As others mentioned, self-checkout has been widespread for 30 years. They had it at most stores in the 1990s. The answer is, simply, it's cheaper for companies to hire someone at a non-living wage than it is to install and maintain these systems. Perhaps if we had some policies with teeth -- if you're going to hire a person, they must be able to afford to plausibly live and work in the area. Else, your business isn't actually a functioning business and needs reconsideration.
Self checkout is now much better than it was 30 years ago. As far as the living wage requirement, that just leads to what we’re seeing here. You get replaced by machines. If sub living wage is the best available job why should the government ban that? How is closing the business better than hiring people at shitty wages they are happy to accept?
> How is closing the business better than hiring people at shitty wages they are happy to accept?
Because it brings down the market value of said person, basically ensuring they can't make a livable wage. These companies are cheating, in a way. They're paying well below market value for the labor because of asymmetrical power. Those people are working two or three jobs to make ends meet - so, their employers aren't paying what the labor actually costs. They just get the labor at a discount because employees have zero negotiating power.
It's sort of like getting a vacuum for 15 dollars because when the vacuum salesman rang my door, I held him a gunpoint.
Reducing the number of jobs available reduces wages. It does not increase them. All the people you just got fired will now take the other jobs for lower pay.
Employees have tons of negotiating power on this country. Unemployment rates are consistently close to structural minimum. There certainly are times when employers have monopsony power but there haven’t been any recently.
