>>13607663>Put a human in there or I'm walking out with the stuffThis is unironically how it works. They've tested this quite a lot. People feel no shame stealing from machines. Put a human cashier there and the same people don't steal.
This is in addition to the niggers who shoplift regularly no matter what of course.
So the economic calculus is, is the guaranteed loss worth less than hiring extra staff?
But it's not quite that simple either because people tend to spread their "tips" about gaming the machines and finding exploits. So it's bascially an increasing variable to boot.
I honestly think the stores are too enamored with the idea in theory "haha make the customer do the work, I'm saving a fortune" and short term dimes saved, while ignoring the loss (wtf people shouldn't steal) and trying to imagine they'll "fix" the stealing somehow (just have more reciept scans, automated checks, rescans).
The end game is just having every fucking item tagged in store and have a computer track it all as the customer leaves.
Of course this idea too will be subject to niggering as people find ways to shield RF signals, cut out tags, etc.
