The future?

[Michael Weber]

I'd like to go check it out. Pretty interesting, good or bad
https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/21/in...enience-store/

[Doug Garson]

I find it really hard to understand what the point of it is. All that technology to eliminate the need for a check out? We already have self checkouts. What is the perceived problem? Too many people making minimum wage as cashiers? A few minutes of our precious time wasted at checkouts whenever we go shopping? I get the benefits self driving cars, automated assembly lines and warehouses etc. but checkout free stores?? Can someone explain what the point of it is?

[Edwin Santos]

I find it really hard to understand what the point of it is. All that technology to eliminate the need for a check out? We already have self checkouts. What is the perceived problem? Too many people making minimum wage as cashiers? A few minutes of our precious time wasted at checkouts whenever we go shopping? I get the benefits self driving cars, automated assembly lines and warehouses etc. but checkout free stores?? Can someone explain what the point of it is?

Lower prices, more money in your pocket, that's the point, at least the main one.

Here's the theory - If a retailer can replace an employee with technology, it reduces their costs, allows them to be more price competitive without eating into profitability. If they meet the design requirement, the machines don't call in sick, don't require health insurance, make fewer errors, can work unlimited hours, don't sue their employers over rights issues, etc, etc, etc. The cost savings is really substantial. I think the present day self-checkouts are still employee assisted in comparison to what the article describes.

Whether it will work as envisioned remains to be seen, but I wouldn't bet against them. As the trend continues, what it means for society is a good question also.

We'll all probably get trained as customers in the new ways just like those of us old enough got used to pumping our own gas and using an ATM instead of waiting in line for a friendly teller. I don't care for the surveillance aspect of it though.

[Doug Garson]

OK I follow the theory, but have great reservations about the outcome. You say the cost savings for eliminating store employees is substantial, do you have any published numbers? Typically store employees are not highly paid. I looked but couldn't get an answer on Google. I also wonder what percent of the economy depends on spending by employees in the retail sector, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics about 10% of the US workforce is in retail trade and the % is decreasing. So yes if you don't work in retail you may have more money in your pocket but at what cost?

[Mike Henderson]

I find it really hard to understand what the point of it is. All that technology to eliminate the need for a check out? We already have self checkouts. What is the perceived problem? Too many people making minimum wage as cashiers? A few minutes of our precious time wasted at checkouts whenever we go shopping? I get the benefits self driving cars, automated assembly lines and warehouses etc. but checkout free stores?? Can someone explain what the point of it is?

The appeal to me would be not having to wait for a checkout. I go to a Von's Supermarket here and they don't have self-checkout. There's always a line at every checkout counter and it takes forever to get checked out. The person ahead of me will have some problem or other and instead of just breezing through, I'm stuck for a long time while they resolve the issue.

Or the woman who is going to pay for her groceries with a check and waits until the clerk has finished to START looking for her checkbook in her purse - which, of course, she can't find. Then, after she finally finds it, she has to borrow a pen from the clerk. Then she asks the clerk what the date is and finally writes out her check. Then the clerk asks her for her ID, which sends her back rummaging through her purse looking for her driver's license. Eventually she finds it, gives it to the clerk, who then copies the information to the check.

Then, she has to put everything back into her purse, which she does at the counter, instead of moving away and letting someone else move forward to checkout. Eventually, she gets everything back and I can finally move forward to get checked out.

And you wonder about the appeal of just getting your groceries and walking out?

Mike

[Jim Becker]

I've managed retail and my daughter works retail. While wages are generally minimum or just above, any manager who's paid on the P&L is going to love lower payroll when it's possible. That's one reason that a lot of retail is only part time, too...and there are even establishments that will de-schedule someone at the last minute or send folks home early if things are slow...their shift isn't assured until they are done working it. The restaurant business is also like that...folks get "cut" fast and furious if for some reason customer traffic is slow. So not only are tips low during slow business times, workers who get statutory below-minimum wage get hurt even further. When you add self-ordering and self-checkout to the table...you need less of even those workers.

We are quickly moving to a different kind of economy that's going to upset the apple cart and it's affecting many kinds of businesses and industries. Self service is already a major factor in some chain restaurants, many big box retailers and so forth and manufacturing is becoming automated to the point that very few people are required and those are just to monitor what's going on and push the big red button if something goes afoul. What entry level jobs there are have been taken by seniors and other adults and that's displaced a lot of younger people who have traditionally staffed these positions.

