Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

fishmech posted:

One thing the article mentioned that I found really salient is that most of these companies had unrealistically gone deep into debt to fund all this expansion, which put a super heightened amount of stress on the business when sales were only ok, instead of meeting unrealistic goals that were never going to happen.

For many of these companies, their current fleets of stores could have been safely profitable if built out slower with lower debt loads. But that didn't happen.

You can bet that any CEO who pursued the more conservative strategy would have been mocked on CNBC or fired by their board of directors.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

Glass of Milk posted:

I'm really curious how the shrinking number of these stores affects actual land use in towns. It's probably a positive in places like San Diego which can use the land for housing (though that has it's own downsides), but I've driven through places where nothing exists except for a couple of big shopping centers.

There was a thing on Nightly Business Report (PBS business news) talking about this very issue. They found that despite the issues we're talking baout here, rent had increased slightly and occupancy was stable. Many of the closed stores were being replaced with high end gyms, restaurants and other "experience" based businesses.

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost
Huh, Coach just bought Kate Spade.

By the way, the discussions around high end brands and whatnot has been really fascinating!

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

fishmech posted:

Yeah these are all over the place in the US too. Most people don't seem to want to bother with them though.

I've seen employees at Costco use these during the weekends to move down the long checkout lines and scan cartfuls of stuff.

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

Proud Christian Mom posted:

Large companies love to poo poo all over small vendors/suppliers because they can. If theyre your largest customer, and they know it, you really can't say no if they decide to start paying you 180 days out.

Yeah, +360 isn't unheard of in my neck of the woods.

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

call to action posted:

I've literally never heard of someone getting demoted in the US, they're just fired. Do union employees get demoted?

Here there are plenty of cases where someone stops being a first line manager, picks up their toolbox and becomes a mechanic again. I certainly wouldn't look down on someone who realized that a bunch of management jobs were going to be axed or they decided they sucked at management.

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost
So my former employer owns a poo poo ton of property in a little city called Port Orchard. Apparently multiple buildings on the main drag. The city has been trying to revitalize the area for years now, but can't because the owner absolutely refuses to develop or rent out the properties that he owns. He literally prefers them to sit there and rot because as he told the local paper, he's "an investor, not a developer".

gently caress that guy.

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

MiddleOne posted:

Is eminent domain not a thing where you live?

Not for commercial development, no. This is in Washington State.

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

fishmech posted:

Nice meltdown. Minneapolis is fine for walkability.

Dude, just answer her loving question, it's not that difficult.

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

WrenP-Complete posted:

I recently encountered a mall with a chain grocery store. I'm in the DC area, have lived all over, and am not sure I remember seeng this before. Is this prevalent? Fwiw, I mean like a Safeway or giant, not like trader joes or whole foods. And an indoor mall, not the shopping center kind.

That sounds a whole lot like H-mart. An old Ross building converted to an indoor mall with a bunch of tiny shops, great Asian food court and large Asian grocery store.

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost
Before we go any further into this rural/suburban/urban discussion, would someone please define or point to a previously established definition of those terms specifically?

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

Boxcar posted:

People are always wrong about this (and then try to wiggle out of being wrong), but rock is still the number one genre and no where near non-mainstream.

https://musicbiz.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/2016-NIELSEN-Mid-Year-U.S-Music-Report.pdf

I have to wonder about those low EDM/Dance numbers, given the fact that just about every label/DJ out there has a weekly hour or longer podcast. Tiesto and Above & Beyond break the top ten in music podcasts regularly.

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

Baronjutter posted:

Please, as someone in the construction/development industry don't do shipping container housing. They are extremely not suited for it and end up giving you a cramped low-ceiling garbage space for just as much money as conventional construction. It's one of those things that sounds good but in practise does not work out. Use them as a backyard shed or some sort of out-building to store you ever-growing hoard of retail purchases, but please don't try to live in them.

Could you guys stop building houses that maximize the square footage of a given lot? Some of us want to garden. I even promise to minimize the amount of grass I plant, deal?

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

xrunner posted:

Interestingly, it's not the poor who I hear complaining about parking. It's middle class and upper middle class suburbanites who think that the entire point of the urban core is for them to drive in on weekdays for work and the occasional basketball game or nice dinner. These people are completely capable of parking a little further out and taking transit for the last leg, or, quite often, just loving parking twenty minutes away and walking.

