Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

[St. Clown]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

Third Party Proprietary; used in business to classify information all the time. In all seriousness, Trans Pacific Partnership.

Something tells me he's going a different route with that TPP comment.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

I have no idea what TPP means.

I'm making a joke that free trade is going to kill all of those jobs. You know, rather than automation which has claimed far more.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

I'm making a joke that free trade is going to kill all of those jobs. You know, rather than automation which has claimed far more.

The automation that Flag, assuming he's not lying about his employment, contibutes to!

 

[Jimjamesak]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

Without saying as much, Amazon.com has setup a grocery store with the ability to counteract the rising costs of labor, especially getting ahead of expected increases to the minimum wage. Jeff Bezos's prototype store requires no cashiers, instead the store tracks you while you shop and automatically charges customers for their goods as they leave.

Welp, still gotta have people stock the shelves, take the deliveries, prepare all the deli stuff, maybe a few LP guys to prevent obvious theft...

It's same thing I see when I hear about Amazon talk about starting their own cargo airline, I just don't think they've thought through the finer details and those costs versus the costs of just having somebody else do it.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

Welp, still gotta have people stock the shelves, take the deliveries, prepare all the deli stuff, maybe a few LP guys to prevent obvious theft...

It's same thing I see when I hear about Amazon talk about starting their own cargo airline, I just don't think they've thought through the finer details and those costs versus the costs of just having somebody else do it.

Don't need deli people if all you sell is the pre-sliced garbage that a majority of people buy. The LP folks will be gone just as soon as the gubmint has everyone microchipped - if you take something and somehow circumvent the electronic payment, the chip will call the cops on you, and they'll track you down right away. It's only another generation or so away, since they now encourage everyone to get their kids chipped for "safety".

WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

Welp, still gotta have people stock the shelves, take the deliveries, prepare all the deli stuff, maybe a few LP guys to prevent obvious theft...

It's same thing I see when I hear about Amazon talk about starting their own cargo airline, I just don't think they've thought through the finer details and those costs versus the costs of just having somebody else do it.

They still need people, but they just dropped 20-30 employees per store, or more depending upon the scale of their operation. You have two or three people check-in the customers, likely includes payment method up front, which will be a breeze after customers become repeat visitors. It would be a fraction of the employees needed compared to checkout clerks.

Really, I think Amazon is less likely to keep investing in physical locations themselves and start selling/licensing the tech to places like Piggly Wiggly, Publix, and all those other regional and national chains.

Loss prevention employees would be focused mostly upon employees as all the customers aren't particularly adept at skirting this specific payment system - yet.

There's no getting around the stocking staff, though Wal-Mart did start the process of reducing direct payment by the stores by way of forcing some of their suppliers to stock their own wares.

 

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

There's no getting around the stocking staff, though Wal-Mart did start the process of reducing direct payment by the stores by way of forcing some of their suppliers to stock their own wares.

That's been around for a long time. Coke, Pepsi, and Frito Lay were the 3 major ones when I worked for Target, and I'm not sure it's Wal-Mart/Target forcing it to be that way.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

That's been around for a long time. Coke, Pepsi, and Frito Lay were the 3 major ones when I worked for Target, and I'm not sure it's Wal-Mart/Target forcing it to be that way.

When I worked at a grocery store (over a decade ago; helped with a lot of college expenses BTW), the beer and bakery distributors were responsible for stocking their respective products..

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

They still need people, but they just dropped 20-30 employees per store, or more depending upon the scale of their operation. You have two or three people check-in the customers, likely includes payment method up front, which will be a breeze after customers become repeat visitors. It would be a fraction of the employees needed compared to checkout clerks.

Really, I think Amazon is less likely to keep investing in physical locations themselves and start selling/licensing the tech to places like Piggly Wiggly, Publix, and all those other regional and national chains.

Loss prevention employees would be focused mostly upon employees as all the customers aren't particularly adept at skirting this specific payment system - yet.

There's no getting around the stocking staff, though Wal-Mart did start the process of reducing direct payment by the stores by way of forcing some of their suppliers to stock their own wares.

Didn't Wal-Mart, or one of the big boxes, pilot some sort of threshold gate that would automatically calculate everything that is in your cart once you crossed, and then the only thing you do is provide payment? I remember reading about one of them doing something like that, or at least researching it.

