Comments by "" (@timogul) on "Modern MBA" channel.

@KrissieMarieEbdane Still a scam, they also have a shifty record on supporting trees.
133
At some point everyone will just have to accept paying significantly more for delivery. Delivery can be a huge value to consumers that don't want to go out, but paying another human to do a task costs money, and we as a society need to accept that. I do think that the existing companies are a bit too "finance bros" though, and need to stop jockeying for market position or siphoning money up to investors. It just needs to be a simple, low profile system for routing delivery orders, and the bulk of the revenues should go straight to drivers.
111
@Siyano Ok, maybe you won't, but then you don't deserve to have delivery. Other people would pay that because they don't want to go through the hassle. Delivery is not some human right, it's a privilege, and it should only be available to those that are willing to pay what it actually costs.
40
That's called "Costco."
24
@ How are either bad? They are both much more convenient than cashiers. Why do you need to have other humans as servants?
23
@ I don't know, with human cashiers I've had things double-charged before, I've never done that when using self-checkout. I've never had a problem bagging my own groceries, but with the other person bagging things, they often make a bag too heavy, or too disorganized, or put fragile items together with heavy ones, etc. I've had far less problems doing it myself. I'm also considerably faster, when you factor in me having to load the conveyor belt and them having to take things off it.
14
@Fairenough642 So don't order delivery. If it's more than you want to spend, you don't have to spend it. But that's the amount that it MUST cost to be worth doing, so if you aren't willing to pay that cost, then delivery is just not an option for you. You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.
9
@jaredhicks5655 Perhaps so, but again, a society that cannot afford to pay a living wage does not deserve luxury services. If you can't afford to pay a decent rate to delivery drivers, then pick the food up yourself. If you value not having to pick the food up yourself, then pay a fair amount of money for someone to do that labor for you, not just "whatever you happen to have in your pocket at the time."
8
@Fairenough642 So you don't order delivery, and you pick it up yourself. It's up to you. That's what freedom of choice is about. Personally, there are a lot of times I would prefer to not have to run out and pick up the item myself. I like having the option to not have to.
7
@ I don't know, I've been using self-checkout for years and I love it. It's something I wanted before it even existed. I don't see how that could possibly change over time. What do you think I'm missing here?
7
@rgonzalo511 If I have a full cart, self-checkout is even better, because I will be able to put all the groceries into just the right bag, without having to try micromanaging a human being.
6
@ ATM machines are very rarely robbed or otherwise mishandled, at least not the ones attached to proper banks. That's certainly not reason enough to use human bank tellers instead (which also get robbed). As for store self-checkout, there's an argument that they lead to increased theft, but that just seems to coincide with a general trend of increased theft where they bypass the cashiers entirely anyway, so it would be hard to attribute an exact number there. If there is increased theft, the solution is just better observation of the processes involved, but you could still have a couple humans monitoring multiple self-checkout lanes at once, so it's still more efficient.
5
@ Well, a few reasons. First, because as a consumer I very much prefer it, just checking out myself without having to interact with a cashier. It's faster, more efficient, and more comfortable to me. Second, any job that a machine is capable of, it should do, to take that burden off of humans. Why drag a plow by hand when a cow can do it? Why make a cow do it when a tractor can? Why force a human to spend eight hours in a cubicle doing mindless tasks, when they could be enjoying their life more? People should not be defined by their productivity. We shouldn't be fighting to keep humans in pointless, unnecessary jobs, just so that they have "a job," we should be working toward a future where people don't need jobs to life a secure and fulfilling life.
5
@stansman5461 Exactly. It's not complicated.
4
@LAJAP The machines don't make laws, the people who own the machines make the laws. That's why strong government needs to exist, and needs to be firmly empowered by and for the people, not by and for the wealthy. If that is not achieved, then there is no point arguing about anything else, because it's just shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic.
4
@ Like cashier unions or something? Maybe. I can't imagine any customers actually being opposed to self-checkout.
3
@ What about them? So long as those roles are still necessary, they can still do them. But if we develop more efficient alternatives, like trucks that can unload themselves, robots that can stock shelves themselves, etc., then robots should be doing those jobs as well. Why not? Personally though, as someone who's both worked a register and loaded UPS trucks before, the latter was a lot more interesting.
