from the post here, about how self-checkout isn't really any more efficient. I commented about my shop-and-go experience and B chimed in and said that Walmart had tested it in a few test markets but the amount of theft in those purchases was too high so they shut it down. 
Take that for what you will.
I'm familiar with Sam's Club and I know it's still a feature there to this day so if it's being used successfully there I don't know why they can't use it in regular stores. 
For me to use it at Meijer I not only have to have the app but I have to have a registered account with them so if I was being dishonest with my purchases they would know and could take corrective action. 
Also, I just googled it and it seems to still be a feature of Walmart+ but I don't know who would subscribe to that service just for that. >

I have Walmart plus because you can get delivery for free. I’ve used the scan and go too but I feel weird about it. 
I know that they have very good AI with the self checkouts and the machines can detect shoplifters and keep records of people who steal. They wait until you steal around $1000 and prosecute. They also will offer shoplifters to pay privately instead of going to court and add a percentage on top of what you’ve stolen, so they make money off that as well. If you pay cash they might have a harder time keeping track, but I think they just use the face recognition to track repeated theft >

I'm autistic, I go completely nonverbal in public. When a stranger tries talking to me, specifically older cashiers, and I dont answer, I often get the look. You know, the one your mom gave you when you wouldnt give Uncle Jerry a hug. Its uncomfortable, I prefer self checkouts because of that. >

Dude me too. I don’t have to wait or talk to anyone. >

Sure is for MY convenience. I can pack my groceries so much more efficiently than any cashier I ever met. I bring my own bags and can usually get everything into 2-3 bags tops. If I use a regular checkout, they will put like 3 items per bag and waste so much space.  Until they stop being so inefficient with space, I will continue to use self checkout. >

Maybe my English is shit but your title does not make sense. Stopped reading after that. >

It is the future.  Companies implement this system to reduce payroll and benefit pay outs.  There are regular registers open as a rule.  Also, someone is there to assist and they scan to get you out more quickly.  Of the stores I visit,  this is the case.  It is very difficult to hire people who will adhere to the expectations and scheduling of and by the company.  Turnarounds are very high.  I don't know what problems it causes, just when someone uses self checkout with a lot of items, it slows down the process and that is rare by ny experience. >

Some people bring several carts of stuff to self checkout or wait until someone scans all of their items ( defeats the purpose of self checkout). Would be nice if customers going to self checkout knew how to cash out there; otherwise go to a regular cashier. Common sense, right? >

I agree. >

I'm a gig worker. I'm in and out without standing in a line. >

It takes longer with self checkout because an employee needs to help someone it would be easier to have a cashier. >

That’s certainly not my experience. Self-checkout is much faster and much more convenient. There’s rarely any issue with it, and if you do need something or they’re doing a random check, they’re there very quickly as well. >

I have cancer and I’m exhausted.   The last thing I want to do is check out my own groceries. >

Self check,sucks.always a line of 10 peeps waiting.and machine can't scan every thing,so you have to wait for service.plus all those germs all over the  machine, nobody clean s them, maybe once an hour.covid people cough ing,it's disgusting.and loud lady speaking on it,it's awful 😞. >

I think a lot of people are missing a big part of what has really happened in the post covid era. Many businesses that have self checkout have transfered that labor cost to curbside shopping/checkout. Not only have they allowed customers that don't want to deal with a cashier a better option, they have actually added a service. 
Look, at the end of the day the point of a business is to make money, so I would assume that eliminating some cashier's has probably lead to higher profits for these companies, but it has also allowed them to transfer some labor cost to other departments that they wouldn't be willing to do so otherwise. >

The only good thing about self check out is the amount of shoplifting you can get away with. I support you guys, keep on stealing until they take the fuckers out. >

I transfer that money the company is saving to me. I'm no cashier so sometimes I may think I have scanned something when I really haven't. Oops >

