Comment

Comment on They eliminated cashiers and keep the profits. NY Democrats are fighting back.

sascha_isagirlname@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

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-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.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Mniot@programming.dev ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
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:

Self-checkout machines cost the store capital investment (they introduce some new technology, there is a larger number of devices)

Self-checkout machines cost the store operating budget (more devices means more parts to be serviced)

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.
source
- sascha_isagirlname@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ 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.
  
  source
- rapchee@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  ofc, paying people is the highest expense almost everywhere
  
  source
  - gandalf_der_13te@feddit.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    yeah, i remember reading that a bakery that bakes bread for $0.60 per bun today wouldn’t even have to increase the price to $0.61 if the price of raw wheat doubles. that’s how low the share of raw resource cost is in an everyday’s item. was crazy to me to read this.
    
    source