3
@ Any job that can be done by a machine should be done by that machine, freeing that human to do something else with his life. We shouldn't be scrabbling in the mud over "jobs", we should be pushing for systems in which humans don't need jobs in order to lead a healthy and fulfilled life.
3
I bag my groceries WAY better than any cashier I've ever had. Also, I've never double-scanned the same item before like they sometimes do.
3
@ TL;DR, we could go back to "how things were," but that would also mean raising grocery prices by like 200% or more, all else being equal.
3
Yeah, I've never met a cashier that is better at checking out than I am. The only advantage they sometimes have is that they sometimes know the produce codes, but that's only a fraction of the checkout process and barely slower when I look them up.
3
It's what I've been waiting for all my life.
3
@ That sounds very much like a "you" problem.
3
@oPEaChzNCaKEo Because it's faster, easier, your bags end up better organized, and you don't have to deal with people?
3
@ If you pay someone to do a job, then you are entitled to them doing it well. But if that job doesn't need someone else to do it, then you shouldn't be required to pay someone to do it. Like if all that existed was those mechanical push mowers, and I might hire someone to mow my lawn with one of those, but then they invent a riding mower, and I feel comfortable using my own riding mower to do the job, I shouldn't be required to hire someone else to do it anyway.
2
@Kbxbigbro808 Because Elon's Twitter has been a complete garbage fire. It would be impossible to argue that any other option could have been worse for Twitter than Elon Musk.
2
@olandir Yeah, but again, prices would be way higher, and wages would not have kept up. This is just how capitalism works. I think it's better to move toward the most efficient ways of doing things, the important step we've missed though is government holding corporations accountable to the people, to make sure that the people get taken care of, regardless of their productive value.
2
@ I would be willing to pay a little extra to use self checkout, if I had to.
2
If milk is unprofitable, then vegan alternatives should be easy, just produce them at a lower production cost than raising an entire animal. If you can't manage that, then you deserve to fail. I would have liked to see as much time spent on comparing fake meat to actual meat as was spent on dairy though, you barely glossed over that category.
2
I think the issue is that most consumers buy their food from major suppliers, so for veganism to extend beyond the single digits, they would need to figure out a way to become profitable at scale. If a company can't make realistic fake beef that is at least the same price as actual beef, then they don't deserve to be in business.
2
@LAJAP Maybe, but my point is, what we've got is what we've got. If we're going to bother pushing for something different than we've got, then we may as well push for changes that matter, rather than changes that don't. Pushing for more human cashiers is not something worth the effort. Pushing for humans to not need to be cashiers is.
2
@LAJAP Sure, but that's entirely separate from the experience at the grocery store, where I know I'm interacting with a machine, and prefer it that way.
2
I like their Nashiville hot, but prefer Popeyes overall. I wish US KFC would carry some of their Japanese and Korean products.
2
TL;DR, it's because they limited it to 20 items or less and need to expand the part of the store that has them. I LOVE self-checkout, where it's available. It's much faster and I bag my groceries better than they do.
1
I would rather have me on a camera in front of me than some other human messing with my groceries.
1
@ Yeah, that's a fair choice. I just think a lot more people prefer self-checkout, at least among younger people, and that sentiment will only become more and more common.
1
@ I feel the same way about stores without self-checkout, except that the nearest alternative is like 15mi away and I can't be bothered.
1
@ That may be true, but it only represents a small portion of customers. I think that stores should tend to have at least one manned checkout lane, or at the bare minimum enough staff watching the self checkout to basically take over when needed, but I think that the overwhelming majority of shopping trips will not need that level of interaction, so that should not be the default experience.
1
@ I'm not paranoid about making mistakes like that. If it's a reasonable error, they shouldn't try to arrest you over it, they should just ask you nicely to correct it. You should only be arrested if you get belligerent over it. And I'm not saying that there can't be human contact, just that it doesn't need to be a part of commerce. If you want to interact with people, you should be able to do so, but nobody should be required to interact with you because they need to pay for food.
1
@i.k.8868 I don't think that's true. They taste ok, but not on the same level as cow milk.
1
Lol,. this didn't age well.
1
But competition has driven down prices relative to inflation, so they can no longer afford to operate at the same margins they used to.
1
Yes, cashiers should be replaced because it's better for customers and for the cashiers themselves, not because of profit margins.
1
@ They are humans and I don't want to talk to them. Besides, why pay a human to stand in a cublcle all day when a robot can do it just as well? Set them free to live a better life!
1