In Finland we've packed our own groceries since forever. You also have to buy the plastic bags if you need them, that's the law. They're like $0.4 each. 
The cashier scans the items and puts them on the secondary conveyor belt that goes to the packing area, which is split into two sections with a divider. One customer can pack their purchases while the cashier is already scanning and taking payment for another. Looks like this.
It's usually faster to let the professional scan your stuff than to use the self-checkout, but if there's a queue, the self-checkout area usually has a free machine you can use without having to stand in line and there's no elderly people counting their pennies to slow it down, so when the shop is busy, the self-checkout is a fast-lane for people who don't have a problem using it. In that sense, it's very much a convenience for me as a customer.
I bet having self-checkouts has increased condom and pregnancy test sales and reduced theft for those products, as buying them from a cashier can be embarrassing for some people, especially the young. In that sense it's a convenience for the shopper too.
If it saves money for the company, it means the customer doesn't have to pay for more cashiers in the prices of the products. Also a convenience.
The self-checkout machines have multiple languages to choose from, it's a convenience for people who don't share a language with the cashier. >

Taking a big picture view, the retailer having lower costs for checkout staff means it can afford to charge lower prices which benefits customers. (This assumes a competitive market, which I would say the UK grocery market generally is.) >

I think I need someone to train me on self checkout.  I must be doing it wrong.  It is always a damn hassle.  
ITEM REMOVED FROM BAGGAGE AREA!
Well no shit!  There isn't enough room for all my purchases to fit in TWO little plastic grocery bags.  Gotta pull a bag out to make room for more stuff. >

Fresh produce and alcohol purchases throw a wrench into self-checkout. It makes the process take longer than a cashier. People on this subreddit can fight me.
Oh, and some systems don’t like to play well with reusable grocery bags. No thanks. >

Okay but hear me out: I save ALOT of time and stress using self checkout.
Like i am a patient man usually but i cannot fathom how slowly one can scan groceries.
First week/month? Yeah no biggie.
2 fucking years and it takes you 3 minutes scanning 5 items? I wanna fucking kill you and im confident i could manage to do that AND scan my items faster than you.
Rant out of the way. While its definitely for company benefit its also very benificial in bigger cities where majority of the population dont speak english (ie paris)
Atleast the self checkout speak the language. >

It is for the convenience of customers.  
I wanted a self checkout in a store I go to. 
Because it's better for me:

Shorter / faster queues
One blocked register doesn't mean anything, others will be free
It's more comfortable going at my own pace and not having the feeling of blocking others (previous point) 
If don't want to interact with people, I don't have to

It is for the convenience of customers.  
Is it also making them more money? yes. But it's still more convenient for me. >

Does it really matter why the companies do it?  The end effect is that it is more convenient for consumers because they can (a) check out at their own pace and verify proper pricing for every item along the way and (b) not have to interact with another human being.
There is literally no down side to self checkout.  The only downsides come when the self-checkout is insufficient.  Either there are an insufficient number of self-checkouts resulting in having to wait for one, there is a malfunction resulting in the need for human intervention, or there are technological limitations that require human intervention. >

Some people can only handle a job like cashier. Self check had lead to theft. The Walmart I worked at lost about 200-300 dollar hover board because someone put it in a storage container and went to self check out. If they had a cashiers to check it probably would not have happen. I >

People have been stealing from WalMart long before self checkout became a thing.  Even so, this sounds like it fits under the "technological limitation that requires human intervention".  The problem isn't the self-checkout, it's that the self-checkout isn't good enough at detecting theft.  Fix the technology.  Don't involve people. >

Or involve people AND fix the technology. I have literally no issue with the couple people stores usually have hanging around because they're useful when an error crops up or you need to be IDd or something. They still won't catch everything but if theft is REALLY that big an issue the system would have been adjusted to reach acceptable amounts of loss. Whether that be new tech or having self checkout overseers >

It is a win win.  It is cheaper for the store and given the choice, I will always use self checkout, even if the line is longer. >

Personally I love the convenience of self-checkout.
I have two grocery stores, one about a half mile further from home. For a few years, the further one had self checkout while the closer one didn't. I routinely found myself waiting significantly longer at the closer one than I ever did at the further one, so despite the bit of extra distance I generally went to the one with the self-checkout. When the other one put in self checkouts the waits went away and I started shopping there more.
It's worth noting I have a flexible work schedule and do most of my shopping during business hours (which are off-peak for grocery stores), so they generally won't staff heavily at those times, but there can still end up with a few people in line. With self-checkouts it never becomes a problem, especially during off-peak hours. >

It is not clear to me what other problem self-checkout causes? >

It has lead to theft and being a cashier is job that some people can only handle. >


being a cashier is job that some people can only handle.   

