you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 3 weeks 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • 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
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    ofc, paying people is the highest expense almost everywhere

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 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
  • parent