> Walmart could pivot to the Aldi model of labour and replace many low intensity jobs with fewer higher intensity jobs.
Yes, this is the expected change.
> For the affected workers, the outcome is the same.
No? There are two classes of affected workers:
1. Workers who have been converted to full-time with benefits. These workers benefit from the change.
2. Workers who lose their jobs. These workers are worse off.
Your argument ignores class 1.
I don't think we'll get anywhere debating the relative merits of the tradeoff of those two groups, but I personally prefer the existence of class 1. At least with that class there are some winners.
There's practically no (1). It's a different class of workers, of people than who Walmart currently employs at low intensity and low pay.
People who prefer a higher intensity, higher paying job than the bottom rung at Walmart can already get that kind of job today. They don't need to wait for Walmart to fire everyone else.
Walmart has some of these jobs already, probably. But Aldi and other companies exist. The whole Jeff Bezo's workout at Amazon Warehouses falls in a similar category too: Amazon pays pretty well for the sector and requires no prior experience, but they expect you to stay on your feed throughout.
Yes, this is the expected change.
> For the affected workers, the outcome is the same.
No? There are two classes of affected workers:
1. Workers who have been converted to full-time with benefits. These workers benefit from the change.
2. Workers who lose their jobs. These workers are worse off.
Your argument ignores class 1.
I don't think we'll get anywhere debating the relative merits of the tradeoff of those two groups, but I personally prefer the existence of class 1. At least with that class there are some winners.