Except in many places transit doesn't loving work after the evening rush hour. And don't be an ablest shithead.

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

xrunner posted:

You're hilarious. Calling out rear end in a top hat middle-class and better suburbanites for whining about parking is ablest.

No, telling everyone that they need to walk for 20 minutes where there might not even be sidewalks is ablest.

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

xrunner posted:

Your energy needs to be focused on improving transit, then! Not on making parking more convenient for suburbanites.


That's because people aren't looking to solve the difficulties faced by poor persons commuting into the city for work. They're trying to solve the difficulties with being a middle class consumer coming into the trendy part of town a couple times of month to shop and go to bars/restaurants. The poor commuters are just a convenient shield.

And where do you think those poor persons commuting actually work? Who do you think staffs those bars and restaurants?

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

Submarine Sandpaper posted:

if you're throwing poo poo hypotheticals you should at least think them through enough to know that owners/management don't let employees park in manners that would inconvenience customers.

Ever heard of places like Seattle or San Francisco? These aren't poo poo hypotheticals, these are real people being priced out of homes near their jobs and having to commute in. I'm sorry if you just want to poo poo on rich assholes, but don't do it at the expense of the working class.

I don't understand why you're responding to me about owners/management - not being allowed to park in customer parking doesn't alleviate the need for staff to drive to work because nearby housing is too expensive.

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

Submarine Sandpaper posted:

hahahahahahaha what goalpost shifting you hack.

Why, because I started defending the poor instead of the disabled? If you don't like what I posted quit being so loving lazy and respond to my points rather than whatever the gently caress this is.

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

Submarine Sandpaper posted:

Your solution for the "problem of San Francisco retail", is to 1) build more parking downtown and 2) create low income housing downtown. Go post in the prop 13/california thread you dumb poo poo.

Ever hear of most all other cities that 1) don't suffer from 2) and 2) have plenty of parking downtown.

You're really presuming a great deal just because I pointed out that things are a little more complicated than you first believe. I believe none of these things - the first is dumb and the second could easily be solved by higher density and rules mandating low income housing within city limits.

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

Submarine Sandpaper posted:

Your weak "but actually" examples are tiresome and do not point out that things are "more complicated." Please expand on how San Fransisco's or Seatle's downtown is a retail wasteland.

You're angry at me for no reason and once again you're demanding I defend things I've never claimed before. Why is that?

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

fishmech posted:

They don't have a bus system that works for a lot of people's commutes, unless they were to move quite a bit from where they are. And of course the poor are least able to do that.

It is being improved slowly, but there was very little investment in public transit until into the 2000s, so it's all still catching up.

Throw in things like shift work or on call/ac hoc/"just in time" scheduling, and it becomes even more difficult for mass transit systems to meet the needs of the working class. Of course, the easy answer is to just ban those sorts of scheduling practices, but why do the easy thing, right?

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

Submarine Sandpaper posted:

:irony: you want me to defend prop 13.

What's your problem? You keep putting words into my mouth then going on a tirade about it. I've never once mentioned Prop 13.

Either post coherently or take a break.


Tiny Brontosaurus posted:

Australia does a neat thing where that kind of schedule ("casual" jobs) necessitates paying the workers more to make up for the inconvenience. Shift work really isn't too hard on mass transit though, it's actually better to spread commuters out vs. trying to fit the entire city's population into rush hour.

Sorry with shift work, I was referring more to swing/graveyard shifts where transit in many places isn't even running. You're right of course, if they are running however.

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

Submarine Sandpaper posted:

You can't talk about California housing without prop 13.
Impossible under prop 13.

Glad you didn't say the magic words though.

TB already schooled you on the bullshit prop 13 stuff, but even if it's a true fact that one cannot speak about one without the other, you presume that I posted knowing and intending and agreeing to this. I did not and nothing I've posted indicates this, so you anger is still misplaced. Calm down.

Submarine Sandpaper posted:

Would you agree with Solk that more parking lots is the solution?
And good for LA, I though tit was still a renter's hell post recession.

