14 ms·

Gotcha. I just find the self-checkout/cashier bit moot to my original point. I could have easily said "retail employees," or "the guy who makes my subs." Swap o

Gotcha. I just find the self-checkout/cashier bit moot to my original point. I could have easily said "retail employees," or "the guy who makes my subs." Swap out "cashier" with any entry-level/lower-skilled position and that's my core point. > And maybe it’s good that those jobs are going away? I’d rather society have to answer some hard questions about UBI than keep humans working in jobs that aren’t necessary. Seeing the backlash for just $10k worth of student debt forgiveness I do not think that we're even close to conversations like that. The notion of people's base needs being met regardless of working is even less palatable to the general riffraff because we've been sold such a zero-sum game here. We're crabs in a bucket. People go to lengths to make sure someone they perceive as less-than doesn't get a "handout." I have grown very, very pessimistic about people's empathy in regards to the ever-growing economic divide. What I've experienced in America is "I've got mine, f u" - I'm a millennial maybe that gives some context. --- > Certainly I don’t devalue the employee, but I don’t value the work they do. Also, I wasn't going to address this, but... to me that is 100% saying that you devalue the employee. If I devalue someone's labor output, I'm devaluing them as an employee - simple. I find this sentence to be a outright contradiction.

xboxnolifes 4y ago
> > Certainly I don’t devalue the employee, but I don’t value the work they do. > Also, I wasn't going to address this, but... to me that is 100% saying that you devalue the employee. If I devalue someone's labor output, I'm devaluing them as an employee - simple. I find this sentence to be a outright contradiction. Not the person replied to (And I know you said it was a moot point), but in this case I would say I don't value most cashier positions then. I say most, because not all grocery stores are equal. Specifically, I've always had good experiences at Wegmans, but my local grocery store is now a Shoprite. At Wegmans, cashiers quickly and efficiently scanned and bagged the things I purchased. The Shoprite cashiers, on the hand, don't even bag my goods. All they do is take an item off the conveyer, scan it, and slide it down to the end so I can bag it myself. This is less efficient than just doing everything myself.
mwint 4y ago
The disagreement on the “devalue” thing is probably one of semantics: I value the employee as a fellow human, but I don’t think the job of cashier is providing any value to me. The existence of “cashier” as a job is an impediment to my goal: paying and walking out of a store with the goods I want. Any alternative system which involves fewer cashiers works quicker for me, observationally. I think people - including cashiers - are inherently valuable. But having someone do a 1-1 cashier job is both wasting their time and costing the company (and me) unnecessary time and money. Their (valuable) labor would be better spent elsewhere.
- peterangular 4y ago
  > as a fellow human That's not what we were discussing - we were discussing you valuing them as an employee. Which if you devalue their labor output then, yes, you certainly devalue them as an employee. Saying "I value them as a human" is an entirely different concern/conversation IMO. Sorry about the semantics, but I fully believe you devalue self-checkout cashiers as employees after this conversation. Regardless - we're off in the weeds. I don't think we're in a productive conversation. Respectfully, I'm bowing out.

xboxnolifes 4y ago

> > Certainly I don’t devalue the employee, but I don’t value the work they do. > Also, I wasn't going to address this, but... to me that is 100% saying that you devalue the employee. If I devalue someone's labor output, I'm devaluing them as an employee - simple. I find this sentence to be a outright contradiction. Not the person replied to (And I know you said it was a moot point), but in this case I would say I don't value most cashier positions then. I say most, because not all grocery stores are equal. Specifically, I've always had good experiences at Wegmans, but my local grocery store is now a Shoprite. At Wegmans, cashiers quickly and efficiently scanned and bagged the things I purchased. The Shoprite cashiers, on the hand, don't even bag my goods. All they do is take an item off the conveyer, scan it, and slide it down to the end so I can bag it myself. This is less efficient than just doing everything myself.

mwint 4y ago

The disagreement on the “devalue” thing is probably one of semantics: I value the employee as a fellow human, but I don’t think the job of cashier is providing any value to me. The existence of “cashier” as a job is an impediment to my goal: paying and walking out of a store with the goods I want. Any alternative system which involves fewer cashiers works quicker for me, observationally. I think people - including cashiers - are inherently valuable. But having someone do a 1-1 cashier job is both wasting their time and costing the company (and me) unnecessary time and money. Their (valuable) labor would be better spent elsewhere.

peterangular 4y ago
> as a fellow human That's not what we were discussing - we were discussing you valuing them as an employee. Which if you devalue their labor output then, yes, you certainly devalue them as an employee. Saying "I value them as a human" is an entirely different concern/conversation IMO. Sorry about the semantics, but I fully believe you devalue self-checkout cashiers as employees after this conversation. Regardless - we're off in the weeds. I don't think we're in a productive conversation. Respectfully, I'm bowing out.