You conceive of time in an interesting way. Certainly not the way I do.

Self service shopping has been around in the US since 1916, so I imagine you must be pretty old. Glad to know I’ve got you on my side!

I’d really prefer the taxation method, but I don’t think that’s likely in most countries at the moment. Perhaps at a city level…?

While it certainly is possible that prices are lower than they would have been, I am skeptical. I know some business owners and have not heard this from them. I’d love some solid evidence to point to.

Just so.

I do live in Tokyo and you do make good points.

I do not have any problem with automation and see it as absolutely essential (along with more open immigration) to Japan’s future. I do not have any problem bussing my table in an establishment where that is the norm and has been for decades.

I do feel, however, that it is important for business owners to continue pay something for automation that replaces workers. This is hardly a new idea. Or a popular one. But it is what I believe is right.

I don’t mind if they want to pay me for doing the job of a cashier (this would probably just be a small reduction to price similar to the reduction in price for transportation if you use an IC card or app and in contrast to how asking for a plastic bag results in a small addition to price) though I think the best way to handle this is for owners to pay fees to the government just as they would have if humans were doing the jobs. Just as I think those who own robotic assembly lines should.

No tipping where I live so I don’t benefit from that. Happy to accept a lower charge for my groceries in lieu of pay, though.

I do not experience bullshit small talk or judgement of my purchases. Since I’m not getting that benefit, I’m happy to be paid. Thanks!

Now that you mention it, yes. But that ship sailed a long time ago.

The self-service registers are new and we should consider how they are used now. I do go to the regular cashier lane. I’d be happy to ring myself out for the cost of doing so.

Sounds good. Please cut 30 cents off my bill.

I do feel like I ought to be paid when a business offloads their work onto me. Not much, I suppose. But something.

Japan. I’ve never used whatsapp. It is neither popular here nor important for business communication.

I agree. The justice system is not so much set up to arrive at justice as to make sure the system can run with little interruption.

This is certainly true in large cases. Thanks for the assist!

Each lawsuit has its own reasons, of course. But here are a few common issues:

1. There aren’t enough judges.

• • There simply are not enough judges in the US to handle every lawsuit filed. Many judges encourage lawyers to settle cases that can be settled to avoid clogging up the system. Sometimes they do this reflexively or without good, er, judgement and a case is settled that probably ought be fully tried.

2. It takes a long time to receive justice.

• • A typical civil case takes months to resolve. An atypical case could take years. And then be appealed for additional months or years. Many times, the plaintiff simply can’t wait that long. If you’re broke right now, you’re not in much of a position to hold out for the big payout (and justice) you deserve.

3. Justice is expensive.

• • A personal injury lawyer would charge you at least $200 / hour to work on your behalf with an upfront retainer fee and final costs in the range of $1000 to $10000. That’s for a simple case. A more complex case will cost more per hour and end up at a higher total cost. You could have them work on contingency instead, which saves you a great deal of money during the trial but your attorney may take 50% of what you are awarded. If you are paying hourly, you may very well prefer a settlement because the longer this goes on, the more you’re likely to just break even. If you are paying a contingency, your lawyer may prefer a settlement because 50% of something right now is a lot better than 50% of maybe something a couple years from now. They got bills to pay, too.

4. A settlement might bring about more change.

• • In a quiet settlement, the defendant may agree to change their offending behavior in exchange for keeping the matter quiet. Assuming that they are true to their word (I’ll let you decide how likely that is) this may be the best justice for the plaintiff. If the whole thing goes to a public and embarrassing trial, the defendant may be willing to go scorched earth, put the plaintiff on blast and deny any wrongdoing no matter how many confidential documents were found in their shower.

In short, there are many practical reasons why legal matters are settled rather than going to trial. It may not be the kind of justice you want to see done, but it is often the best option in an imperfect system.