Being a farmer used to be the only job that some people could handle, does that mean it was a problem that we underwent the industrial revolution?    

It has lead to theft   

I don't see what the problem is here? Clearly, supermarkets have done the math and a small increase in theft does not outweigh paying extra cashiers for them.    
So what's the problem exactly? >

Places like Walmart employees a lot of disabled ‘employees. A mental disabled girl was put on cashier because she couldn’t handle other jobs. >

Grocery stores have a lot of jobs that people with disabilities can do. There might be some edge case where some person's combination of skills and disabilities means they're only suited for the cash register, but having worked with disabled populations that seems exceedingly rare. Cashiers have to be verbal, proficient in basic math, able to identify a variety of problems and communicate with their managers quickly and professionally.
Plenty of people with disabilities can do those things. They can do other jobs that aren't physically taxing, like cleaning, sorting, and packaging produce, organizing returns, or tidying stock rooms. If they don't have physical limitations, of course, there's a much wider range of things they can do. >

I use self check every time I can. I bring my own bags and can pack them the way I want. And, no, I can't do that at full service because the baggers either take over or I'm too slow for the checker, or the checker didn't scan things through in the order I want.  Self check is great. If you don't want to use it, fine. >

I’m a millennial and I like some old fashion things.  But like I was saying companies like to look for ways to save money. They don’t care about people as much as think. Self check means they don’t have to pay as many people. After all how will the CEOs be able to afford that house in the California or a vacation home. >

If you go online and google dying jobs one of the top jobs that’s dying is cashier and it’s so obvious that it’s because of self check. Which is why these days never say to someone that have a job as a cashier is a blessing from god because these days there are stores that don’t even have employees they are monitored by cameras. >

I know some people prefer it, but if there is someone to ring up my order and bag it then I'll wait. The last time I did self check out, I ended up not paying for some of my items because I put my bagged items over them. I won't even call it stealing because it was truly a mistake. I'd rather shop online and have them bring my groceries inside if they go all self checkout. Then they'll lose on the impulse buying at checkout. Apparently they've weighed the pros and cons. I'm not her to change anyone's view. >

It's worth it to be cashed out at a regular register. The cashier does the work and I guess in a way they are helping to save jobs. >

Both more efficient and to save the business money. Every industry is trying to automate processes for reduced costs of labor. This is why if you go to states that reduce the costs on businesses with regard to labor, you will see more employees at all levels comparatively. Please note, not all costs are strictly hourly pay. (An example of this is a similar sized grocery store from the same company will often have more cashier's in Florida compared to California). 
The real issue here is, as labor costs, imposed by the state, increase, demand for labor decreases and creates a more competitive labor market. With this increases cost businesses will seek ways to reduce this costs by hiring less employees, cutting hours, overlapping employee responsibilities, passing costs onto customers, moving out of state, selling off assets, reduction in product quality, investing in automotive processes, etc. >

Is there any evidence that this is actually leading to increased structural unemployment, or have people just switched to new sorts of jobs? >

You sound like a real treat, show that big business what’s up. >

Costco does self checkout and it is both more convenient for customers and a cost cutting measure. There are 6 self checkout stations that only requires 1-2 employees to monitor. It is convenient for me, because I don't need to wait in line behind the person that has a full shopping cart. It's simple to use, just scan the barcode and insert your credit card. There is no issue of increase theft because Costco already requires you to present your receipt before you leave. >

I have been in sam’s club which know does self check out, we don’t have Cosco in my area it’s a bit of a drive. Still you need a employee to give you permission to buy certain things and type in the code if something doesn’t scan,  might as well go to a cashier. >

That is a worse case scenario that is no less convenient than going to a cashier.  9 times out of 10 there is no scan issue, nor am I buying anything that requires an associate, so that 90% of the time it is more convenient, and is never less convenient. >

One advantage that self checkout has is space. Even though a self checkout stand has to occupy more width than a traditional checkout lane, you can fit more than one lane lengthwise.
In one of the stores around me, there are eight self checkout stands that occupy the space of five traditional checkout lanes. A customer paying at a self checkout stand typically doesn't spend 160% (8/5ths) the time as one in a traditional lane, so the benefit is worth it. >

