Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis
What you don't realize is that it's often a sliding scale and involves a cost/benefit analysis.
If you passed a law tomorrow saying checkers had to make $25 an hour, Walmart would suddenly "not need" virtually all of them. And that's obviously not because the technology didn't already exist to replace them.
Automation isn't free. It has its own headaches. But the more artificially expensive you make the human alternative, the more attractive automation becomes.
And you'd look at the 2 or 3 checkers left behind making $25 an hour and say "Hey that's great!" Meanwhile, you don't sweat the 50 that got sent home permanently to effectively become wards of the state.
Technological replacement of labor is inevitable (it's practically my job description), but not today (and certainly not in the past).
But again, you're making up a bullsh*t definition of "artificially expensive".
The simple fact is Wal-Mart operates dishonestly (currently and for many years) by abusing the public treasury to increase its already high profits. Why should we subsidize Wal-Mart's profits? What benefit is there to society to do that?
Just how painful is the cognitive dissonance of simultaneously complaining about people being on public assistance while defending one of the biggest reasons for increase in reliance on public assistance?
Does the fiction of thinking you're getting a good deal shopping at Wal-Mart have a side effect of and inability to think critically about the situation?