That IF is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, as the article will point out. People like convenience when they feel perosnally disconnected from it, but I’m always sensitive to the implication of the adoption of a technology and long term goals, and you should be too. You claim it’s a win/win, but if this were applied broadly it would eliminate jobs for people who might not have good alternatives, if any, with no provisions for acces to other future labour. This is bad for ALL of us, even if you’re not working in retail and you don’t think people should have to, because like a chain our society is only as strong as the weakest and most neglected parts. Retail is largely a undesireable job because of OUR culture of consumption that gives people free license to treat employees like shit, and for the owning class to pay them as little as possible and disrespect their labour.
This is why you need to expand your view and afford respect for every worker working any job, their labour has intrinsic value to society, remember that you, the consumer, are the one creating the demad for their job to exist. Don’t forget the knock-on effect for owners who see tactics like this succeeding leading to more automation projects to eliminate more labour costs for the exclusive benefit of CEOs and shareholders. Based on these facts, I’m telling you, you’re wrong to think of this so simplistically, and to make so many assumptions in the face of clear precedents in corporate actions for pure profiteering. I know the purpose of coporations is to generate profit, and that’s true, which is also why we can only tolerate their existence with strictly imposed limits on their growth because by design unregulated capital will cannibalize society, the retail workers are the canaries in that coal mine, so to speak.