anyway i understand the mechanics and the motivation; it's a deliberate externality generation but that's arguably orthogonal to the bullshittiness, which has to do with taking a locally-optimal configuration and replacing it with an inferior one and trying to claim it's better
Conversation
Well, price performance. It’s better for the lower price point. In Seattle, a high-end grocery store rolled back self-checkout to keep the jobs. But stuff costs more there. Actually better = Amazon go store. Walk in, pick up shit, walk out. Cameras and AI do the rest.
1
i'm sure they can claim they are "passing the savings onto the customer" which is an empirical question that appears to be answered largely in the negative. an argument can be made that amazon go is the "correct" solution to self-checkout, which of course has its own side effects
1
Umm prices for almost everything have crashed in the west in the last few decades except for rent, healthcare and education. It’s not an idle claim or an altruistic one. Pure result of competition
1
1
I’m not arguing labels. I’m saying savings do get passed on. If you don’t pass on savings store across town will do that, advertise everyday low prices, and take your market. That was Walmart. In commodity retail there’s no differentiation to justify a price premium.
1
I’m guessing that’s a mix of labor propaganda and bad economic analysis
1
i guess my point is something like the "pass the savings onto the customer" line is bullshit such that by the time those savings are passed onto the customer (to the extent that they are), it won't be clear whether it was because of or in spite of a given intervention
1
Hmm I don’t think it’s bullshit. It’s the basic logic of all industrial automation.