It all depends on how they staff the store.  Before Covid in my area self checkouts were almost always available to instantly walk up to and check out right away.  Normal checkouts would vary based on how busy the store was from sometimes no line to a few people in each.  Self checkout let you skip everything, not have to deal with other people, and was the fastest option if the store was busy at all.  
But now many stores dropped staffing such that self checkout stays full first and they open more manned checkouts as needed beyond that. >

I think it’s both. I will go to a self-checkout nearly every time I make a purchase at a store, and they already weren’t paying enough cashiers. It was basically an experiment on how long they could let the lines get before they paid another cashier. The advent of self-checkout basically solved their problems: lower prices, shorter lines, less labor. >

Waiting in one giant ass line with people who have a bunch of groceries vs being able to check out my self in under a minute..... Cashiers are slow and half the time they don't bother to show up to work. >

I much prefer self checkout and often find it to be faster given the usual queue system employed. >

I go with whatever has the shortest line. Frequently the self-checkout, because you've got about 6 of them in the space of 2 regular cashiers.
But if there's people at the checkouts and a cashier is open? I'm definitely going to the cashier.
Also sucks that they're not allowed to fill bags you bring with you anymore. IDK when or why that changed, but it means I'm bagging my own stuff either way. >

They aren't allowed to fill bags you bring? Why not? >

Why can’t both be true? It is both convenient for customers and cheaper for companies, unfortunately at the expense of the workers. >

I consider not having to talk to another human being to be very convenient, especially when I’m exhausted after a long day of work and don’t feel up to making small talk. >

Do you have a view that you want changed or are you just venting in poor grammar? >

Why can't it be both?  More efficient for customers and more efficient for companies.  It's a win-win. >

I love self-checkout, regardless of why they implemented it. >

Self check out is great because you don’t have to talk to or bother anyone. >

This has been known for years OP. This isn't some amazing revelation. >

Dude. Fuck standing in line for a cashier. I will take self check out 100% of the time. When Piggily Wiggily had customet do their own shopping I am sure some people complained but most loved it. MOST people prefer self checkout.
We dont need more cashiers. It is a robot job. We need more floor staff. >

Important to note here: You can put 3 self-checkout areas in the space that one normal, cashier-run checkout aisle fits in. 
I'd rather do it myself in a third the time that it would take to wait in a line, but also I'm young. I believe that a store should leave a few/couple cashier-run aisles for the elderly and disabled to use. >

There's a store i hate so fucking much, they have about 10 self checkouts, but only ever open 3. There's always a line >

I prefer self checkout, because In faster, dont like smalltalk, dont like my things going supersonic over the scanner and instant packing speed.
The only downside I have, is buying alcohol, as somebody has to do a check, regardless of how obviously old enough the person is. >

If it wasn't convenient for customers it simply wouldn't be used and stores would drop it. It exists because customers like it AND it saves the store money. >

Everywhere ive asked about this topic, ive been informed that the self checkout requires more workers overall.
Seems the bonus yo the company comes from getting more ppl through the checkouts during busy times. >

It's also very space efficient
A store near where I live was able to add 2 self checkouts barely removing any space >

That's exactly true. No need to CMV. >

No, self checkout is so we can buy elephant garlic for the same price as normal garlic. CMV /s >

Employees are often tasked with multiple tasks such as stocking shelves and checking people out. This is common in Walgreens and CVS for example. Self checkout allows the employee to stay focused on one task without as many interruptions which is both less stressful for the employee and more efficient for the business. 
Yes it can lead to higher rates of theft but this is offset by the increase in efficiency. >

I live in spain, so I'm not sure if it works the same in the US, but usually big market employees (Mercadona, Carrefour, Lidl, etc.) are not full-time cashiers. My SO has been a supermarket worker for a while, she's the bread lady in a Mercadona, but to our knowledge, the only time Mercadona hires full-time cashiers is near holidays, and they don't even have self-checkout. It's a Mercadona right in the middle of Barcelona, so there is no shortage of customers, in a normal day, the people at the cashiers are there in addition to other responsibilities, and not all stations are occupied. No one wants cashier duty, she and pretty much all her coworkers would much rather there be self checkout stations and they can just keep doing their jobs instead of being in a register. >

