1310
They eliminated cashiers and keep the profits. NY Democrats are fighting back. (discuss.online)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/workreform@lemmy.world
288 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 3 months ago* (3 children)

This seems like populist BS. For one, I don't think there's value in preserving jobs like cashiers - almost no one does that job because it's fulfilling. In a perfect utopia, this would be 100% automated.

The other thing is that I can't imagine this will have the result the law intends. The companies won't pay the 10% out of their own pocket, as they most likely couldn't. At least here in Germany, supermarket margins are pretty thin.

So they'd increase prices for all products to pay for this. Nothing would improve. Plus, going to the regular checkout would cost more than it does now.

I don't get it. This is such a non-issue compared to so many other problems. It's like they're trying to show they're doing something for workers but don't want to pay for it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    The companies won’t pay the 10% out of their own pocket, as they most likely couldn’t. At least here in Germany, supermarket margins are pretty thin.

    This doesn't pass a quick reasoning check:

    1. Self-checkout machines cost the store capital investment (they introduce some new technology, there is a larger number of devices)
    2. Self-checkout machines cost the store operating budget (more devices means more parts to be serviced)
    3. Stores have added significant numbers of self-checkout machines

    So the stores must be getting better margins at self-checkout than at human-checkout, or they wouldn't introduce it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    Yeah, they make more profit by introducing self-checkout, but I doubt It'd be 10% or more. I may be wrong. If there is any data on that, I'd love to see it.

    But even if they can afford to lower all prices by 10%, I can't imagine they would just take the financial hit. Why wouldn't they compensate by increasing prices?

    To me it doesn't make sense in any scenario.

    If you believe in the free market, this would lead to nothing, as supermarkets are already providing their goods for the lowest reasonable prices, because of competition.

    If you believe that supermarkets are engaging in price collusion, there is nothing that would stop them from just all increasing their prices further.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent