this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2024
139 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37719 readers
270 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 103 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (39 children)

It's bound to happen. Why waste hours replacing tags when you can just change what the shelf says when the prices change.

But this article is so pro Walmart it's crazy.

Retailers argue that these innovations increase efficiency and reduce costs in an industry known for its slim profit margins.

Slim profit margins my ass. Walmarts gross profit for the twelve months ending July 31, 2024 was $163.786B,

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 13 points 2 months ago (11 children)

Slim profit margins my ass. Walmarts gross profit for the twelve months ending July 31, 2024 was $163.786B,

Not to sound flippant, but do you know what gross profit means? They aren't pocketing all of that. Walmart's net profit margin is 2.66%, which is minuscule. They make up for that by having enormous volume.

[–] gila@lemm.ee 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That's an expected tradeoff of operating an essential service is the point. It's not as though their margin is that slim by mistake, or out of goodwill, or bad business sense. It's meant to lead to the situation where we shop at Walmart not by choice, but in lieu of other options.

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Not really — it's because nearly everything they sell is highly fungible, and they compete on price. Nobody is willing to pay a premium to shop at Walmart. Twenty years ago you'd have been correct, but they've pretty much saturated the market at this point. They're trying to find profitability in automation rather than adding tons of new stores.

[–] gila@lemm.ee 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm really meaning the lack of option not to consume fast-moving consumer goods, rather than the option to pay a premium for them elsewhere. When their market position is similar to like an outlet for government rations except for private profit, their net is essentially what was skimmed off the top of free enterprise. 2.66% is just the current maximum amount that is justifiably worth without doing societal harm

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago

That's true, but what you describe is pretty much the end state of big-box retail. Amazon is essentially the same, if we exclude AWS. It's all a race to the bottom. The solution, as always, is to buy direct from smaller producers if possible.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (36 replies)