Self check employs those who design the system, do the coding, programming, maintenance, etc. Also those who manufacture and maintain the systems, install them. Plus the people whonhelp out and monitor them.
It's just a different way, but I often see these comments since people don't literally SEE more employees working them, they assume it's free or cheaper and rabble rabble rabble jobs whining from morons.
So stupid and pathetic. >

No one ever denied that the bottom line was the primary goal. However, it is, in some cases, more convenient, if by consequence rather than by design. Like, so many times, I don't want to be judged on what I am purchasing, so am more than happy to scan things myself. >

If it were to be the only choice I would agree, but it's not. 
Self checkout is expensive to install, and prone to shoplifting. I've done it myself, if something doesn't scan after three tries, it's free. Businesses know this and take it as a cost of doing business. It's still shoplifting. 
That said I usually prefer self checkout to waiting in a long line, so it IS for my convenience. >

It's for both things. Many people prefer the self-checkouts to avoid the interaction with the cashier. Myself, for example. I very much prefer the self-checkout because I can take my time to pay. Usually there's an employee in charge of the self-checkout area, so it's quite literally their job to help people if something goes wrong or they need to check ID. 
Nowadays we can even just scan the products with our phones, and just walk out of the store. >

Can you please clarify what your stance is, and what your arguments are? I gave your post an honest read and I simply cannot understand what it is that you're trying to say. >

Probably but I’m not waiting for someone to do all their years shopping on a Sunday with all their squawking spawns right before everything closes…. I just want my bag of chips and to leave the store ¯_(ツ)_/¯ >

It can be more convenient, but the primary purpose for companies is saving money on wages.
I read an article a while back that talked about the increase in self check outs and companies complaining of a rise in theft connected to it. The article talked about there being a breach of trust between shops and customers like "hey, you won't give me the basic decency of human service = I won't give you the basic decency of being honest".
It's complete rubbish from a moral point of view but as a matter of fact I reckon there's a good dose of truth to that. >

Has made buying condoms a less embarrassing experience if there’s a delay in my online order >

Are you saying people shouldn't use self check out or are you just identifying the reason they exist? >

No shit >

In order for a company to invest in self checkout, they've gotta believe that either:

They'll get enough extra sales due to having the option, that it pays for cost of the equipment
They'll save enough labor to pay for the cost of the equipment
... some combination of the two

Generally, the business case is based on the second one, but in some cases it's based on the former. e.g., convenience stores (say, in an airport) can't afford to pay for labor to be open 24/7 ... but they can offer self-checkout for the 8-12 hours a day that they don't have staff on-site. Net benefit to the consumer: being able to buy a neck pillow on a layover at 3 am.
Similarly, lots of stores have checkout processes that add a lot of time for the consumer. Take a grocery store, for example. As you go through the store, you're picking up individual items and sticking them in your cart ... then, you go to a checkout counter, where they take every item out of your cart, scan it, and put it back into your cart. On average, that takes about 7 minutes of your time.
Grocery chains that let you scan the groceries on an app on your phone, and pay for it automatically and just walk out? Well, they've saved themselves labor, and they've saved you time ... they've even saved time for the people who don't use the scan-and-go, by reducing the amount of people heading to the traditional checkout lines.
So no, self-checkout isn't altruistic, but that certainly doesn't mean it can't be a win-win. >

WTF did I just read? Are you ok? What exactly is your argument? >

Self checkouts increase theft by a lot, so it wouldn’t make any sense to have them if it wasn’t saving enough on staffing costs to cover the theft. >

Self-checkout can be used by employers to lower employee headcount. But it can also serve other purposes. Some important points:
​

in a 2019 survey, 73% of customers indicated they want self-checkout options. So, having self-checkout is in fact giving customers what they ask for.
Freeing employees to add value. An employee standing behind a cashier can provide only minimal customer service and do little actually productive labor. That same employee on the floor can provide extensive customer service and perform other necessary tasks. Installing self-checkout and maintaining the same headcount can be a way of increasing value to the customer without increasing costs (beyond the installation cost of the checkout).
Self-checkout can be an effective marketing tool. You can use the kiosk interface to market all kinds of things directly to the customer, and tailor that marketing to the specific customer. It is a very effective tool for brand messaging as well. >

To /u/PinkCrystal1031, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.
In our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:

Instead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.
Steelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.
Avoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.
Ask questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.