I never said nor implied this either, so serious take a loving break. If you're so confused about what my points actually are, you can ask nicely.

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

HEY NONG MAN posted:

I heard an ad on the radio for Amazon warehouse jobs in Sumner, WA so I headed over to the website to check it out.

Some highlights:

I loving hate that WA temperature rules only apply to outdoor work.

EDIT: Another fun food safety lab story. The building was your standard three story commercial office building. Every fuse was overloaded powering incubators, fridges, freezers and deep freezers. If you were to guess that keeping those within their specific temperature ranges was important, you'd be correct! The power system was so slapdash that there were times when half of my cubicle would go out.

So suffice it to say that the week in the middle of the summer when the maintenance guy went on vacation and the A/C broke, everything went to hell. What, you think the owner would pony up for a repair guy to come out? No loving way, he had fine art to pay for.* Since these were closed up labs, there was now no place for the heat generated by all the equipment to go. Since it was getting warmer, those machines worked extra hard to keep their contents cold. Which generated more heat. So those poor saps inthe basement were working in 90+ degree heat, no ventilation and everything was out of calibration. Fun times.

*There was an original Dali print hanging next to my cubicle. No poo poo.

Solkanar512 fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Jul 6, 2017

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

Tiny Brontosaurus posted:

Do your own homework you insufferable twat.

I'm not trying to defend twodot here, but I'll certainly admit that given the state of business writing, it's really difficult to "do your own research" when the vast majority of business literature out there is little more than poo poo someone made up and pretended was real. That, and for every story about businesses being really smart and precise in their use of data, I see others that talk about how they're too lazy or lack the skills needed to perform such analyses.

I don't expect you to fill in those holes, but there is a ton of garbage out there.

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

Tehdas posted:

Heres the low down on insurance:
Cost = costOfPayout*probabillityOfPayout + adminCost + profit

So it is never a good idea to take insurance, on average. The exception to this is when costOfPayout is so high as to be catastrophic, and the probabiltyOfPayout is low (since if it wasn't you wouldn't be able to afford the premiums). Or you have better knowledge of the probabilities and costs than your insurer, and you don't think they will catch you out.

For everything else you should self insure. If you can't save to self insure, ignore all the above because you are prolly hosed no matter what you do.

You're seriously understating that whole "catastrophic payouts" thing. There's a reason why insurance is legally required in lots of different situations.

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

Motronic posted:

Yeah. And my comments were about a very, very specific type of insurance that is known to have some of the worst insurance products in the market along with used vehicle warranties and extended warranties for electronics. These are policies sold largely on price and the perception of better coverage than they actually provide and marketed to the very risk averse or those buying/covering a thing they can barely afford to begin with. Or in the case of home warranties, often a "throw in" by the seller to make the place more "marketable" (and for the seller agent to make yet more commissions off of the sale).

I wasn't responding to you though.

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

Tehdas posted:

You are a bit vague about it so i'll assume you are talking about something like 3rd party accident vehicle insurance. But that is for the other parties benefit, not yours.

Not having to worry about bankruptcy is a pretty cool benefit.

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

bloodysabbath posted:

Today's victim: Starbucks is shutting down all Teavana stores. There were a few hundred of them, mostly in higher end malls. I guess taking out separate premium retail space selling expensive loving tea leaves instead of sticking them on shelves in the coffee shops people already go to was Bad Business.

Christ their tea was overpriced as gently caress, too.

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

You Are A Elf posted:

Man, the conveyor belt thing got me to thinking about BEST Stores.

It was strange perusing a showroom that looked like the early seasons of Wheel of Fortune where you had to buy tacky poo poo with your winnings (think ceramic dalmatians and poo poo), but it was really ingenious because you save on floorspace and didn't have to restock shelves. You would either find what you were looking for on the shelf or display and tell the clerk about purchasing it, or you would look through the store catalog if you didn't find it in store. Your order would be processed, and then it would come down a conveyor belt from the stock room in back.

That's how I giddily bought a couple of Sega Genesis games :3:

Holy poo poo, that's a blast from the past.

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

WampaLord posted:

Nah, gently caress that mindset. I'm in St. Pete, FL and it's a pretty nice blue area, with craft bars and hipster hangouts and all the signifiers of "worth living in" for Millennials. There's nice enough cities all over the place, it doesn't just have to be LA/SF/NYC.

