Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Target sets a limit on self-checkout items

nbcnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 40 posts

Re: Target sets a limit on self-checkout items

#21

Post by ok_dad »

gruez wrote: post #14
ok_dad wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://sfist.com/2023/12/22/sure-enough-shoplifting-was-not... Edit: this one from further down the thread too: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/29/briefing/shoplifting-data... For the first point, I usually assume the checkouts are run by third party vendors and charge a fee for the automated systems. I was saying that perhaps those third parties have started to raise prices for the operation of the checkout machine…

>Edit: this one from further down the thread too: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/29/briefing/shoplifting-data ... Your own source admits it's real, albeit limited to certain cities "But the increase in shoplifting appears to be limited to a few cities, rather than being truly national. In most of the country, retail theft has been lower this year than it was a few years ago, according to police data. There are some…

So theft is up in NYC and no other major cities, that’s considered an outlier in that case. Everywhere else, theft is down and not an issue.

Your argument against the second article was “maybe those poor corpos just aren’t reporting crime” lol. Shrink includes numbers for all lost or destroyed inventory not just theft, btw.

Get real comrade.

Re: Target sets a limit on self-checkout items

#22

Post by mindslight »

gruez wrote: post #16
test6554 wrote: post #9

I think this is a positive step. Most of the time when online discussion about self-checkout theft would come up, there would be an uncomfortably larg number of people justifying their theft as "payment for doing a cashier's job". Basically "if you don't want me to steal, then hire someone to watch me". Also it was inconvenient when I had about 30 items and a kid in the cart to do self-checkout.

>there would be an uncomfortably larg number of people justifying their theft as "payment for doing a cashier's job". I realize you probably don't hold this position, but legality aside, that argument falls flat on its face when you consider the value of your time vs the value of items you're stealing. Self-checking out groceries takes maybe 3 minutes for a full cart? Suppose the store would have otherwise needed to…

It's incorrect to assume that a customer should be happy being compensated for minutes at the same hourly wage the store would have paid a dedicated cashier over the course of a whole day. Rather for on-demand piecemeal work done by a more skilled generalist, a much higher rate is appropriate. In addition to a minimum call out time, of course.

Personally I just avoid self checkout unless I only have one or two items and the lines are bad. But even then it's not often worth getting annoyed by the sluggish hyperprescriptive workflows.

Re: Target sets a limit on self-checkout items

#23

Post by BugsJustFindMe »

vdqtp3 wrote: post #17
gruez wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>there would be an uncomfortably larg number of people justifying their theft as "payment for doing a cashier's job". I realize you probably don't hold this position, but legality aside, that argument falls flat on its face when you consider the value of your time vs the value of items you're stealing. Self-checking out groceries takes maybe 3 minutes for a full cart? Suppose the store would have otherwise needed to…

You're absolutely right, the excuse is unacceptable. Also unacceptable is requiring customers to do the job of an employee. The two are not mutually exclusive.

> Also unacceptable is requiring customers to do the job of an employee.

A grocery store is a store that takes money in exchange for groceries, not a store that takes money in exchange for poking buttons nor a store that takes money in exchange for putting things into bags. There's nothing inherently "job of an employee" about any button poking or bagging peripheral to trading payment for goods.

Re: Target sets a limit on self-checkout items

#24

Post by ozim »

porkbeer wrote: post #15

I don't use self checkout, because I prefer human interaction to menial labor, even if it costs more. The number of edge cases handled by 'skilled human is present' is staggering.

Over the time I buy the same groceries at the same store.

I am usually done and out 10x quicker than waiting in line.

I’d rather spend my time interacting with my family and dog than random person at the counter.

Re: Target sets a limit on self-checkout items

#25

Post by AlchemistCamp »

mindslight wrote: post #22
gruez wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>there would be an uncomfortably larg number of people justifying their theft as "payment for doing a cashier's job". I realize you probably don't hold this position, but legality aside, that argument falls flat on its face when you consider the value of your time vs the value of items you're stealing. Self-checking out groceries takes maybe 3 minutes for a full cart? Suppose the store would have otherwise needed to…

It's incorrect to assume that a customer should be happy being compensated for minutes at the same hourly wage the store would have paid a dedicated cashier over the course of a whole day. Rather for on-demand piecemeal work done by a more skilled generalist, a much higher rate is appropriate. In addition to a minimum call out time, of course. Personally I just avoid self checkout unless I only have one or two items…

Usually full-time jobs are paid a better rate than on-demand piecemeal work done by generalists.

Re: Target sets a limit on self-checkout items

#26

Post by thinkingemote »

gruez wrote: post #16
test6554 wrote: post #9

I think this is a positive step. Most of the time when online discussion about self-checkout theft would come up, there would be an uncomfortably larg number of people justifying their theft as "payment for doing a cashier's job". Basically "if you don't want me to steal, then hire someone to watch me". Also it was inconvenient when I had about 30 items and a kid in the cart to do self-checkout.