Please also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track.  Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do. >

Things can have multiple reasons. Self check out can both be more convenient for customers and so companies can spend less on staffing costs. Both things can be true. >

I don't even thinks its complicated. The world has never been more automated and there are more people employed than ever. It's a net job creator, full stop. >

It definitely seems to be. Automation seems to change the types of jobs people do more than replacing jobs. >

Be the Machine -> Oversee / Program / Fix / Engineer the Machines >

I prefer checking myself out, now I don't have to sit awkwardly feeling guilty that this person is doing a task I could be doing myself. Plus I don't have to worry about judgement if my list happens to be odd that day. Its just easier for me as a person, if the company saves money from this then so be it. I'd prefer they reinvest that money into their workers but I'm not the boss of any grocery chain >

I agree with what you're saying, but I just want to say.. I've worked multiple service jobs and believe me, no one is judging you, because you stop noticing everything. I worked at a coffee shop and whenever I turned around to make someone's order and turn around to give it to them, I sometimes already had forgotten who it was for. This task took a maximum of 30sec. 
So never feel awkward for buying condoms, lube and a 6 cucumbers is all I'm saying >

Hahaha I absolutely love this! Mostly cause condoms, lube and cucumbers is pretty close to the checkout items I had once 
And I know deep down service workers aren't judging. But I could be buying even just a leaf of bread and some batteries and feel like I'm being a bother still. I'll have to keep your words in mind next time I'm condemned to a proper checkout line >

What is the problem that self-check out causes? People sometimes need help? So they go from needing 100% assistance to needing help some of the time? That's not a problem: that's an improvement. >

Automation of a human experience, contributing to the growing issue of social isolation, and reducing the number of unskilled jobs for those in society who would usually work them. >

That is actually good, because it creates pressure on the system to create a universal basic income. Do you want people to 'slave' away at a mind numbing job for decades just so that the employment stats look right? I don't think that is humane, and I am all for automation replacing as many humans as possible, so that they can do what they are passionate about. >

And you really think your government is suddenly going to start providing financially for your vulnerable citizens? Why? 
The reality is that removing jobs will hurt real people. Solutions won’t be forthcoming. More people will slide into poverty, more elderly and disabled people will be isolated.
Automated checkouts have been a thing for years. What’s the latest on that universal income plan? >


And you really think your government is suddenly going to start providing financially for your vulnerable citizens? Why? 

Not 'suddenly' but as I said it creates the pressure to do this. Many places also already have something close to this in place. In Germany we have the 'citizen money' (literal translation), and they basically pay for your apartment + a fixed amount of money every month (~500EUR/USD) + more if you have children, etc. if you lost employment. So now it is basically just a matter of increasing that fixed amount of money to an amount that allows people to participate in society beyond just surviving. I know that other countries who currently lack such systems have more of an uphill battle, but it is most certainly possible. >

Of course it’s possible. Lots of things are possible. You are naive to expect these things to happen just because an increased need has arisen. That’s not how government works. >

Increased need driving social, political, and stability pressure is how governments and societies overtime have been forced to change or respond. You're naïve to think he is talking on a scale you're thinking in. It might not become standard in our lifetime and generations will suffer stuck in the transition. But a solution of sorts will happen and future generations will read about it in history books being confused why it took so long and why so many of us just let it happen. Just like we do with hundreds of things that happened in history that took time or drastic measures to force change. >

I guess I’m more concerned about the human beings who exist right now. >

Think about it this way. 1000 people were slaves before slavery was considered evil. 100 slaves suffered to cause pressure to force change. Now infinite number of people won't be slaves. Those 1000 have no idea and died in a world they didn't know could be better. Those 100 suffered worse than they would have if they kept shut because they knew world should be better. But now everyone for rest of time will benefit from that forced change. First mover group or transition group will always suffer the most. During industrial revolution, it was the same. During any major shift in standard and life, its always been the same. Paperboys and paper printing companies used to oppose the internet too. They said it will cause too many jobs to be lost and it will destroy entire work communities that depend on selling in person and traveling, etc and we need to stop internet from becoming widespread accepted technology/idea. Same thing. 
Governments and society should be forward looking. That's how we minimize how long we are in transition and how we take care of people in transition. If governments and society simply focused on the transition group, then there will be even greater resistance or lack of resources to push to the next stage to make a norm. That'll cause the transition stage to be longer and for more people overtime to suffer in it. 
Thats why I said you and the other commentator are talking about different scales. Making 100 lives comfortable today by making 1000 lives worse tomorrow is not a net positive. Even if you're taking care of the human beings who exist now, you're simply taking it away from a greater number of human beings who will exist tomorrow. >

