1332
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2026
1332 points (97.5% liked)
Work Reform
17078 readers
1211 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
This doesn't pass a quick reasoning check:
So the stores must be getting better margins at self-checkout than at human-checkout, or they wouldn't introduce it.
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.
ofc, paying people is the highest expense almost everywhere
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.