• kitnaht@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    3 months ago

    Then you have to pay for double the employee hours. And you may not necessarily make double the profit in doing so.

    • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      Oh, none of this matters soon anyways. We’re all being replaced with AI and robots. None of us are going to have jobs, or money, or ability to pay for rent. Better buy a really really nice tent soon. That’s going to be your home!

    • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      With self checkout and shelves that detect when stock is empty, how much people could they really need.

      I have often wondered about the self checkout clerk/guard who’s only job it is to do random control checks in case someone tries to steal.

      I sort of cant imagine that they would lose more then a full employee wage on theft without that person there. Especially since pretty much every supermarket having insurance against common theft.

      Its called “commercial property insurance” and covers both customer and employee theft.

      There exist even a version where lost profits on stolen goods are additionally insured but at least that one is rare to see in this context.

      • superkret@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Where I live, there are now supermarkets without employees. You scan your card to open the door, shop, and do self-checkout. I assume if you just leave, they’ll deduct the value of the items you took from your account.
        They don’t offer alcohol, though. Cause there’s no way to check if you’re of drinking age.