I understand your general point. 
I just fundamentally disagree on the premise.
I think it is more valuable to look after the human beings who already exist, than to sacrifice them in the name of those who don’t yet exist.
We are coming at this from different places. Nothing wrong with that. >

I'd like to change your view, but maybe not in the direction you were expecting.
Self checkout absolutely is a cost saving thing. Stores do it so they can pay fewer workers and save a lot of money on labor costs. 1 worker can process 5 people checking out at the same time instead of only 1 at a time.
Yes, this causes problems. Sometimes customers need help, and sometimes they steal using a few common methods. However, these problems don't add up to the amount the business saves in labor costs! The businesses doing self checkout should keep it that way because it overall saves them money. 
They've done the calculations and it turns out that losing some product to theft is minor compared to saving so much on labor. And most people tend not to steal. So sure, you might have 5x as much theft at self checkout than regular checkout. But it still isn't enough theft for them to lose money on it.
Also, it means some people would complete their purchase instead of abandoning their cart when it's super busy because they can get through checkout faster. That likely won't add up to as much as they lose on theft, but it's another mediating factor to consider. >

I was in Berlin where they don't have self checkout and honestly it's infuriating. You could have one item and the guy in front you is buying half the store and you have to wait 15 mins. It's one of those "it used to be better but not really" things. >

I'll counter this.  There are plenty of times I find myself in the ONLY full-serve line in a giant store, with dozens of other people.  Self-checkout is an absurd amount of work when you have a lot of items, both because most self-checkouts are designed with small carriages in mind AND because self-checkouts make customers do more work than full checkouts expect of the cashiers in hopes of reducing shrink.
Literally, self-checkouts are proof that businesses are happy to reduce efficiency and customer experience to increase profits.  Automation being used to make more total work.
TLDR: People avoiding self-checkouts to wait in very long lines is proof that "it used to be better" is a true statement. >

Are the only "other problems" with it that people don't like bagging their own groceries? That doesn't seem like a huge issue to me.
Personally, I think it's in the end going to be good that jobs like this are phased out, we just need appropriate assistance to those in poverty or a universal basic income or something to fill the gap. >

Dunno if it’s a US thing, but the idea of someone bagging my groceries (i’m UK) is absurd to me. It basically just doesn’t happen unless you’re old or something, oh and if like the Scouts is doing a fun raiser sorta thing.
So for me a self checkout is just better for when I only have a few items, as people with full trolleys generally use the regular cashiers. >

Did I just have a stroke ? >


I find self-checkouts faster for a small number of items.
Any mistake I make is entirely my own and not the fault of a cashier
Those who are introverted don't have to interact with a cashier
Personal products that might otherwise be embarassing to purchase can be purchased discretely at a self-checkout.
There can be more self-checkouts open than cashiers.
Self-checkouts are not the problem because they are only used by big-box stores. Your issue isn't self-checkouts but supporting big-box stores. 

Being a cashier isn't a meaningful career. You are literally standing on your feet all day scanning barcodes, directing people to use a credit/debit machine and if your soul hasn't been completely crushed, you're making small talk with the customers. Again, it's a problem with "big box stores". Where as if you were in a small locally owned business, supporting a customer in thier purchase, the exchange of money for the goods purchased is only a small portion of the job. We eliminated other meaningless jobs.