In my daughter's case, when she was a cashier in the market where she works, quite often she was supervising the self-checkout stations. And that was four of them simultaneously meaning as many as four other people were not earning money to check customers out. If "checkout" moves to an app on someones phone and works continuously as they fill their cart, even that one person who supervises the self-checkout today may no longer be working for wages. Since she moved to the floral department, the market where she works is constantly insisting folks to work less hours. She'll never likely get full time work (because of her disabilities) as a result and that means being independent without assistance is very unlikely. Most of these folks work for between minimum wage and $10 an hour. Nobody can live on that, even at full time...yet there remains a push to reduce hours in any way possible, including employing technology further. Even cutting one person who works 20 hours a week at ten bucks per can sometimes mean a small profit instead of a loss given the competition from online and other establishments.

[Kev Williams]

Pretty spooky to me, all this AI running amok. While it seems all neat and cool, has it ever dawned on anyone that, after "they" have successfully designed and built computers and robots to perform virutally every task we humans do--- of what use will we be?

The Terminator and The Matrix come to mind

[Stan Calow]

I've heard it reported that the loss in the number of jobs in retail has been as significant in numbers as the loss in manufacturing jobs, just doesn't get the politicians interest.

I've also heard it said by friends in retail management, that employee theft is as much a concern as customer shoplifting.

[Leo Graywacz]

Lower prices, more money in your pocket, that's the point, at least the main one.

Here's the theory - If a retailer can replace an employee with technology, it reduces their costs, allows them to be more price competitive without eating into profitability. If they meet the design requirement, the machines don't call in sick, don't require health insurance, make fewer errors, can work unlimited hours, don't sue their employers over rights issues, etc, etc, etc. The cost savings is really substantial. I think the present day self-checkouts are still employee assisted in comparison to what the article describes.

Whether it will work as envisioned remains to be seen, but I wouldn't bet against them. As the trend continues, what it means for society is a good question also.

We'll all probably get trained as customers in the new ways just like those of us old enough got used to pumping our own gas and using an ATM instead of waiting in line for a friendly teller. I don't care for the surveillance aspect of it though.

Sounds like more profits for the company to me. Initially the monetary output by the company will be higher than an employee. But it will be made up pretty quickly I'm sure.

[Doug Garson]

Pretty spooky to me, all this AI running amok. While it seems all neat and cool, has it ever dawned on anyone that, after "they" have successfully designed and built computers and robots to perform virutally every task we humans do--- of what use will we be?

The Terminator and The Matrix come to mind

My thoughts exactly. As Jim indicated, when management is driven purely by maximizing profits regardless of the human cost people suffer. As consumers we can chose to support businesses that find a balance between maximizing profits and treating employees well.

[Edwin Santos]

Most of these folks work for between minimum wage and $10 an hour. Nobody can live on that, even at full time...yet there remains a push to reduce hours in any way possible, including employing technology further. Even cutting one person who works 20 hours a week at ten bucks per can sometimes mean a small profit instead of a loss given the competition from online and other establishments.

Jim, Besides the fierce competition you're describing, don't forget to factor in the price demands of consumers. Very few consumers (as in almost none) will make a habit of paying higher prices so employees can get more hours or jobs. I feel for the folks, but consumer economic behavior is just not very politically sensitive nor altruistic.

[Edwin Santos]

As consumers we can chose to support businesses that find a balance between maximizing profits and treating employees well.

Good luck with that! That was the defense strategy of the hundreds (thousands?) of small businesses that fought Walmart's expansion of the 80's and 90's.

[Leo Graywacz]

It is a self defeating solution. If you keep adding more machines to take the place of people, then people don't have jobs. No jobs, no pay. No pay, no money. Who is going to buy your product when people have no money?

[Edwin Santos]

Sounds like more profits for the company to me. Initially the monetary output by the company will be higher than an employee. But it will be made up pretty quickly I'm sure.

Maybe the smart move is to track the companies making the biggest strides in automation and invest in their stock.

When Microsoft launched Office 360 a few years ago, about the same time that Adobe went to the Creative Cloud rental model for their graphics suite, they both publicly claimed it was to reduce costs for their users with a low monthly rate. A friend of mine thought it would be a financial windfall for both companies, and bought stock in both. In the past three years Adobe's stock is up 164% and Microsoft's about 90%, which most attribute to the SaaS model. My point is - of course companies will do what is most profitable for them, just like consumers will seek out what's best for them (usually lowest prices).

By the way, regarding the initial monetary output (capital cost) of automation - take a look at the new tax reform package and you'll see the incentives congress has created for doing just that.

[Dave Lehnert]

I read a lot about stores is doing away with cashiers and how one would never use a self checkout etc.....
But when we order online are we not using a self checkout?

I think where the concept will shine is the convincing of buying things in place where it would not be profitable for a store to set up a shop. Much like buying chips or a drink at work through a vending machine.