Would you like to see an example of a badly conceived policy?
asserted
you → like → policy
Here you go:
asserted
you → go → ?
The bill to require discounts for self-checkout will probably not pass.
asserted
bill → require → checkout
But what’s notable is that if this bill did pass, it would have exactly the opposite of the effect its creators want.
asserted
creators → ’ → effect
The stated justification is that customers are doing unpaid labor by scanning and bagging their own groceries, and that this discount would compensate them for that effort.
asserted
discount → state → effort
But the bill is part of a more general effort to disincentivize automation in the retail industry, in order to protect working-class jobs:
asserted
bill → disincentivize → jobs
Rhode Island was the first state in the U.S. to enact statewide self-checkout restrictions with its Restrictions on Self-Service Checkout Stations Act, which takes effect January 1, 2027.
asserted
which → enact → effect
The act requires grocery stores to have at least one human-operated checkout station for every three self-service stations during peak hours…
asserted
act → require → hours
Similar legislation has either been introduced, enacted or considered in additional states including California, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Washington, and Ohio.
asserted
legislation → introduce → California
The standard objection to this bill, I suppose, would be that self-checkout already gives shoppers a discount, because it allows stores to save money on hiring human labor, and that these savings get passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices.
asserted
savings → suppose → prices
That argument is correct as far as it goes, but it means the debate ends up as one of technocracy versus populism — protecting the livelihoods of a few cashiers versus giving a huge number of consumers very slightly lower prices.
asserted
debate → go → prices
But in the case of New York’s proposed self-checkout discount, the problem is that the bill would actually make grocery stores fire human cashiers in favor of more self-checkout.
asserted
stores → propose → checkout
To understand why this is true, first imagine an incredibly extreme version of the policy.
asserted
this → understand → policy
Imagine that instead of 10%, you made a law forcing grocery stores to give a 90% discount for self-checkout.
asserted
you → imagine → checkout
This is exactly the same as forcing stores to charge 10x for using a human cashier.
asserted
This → force → cashier
Who would pay 10x for groceries, just to use a human cashier?
asserted
Who → pay → cashier
So everyone would go use the self-checkout machines, and stores would have no need for human cashiers at all.
asserted
stores → go → cashiers
But wait, you may be thinking.
uncertain
you → wait → ?
How could any store afford to give a 90% discount on groceries?
uncertain
store → afford → groceries
The same way they give discounts for seniors and students at movie theaters.
asserted
they → give → theaters
You just raise the sticker price, so that the price people actually pay after the discount is the same as before.
asserted
price → raise → discount
So instead of keeping human-cashier prices the same and cutting prices for self-checkout, what stores would actually do if you made them give 10% discounts for self-checkout is to raise prices across the board — not by 10%, but by enough so that overall revenue is just about the same as it was before.
asserted
it → keep → enough
How do we know this is what will happen?
asserted
what → know → ?
Profit margins are almost always between 1.5% and 2.8%, which is very low compared to the average industry:
asserted
which → compare → industry
It’s not just profit margins that demonstrate this — there are tons of grocery stores, and new ones enter the market all the time.
asserted
ones → ’ → market
This means that if grocery stores tried to respond to the New York bill by getting rid of self-checkout and using only human cashiers — in order to charge higher prices and make higher profits — other stores would undercut them by offering self-checkout with big discounts.
asserted
stores → mean → discounts
People would flock to those other stores, and the stores that tried to overcharge would lose business until they, too, put in the self-checkout machines.
asserted
they → flock → machines
This is kind of like if you told grocery stores to charge 10% more for Skippy peanut butter than for Jif peanut butter.
asserted
you → tell → butter
Obviously stores would want to stock more Skippy, because they’d earn more money on each sale.
asserted
they → want → sale
But obviously consumers would want to buy more Jif, because it was cheaper.
asserted
it → want → Jif
At the end of the day, the consumers would win, because consumers tend to win out when an industry is highly competitive.
asserted
industry → win → day
Some people would still buy Skippy, because some people just really like Skippy more, but overall, forcing one brand of peanut butter to cost more than another brand means you’ll have less of it on the shelves.
asserted
you → buy → shelves
By the exact same reasoning, forcing stores to charge more for purchases scanned by human cashiers will end up getting a lot of cashiers fired and replaced with self-checkout machines.
asserted
lot → force → machines
As policies go, this example isn’t particularly hard to explain, or to understand.
asserted
example → go → ?
If you ask any economist, or any good AI, they’ll give basically the same answer, in different words.
asserted
they → ask → words
But when I tried to explain this on X, some people had a lot of trouble understanding:
asserted
people → try → trouble
The idea of a 10% discount on self-checkout as a way to incentivize human employment is pure “slopulism” — stuff that seems like populism, but wouldn’t achieve the results that people want from the policy.1
asserted
people → incentivize → policy.1
It’s snake oil that sells well based on people’s inability to see the consequences of what they’re being sold.
asserted
they → ’ → what
Once people decide that technocrats, elites, experts, and gatekeepers aren’t worth listening to, they become vulnerable to all sorts of policy scams.
asserted
they → decide → scams
In general, these scams fall into two categories:
Accidental scams, where the people making the policy just don’t understand what they’re doing
Ideological scams, where ideologues sell the public on an ideologically-driven policy by pretending it offers benefits that it doesn’t really offer
asserted
it → fall → that
…and 4 more, not listed.