>there would be an uncomfortably larg number of people justifying their theft as "payment for doing a cashier's job". I realize you probably don't hold this position, but legality aside, that argument falls flat on its face when you consider the value of your time vs the value of items you're stealing. Self-checking out groceries takes maybe 3 minutes for a full cart? Suppose the store would have otherwise needed to…

Self checkout isn't that quicker and is often slower than a regular manned checkout given a few obvious conditions. It's not really the speed that self checkout solves.

It may feel quicker to the consumer, speed is probably more predictable and it could increase throughput and efficiently use space. Most benefits are for the shop.

Needless to say a shop is able to reduce the speed of regular checkout to black pattern people into using self checkout

Re: Target sets a limit on self-checkout items

#27

Post by gruez »

ok_dad wrote: post #21
gruez wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Edit: this one from further down the thread too: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/29/briefing/shoplifting-data ... Your own source admits it's real, albeit limited to certain cities "But the increase in shoplifting appears to be limited to a few cities, rather than being truly national. In most of the country, retail theft has been lower this year than it was a few years ago, according to police data. There are some…

So theft is up in NYC and no other major cities, that’s considered an outlier in that case. Everywhere else, theft is down and not an issue. Your argument against the second article was “maybe those poor corpos just aren’t reporting crime” lol. Shrink includes numbers for all lost or destroyed inventory not just theft, btw. Get real comrade.

> So theft is up in NYC and no other major cities, that’s considered an outlier in that case. Everywhere else, theft is down and not an issue.

That's extrapolating too much from what the article actually claims. It only says that shoplifting incidents "in major cities" (whatever that means) as a whole has gone down. That's not the same as "So theft is up in NYC and no other major cities". Moreover, the claim you made isn't that thefts are down on average across the country, it's that "It’s never theft". Even if it's just new york, that invalidates your "It’s never theft" claim. Murder rates are down across the country as well, but that doesn't mean you can claim it's "never murder".

>Your argument against the second article was “maybe those poor corpos just aren’t reporting crime” lol. Shrink includes numbers for all lost or destroyed inventory not just theft, btw.

>Get real comrade.

1. Is "maybe those poor corpos just aren’t reporting crime" really that hard to believe? The National Crime Victimization Survey puts the reporting rate for property crimes to be 26%. Once you stack non-response to the actual survey on top, you'd be a fool to take any self-reported crime statistics at face value.

2. True, shrink could be caused by other factors, btu is there any reason to believe that "lost or destroyed inventory" would have gone up? I find it baffling that you dismiss the idea of retailers not reporting thefts, but are seemingly convinced of the idea that retailer reported shrink is caused by other factors without providing any justification, "comrade".

Re: Target sets a limit on self-checkout items

#28

Post by suddenclarity »

thinkingemote wrote: post #26
gruez wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>there would be an uncomfortably larg number of people justifying their theft as "payment for doing a cashier's job". I realize you probably don't hold this position, but legality aside, that argument falls flat on its face when you consider the value of your time vs the value of items you're stealing. Self-checking out groceries takes maybe 3 minutes for a full cart? Suppose the store would have otherwise needed to…

Self checkout isn't that quicker and is often slower than a regular manned checkout given a few obvious conditions. It's not really the speed that self checkout solves. It may feel quicker to the consumer, speed is probably more predictable and it could increase throughput and efficiently use space. Most benefits are for the shop. Needless to say a shop is able to reduce the speed of regular checkout to black pattern…

The stores I visit usually have 10+ self checkouts. It swallows a lot more people so you don't have to queue like in a regular store. It also allows people with fewer items to bypass the people with a full shopping cart because there are 9 other checkouts.

You also save time by putting the scanned items directly into your bag instead of putting them on a band for the cashier to scan, before you can put them into your bag.

So my experience is that it's faster most of the time.

Re: Target sets a limit on self-checkout items

#29

Post by Sayrus »

maximus-decimus wrote: post #11
3D39739091 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bro, it really is that simple. Literally everyone (except apparently you) is stealing from these retailers. The shrink rate is an order of magnitude higher on self checkout compared to a cashier lane with a human.

> Literally everyone (except apparently you) is stealing from these retailers I guess that's why I can't have nice things. What really bothers me is people who scam insurance and then boast to me about it as if I'm gonna tap them on the back for "sticking it to the man" when they're stealing money away from me by causing my insurance primes to increase but are too stupid to realize it.

While I don't support that, that argument only works if your insurance is truly a nonprofit. If profit is involved, they can increase your primes even without people stealing simply for the sake of profit.
Post reply on HN