Switchboard operators

Postal workers handling manual mail sorting
Gas pump attendants
Librarians handling manual card catalogs (Freeing up Librarians to do other things)
Parking meters attendants
Movie projectionists >

I agree with all of your points except that checking isn't a meaningful career. I've got checkers who very much enjoy their jobs. Once they have seniority they can choose whatever shifts and days they want to work, they have no problem getting 40 hours if they choose, and they make $24 per hour. Our average wage is $20+ for checkers. Also great benefits and a 401k or pension depending on the contract. >

Those are all great points but they still don’t define * career*. No one grows up dreaming of being a cashier. No one gets to the end of their life thinking “damn, I contributed to society by being a cashier. What a fulfilling career that was. “
It is a “cog in the machine” job. 
A job where we have inserted a human in a gap in process that we couldn’t otherwise figure out how to fill. Like people in factories that pluck plastic forks off the mold injection and package them into boxes.
People deserve better jobs than standing around scanning barcodes for 40 hours a week. >

I think you are conflating how cheap-ass Walmart does self-checkout versus how it is implemented better at others stores, let me give you a few examples. 
In the majority of Walmarts I've gone to in different parts of my country (USA), while Walmart has widely rolled out self-checkout, they haven't massively reconfigured their stores to support an increase of self-checkout. 
In all 3 of the Walmarts I frequent in my city, they have 4 self-checkout stations at the non-grocery entrance and 6-8 at the grocery entrance. 
That means that at most you have 10-12 stations. So if the people that have take the most time with self-checkout, which in my observation is the elderly, people with small children, and people with a lot of groceries, if those individuals are using 6 stations at any given time, that means 50% of the total capacity is bogged down by people that are going to take a long time at the station. 
Now compare that with a large grocery chain in my area, Meijer, which reconfigured its stores to account for the increase of self-checkout and has 16-20 self-checkout stations on the grocery side and 6-8 on the non-grocery side. 
They are literally doubling the capacity of Walmart and in my experience lines move much quicker because the faster shoppers are able to move more quickly through their self-checkout and it keeps the line moving. 
The other self-checkout process that speeds up the process is shop-and-go. 
If you don't know what that is, it allows you to use the store's app to scan groceries as you shop with your phone and then you go to a separate self-checkout station where you transfer the order from your phone to the station and you pay at the station. 
I have found shop-and-go to be a massive improvement on the speed of my shopping experience because I bring insulated reusable shopping bags with me and can bag my items as I go, so by the time I get to the self-checkout it's extremely fast to transfer to the station and pay with either my phone or credit card and walk out because my groceries are already bagged. 
Walmart was testing this feature in some markets but decided to not roll it out widely. 
These are only 2 examples of ways that Walmart has implemented it poorly because they are cheap but actually work well at other stores. 
But there are other benefits such as for people that have anxiety about talking to strangers or making small talk, self-checkout is a massive improvement. 
Or autistic or other neurodivergent individuals, self-checkout is a massive improvement for compared to dealing with a cashier. >

That shop and go feature is available at Sam’s Club (which is Walmarts version of Costco) and it makes checking out very fast while also helping me spend less since I see the running total every time I add something to my cart.
It’s interesting that they implemented it there but not at regular Walmart. >

I'm facebook friends with someone who a person they are friends with works at Walmart in their corporate offices. 
For clarity, I'll call my friend A and the Walmart corporate person B. 
So a couple of years back A made a post not that dissimilar from the post here, about how self-checkout isn't really any more efficient. I commented about my shop-and-go experience and B chimed in and said that Walmart had tested it in a few test markets but the amount of theft in those purchases was too high so they shut it down. 
Take that for what you will.
I'm familiar with Sam's Club and I know it's still a feature there to this day so if it's being used successfully there I don't know why they can't use it in regular stores. 
For me to use it at Meijer I not only have to have the app but I have to have a registered account with them so if I was being dishonest with my purchases they would know and could take corrective action. 
Also, I just googled it and it seems to still be a feature of Walmart+ but I don't know who would subscribe to that service just for that. >

I have Walmart plus because you can get delivery for free. I’ve used the scan and go too but I feel weird about it. 
I know that they have very good AI with the self checkouts and the machines can detect shoplifters and keep records of people who steal. They wait until you steal around $1000 and prosecute. They also will offer shoplifters to pay privately instead of going to court and add a percentage on top of what you’ve stolen, so they make money off that as well. If you pay cash they might have a harder time keeping track, but I think they just use the face recognition to track repeated theft >

I'm autistic, I go completely nonverbal in public. When a stranger tries talking to me, specifically older cashiers, and I dont answer, I often get the look. You know, the one your mom gave you when you wouldnt give Uncle Jerry a hug. Its uncomfortable, I prefer self checkouts because of that. >

Dude me too. I don’t have to wait or talk to anyone.