Isn't Amazon's model online, meaning they would work with distribution centers and locally delivering products? Seems like they only way you could do it, especially when you take perishables into account.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

That's been around for a long time. Coke, Pepsi, and Frito Lay were the 3 major ones when I worked for Target, and I'm not sure it's Wal-Mart/Target forcing it to be that way.

Wal-Mart began the process back in the late 80s or early 90s, and others were quick to glob onto the new model. That company reinvented a lot of retail processes that have since become industry standards.

Didn't Wal-Mart, or one of the big boxes, pilot some sort of threshold gate that would automatically calculate everything that is in your cart once you crossed, and then the only thing you do is provide payment? I remember reading about one of them doing something like that, or at least researching it.

Isn't Amazon's model online, meaning they would work with distribution centers and locally delivering products? Seems like they only way you could do it, especially when you take perishables into account.

I can't speak to any other company attempting something similar. There are obvious drawbacks to the cart weight approach as the number of ways to come to a single weight value, resulting in vastly different price tags.

Amazon is in the grocery delivery business, but that's a separate market from actual grocery stores. Some people are willing to pay a premium in order to avoid going to the store. And that's why I would think Amazon would do better to license out the tech to established chains. The only other way they could see a profit model out there is if they think others couldn't execute the process efficiently enough, and so Amazon could then still undercut other grocers currently in the market. Still, if I were Amazon, I'd take the cash flow of licensing the tech and reduce the company's operating risk exposure associated with building or leasing large locations people would expect from a company like Amazon.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

Wal-Mart began the process back in the late 80s or early 90s, and others were quick to glob onto the new model. That company reinvented a lot of retail processes that have since become industry standards.

In a similar manner, the parent company of 7-11 (Southland Corporation at that time) was a pioneer in linking together checkout price scanners with inventory control. They were able to craft a system by which deliveries to each store were customized based on what actually had been purchased from that store. Today we shrug and think it seems obvious, but back then it was one of those supply chain revolutions that helped them provide lower prices to customers at a time of rising costs for them.

Supply chain management can be fascinating. There was a recent article at 538 about Waffle House, for example. Their supply chain manager looks beyond their suppliers to who supplies them; in many cases the same original manufacturer supplies several of their suppliers and so they want to go several stages further up the supply chain than most people would look to make sure that they can deliver to their customers even if one supplier to suppliers gets disrupted.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

Can a person be both "pro-worker" and "anti-union [leadership]" at the same time?

I'd say yes. Our extended family has private-sector union members (construction), quasi-public sector union members (utilities), and public-sector union members, and "anti-"private-sector union (i.e., management), and so I've received a wide spectrum of perspectives on the subject. One common gripe from all four groups is that union leadership likes to play the big shot, hobnob with politicians, drive around in limousines, attend conferences at fancy locales, while not always advocating for the best interests of union membership.

The biggest disconnect right now is between public-sector union members and public-sector union leaders. The membership really wants their pensions protected; states have promised plenty of benefits without also providing adequate funding for them, based on the (perhaps erroneous) belief that they could always just raise taxes to cover any shortfall. Well, you raise taxes enough, people start leaving the state, and you have a lower tax base of mostly poorer people left behind. Oops!

Anyway, the public-sector union membership really wants the state to stop offering such generous pensions to new hires (who by definition are not yet union members), in order to shore up the funding for existing pension obligations. The public-sector union leadership has been very resistant to that concept, because they are more interested in preserving their own cushy lifestyle (the leaders want more dues flowing into the union, even if that is economically harmful to the existing membership).

 

[joecct]

Can a person be both "pro-worker" and "anti-union [leadership]" at the same time?

I'd say yes. Our extended family has private-sector union members (construction), quasi-public sector union members (utilities), and public-sector union members, and "anti-"private-sector union (i.e., management), and so I've received a wide spectrum of perspectives on the subject. One common gripe from all four groups is that union leadership likes to play the big shot, hobnob with politicians, drive around in limousines, attend conferences at fancy locales, while not always advocating for the best interests of union membership.

The biggest disconnect right now is between public-sector union members and public-sector union leaders. The membership really wants their pensions protected; states have promised plenty of benefits without also providing adequate funding for them, based on the (perhaps erroneous) belief that they could always just raise taxes to cover any shortfall. Well, you raise taxes enough, people start leaving the state, and you have a lower tax base of mostly poorer people left behind. Oops!