E: VVV Right, I'm saying those people are dumb.

On the flip side of the coin, I'm really getting kind of tired of people telling me to move away from my job and my entire family just because the Seattle area is "trendy". Washington State also has legal weed, mail-in voting, high minimum wages, accepted the Medicare funding and has solid protections against being fired for being LBGT. I certainly don't need all of that, but those close to me certainly do.

I've never been to St. Pete and I take your word that it's underrated, but those sorts of policies and protections (combined with growing up here) really make living on the west coast more than just being a cool kid or whatever.

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

Amused to Death posted:

Who are these people telling you to move because a place is too trendy?

I've seen it mostly in the form of "piece about high housing costs comes up -> reaction is to immediately blame people for wanting to live in a "cool, trendy city" rather than place with incredibly low cost of living while ignoring that the place in particular doesn't have much in the way of jobs, support for minority protections and otherwise ignores the cost of moving. This used to be accompanied by "why the gently caress aren't you moving to the Dakotas to become a roughneck" but mysteriously this has been curtailed a bit.

EDIT: Not to mention the point TB makes right above - there's a massive difference between living in a state that funds things and one that doesn't.

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

OwlFancier posted:

You jest but we also price things by volume or quantity in addition to the SKU price to assist people in working out the cheapest way to buy things in volume, which is another good practice.

What's really fun is when they start changing the units on you based on product or container size. I once saw ketchup being measured in both ounces and gallons, and in the dairy section I've seen butter measured in ounces and grams.

Fun times!

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

Mozi posted:

That's just the ounces / fluid ounces weirdness, though.

No, I mean one container of yogurt will have the price listed in ounces, and the other will be listed in pints or gallons. The same brand of ketchup was listed in ounces or gallons based on the size of the container. I've seen cheese listed in either ounces, pounds or grams. That's some petty bullshit right there.

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

OneEightHundred posted:

Toys R Us has been under pressure from a lot of different factors. They were having a hard enough time competing with Wal-Mart, they didn't invest in online sales, they went from the #1 video game retailer in the US to less than 1% of sales, interest is shifting away from toys and towards electronics, and of course Amazon consumes all.

There was an interesting bit on Marketplace talking about how debt pushed onto the company (not sure exactly how this works) by hedge fund who invested in them prevented significant spending into the online arena.

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

Arglebargle III posted:

How this works is the hedge fund buys a company, borrows extensively in the company's name, pays themselves a ton of money and then the company struggles or goes bankrupt or whatever, the hedge fund guys don't care because they paid themselves and they're not liable for the company's debts.

That's how Mitt Romney made his money.

In these situations, is there enough of a corpse to make the lenders whole as well? It would seem to me that once a bank sees the same fund do this a few times they wouldn't be lending out money quite so easily.

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

Tiny Brontosaurus posted:

Amazon is an absolute nightmare to shop for specialty items. They don't curate at all, they have no protections against knockoffs, misleading item listings, and scammy resellers. They have a terrible, cluttered, sluggish UI and garbage search functions that can't even do obvious things like figure out if you search "headphones" you probably want headphones and not, say, a six-foot vinyl wall decal of a picture of headphones.

Yeah, this is incredibly true. A while back I was looking for a battery case for my iPhone 6s+. I wanted to make sure it would accept a full 2A charge, rather than a more standard 1A.

Good loving luck trying to find that, when most sellers would spam all sorts of keywords in their products, and no "FAST CHARGING" case was more than 1A.

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

RuanGacho posted:

This cracks me up because of how Costco is already international and where their headquarters is located.

And to answer the question about regional PNW food, it's teriyaki chicken.

Solkanar512 fucked around with this message at 12:06 on Sep 29, 2017

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost
The person refusing to open the register could just explain why if there's a policy or something.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

Dameius posted:

It isn't that you don't work for the money you get, it's that you have a highly entitled sense of self and think you are somehow above the people busting their rear end to make you more money. You also seem to think you are uniquely qualified and have some special knowledge about this poo poo when really just about anyone can be trained up to do the same tasks.

I'll bet he makes all of his employees sign non-competes as well.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply