Maybe. Capitalism is an abstract economic system. As such, it's no more evil than, say, Marxism.
Individuals have committed all manner of sin under every possible economic system.
However, Capitalism seems to have done a better job of minimizing misery than pretty much anything else tried.

If there is anyone capable of producing a sufficiently evil record to produce nostalgia for #OccupyResoluteDesk's hijinks, it's the Her Majesty.

It seemed a straightforward regulatory capture play. But keep in mind that decision makers at the top were lining their own (and the board's) wallets.
Apres moi, le deluge seems to have informed their attitude, more than capitalism.

The fact that you're so unself-consciously self-righteous and equate yourself with Ghandi and MLK (you brought them up, remember) is a major cause of the rest of us failing to take SJWs seriously. How can a person un-ironicially do something like that casually in conversation?

Amiright?

They demand a lot of loyalty from people they'd cut up and sell for organs if they thought it would be profitable. I'm actually mildly surprised Amazon hasn't tried this yet. Like if you get killed in the warehouse Amazon gets dibbs on your organs kinda clause.

Expect successful lawsuits in Canada, where Privacy is a Constitutional Right, and eventually in the US by EU/UK and Canadian citizens protected against such actions by the EU/US and US/Canada Data Treaties.

(note: if you don't like that they have more rights in the US than you do, don't sign treaties giving them such rights next time)

Look, requiring two on duty actually increases risk factors.

But, keep living in your paranoid 'safety' world, it won't work anyway.

There are some owner operators as described, but most are beholden.

The problem with swapping drivers has to do with hours of service requirements. A bit too much detail to get into right now, unfortunately.

I should actually correct myself slightly: Wal-Mart (and others) have some in house drivers and some outsourced.

BTW, in discussions of the transport industry, don't get distracted/lied to by the companies. Some drivers think they are owner operators, when in practice, they aren't. They will lease/buy a truck from (as an example, all of the bigs do this) Schneider. As part of the lease terms, they can only accept loads from Schneider. It should be obvious that the 'owner' is an employee who has assumed much of the risk that the company would usually take on.

ShanghaiBill has a decent reply, but he misses a point: if the automated truck is cheaper, the big companies will drive that change in a heartbeat. The trick is that someone has to be convinced that they will be cheaper. They are unlikely to automatically accept that an automated truck is safer, faster, etc. One area where they are likely to be impressed is the possibility of 24 hour operations, rather than the 10 hour per day (rough) limits of human operated trucks. In addition to (possibly) being cheaper, this will allow faster shipments for more mundane goods (there are already plenty of ways to have fast shipping, but it is cost prohibitive to do for everything) which would offer them a competitive advantage. I suspect this last point will be the thin edge of the wedge.

Postive reinforcement isn't effective because it's positive reinforcement, it's effective because the person has done the right thing. Giving positive reinforcement when it is not deserved ("everyone gets a trophy") reinforces negative behavior that did not achieve the desired outcome. This works in childhood where adults can create closed environments but falls apart when faced with cold, hard reality.

Maybe there aren't any workers. Is the CEO sporting a shiny new $9 billion iWatch by any chance?

My bad.

Most large companies outsource their transport to JB Hunt, Schneider, etc. Sure, the big letters say 'WalMart', but in smaller, DOT minimum sized font, it often has another name.