Anyway, the public-sector union membership really wants the state to stop offering such generous pensions to new hires (who by definition are not yet union members), in order to shore up the funding for existing pension obligations. The public-sector union leadership has been very resistant to that concept, because they are more interested in preserving their own cushy lifestyle (the leaders want more dues flowing into the union, even if that is economically harmful to the existing membership).

Hershey PA is a good example of a benevolent corporation. Milton Hershey was a giant.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

One thing that puzzles me somewhat is how many people just cannot grasp the idea that corporations are pure pass-through entities.

Some people just do not understand that corporations are not tax payers, they are merely tax collectors.
-- you go to the store, buy something, and what you pay at the register usually includes sales tax. You pay it, the corporation collects it, and passes it along to the state. That is clear.
-- yet, when it comes to the corporate income tax, people are mystified that the corporation itself does not "pay" that tax at all, it merely collects it from other parties in just the same way as the sales tax, and passes it along to the state/feds. This exact parallel somehow is opaque.
-- what's more, some people seem deliberately resistant to understanding.

I suppose this is another example of a situation in which people's belief is contradicted by facts, and rather than adjust their belief to align with facts, they try to dismiss or ignore the facts instead.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

One thing that puzzles me somewhat is how many people just cannot grasp the idea that corporations are pure pass-through entities.

Some people just do not understand that corporations are not tax payers, they are merely tax collectors.
-- you go to the store, buy something, and what you pay at the register usually includes sales tax. You pay it, the corporation collects it, and passes it along to the state. That is clear.
-- yet, when it comes to the corporate income tax, people are mystified that the corporation itself does not "pay" that tax at all, it merely collects it from other parties in just the same way as the sales tax, and passes it along to the state/feds. This exact parallel somehow is opaque.
-- what's more, some people seem deliberately resistant to understanding.

I suppose this is another example of a situation in which people's belief is contradicted by facts, and rather than adjust their belief to align with facts, they try to dismiss or ignore the facts instead.

This is a load of vine-ripened crap. Especially true given that corporations are people too!

 

[Kepler]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

This is a load of vine-ripened crap. Especially true given that corporations are people too!

Consider the source. Caveat lector.

 

[unofan]

Anyway, the public-sector union membership really wants the state to stop offering such generous pensions to new hires (who by definition are not yet union members), in order to shore up the funding for existing pension obligations.

This is either grade-A bullshiat, or your relatives are the epitome of the "Fark you, I've got mine" mindset you peddle on here. So they get to keep their "generous" pensions, but new hires don't deserve them? What a bunch of selfish dillholes.

More to the point, cutting pension benefits to new employees does nothing to shore up a current pension shortfall. If anything, it worsens it because it shrinks both the timeframe available and the amount of contributions coming in to cover the shortfall. It's penny wise and pound foolish.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

One thing that puzzles me somewhat is how many people just cannot grasp the idea that corporations are pure pass-through entities.

Some people just do not understand that corporations are not tax payers, they are merely tax collectors.
-- you go to the store, buy something, and what you pay at the register usually includes sales tax. You pay it, the corporation collects it, and passes it along to the state. That is clear.
-- yet, when it comes to the corporate income tax, people are mystified that the corporation itself does not "pay" that tax at all, it merely collects it from other parties in just the same way as the sales tax, and passes it along to the state/feds. This exact parallel somehow is opaque.
-- what's more, some people seem deliberately resistant to understanding.

I suppose this is another example of a situation in which people's belief is contradicted by facts, and rather than adjust their belief to align with facts, they try to dismiss or ignore the facts instead.

Depends on whether there's price elasticity and the market can bear a price increase.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

More to the point, cutting pension benefits to new employees does nothing to shore up a current pension shortfall. If anything, it worsens it because it shrinks both the timeframe available and the amount of contributions coming in to cover the shortfall. It's penny wise and pound foolish.

As typical, in your dyspeptic zeal to be disagreeable, you totally distort the actual situation to knock down another phantom. The plan you do offer basically is to finance existing credit card debt by applying for a new credit card, so that you can take cash advances from the new credit card to make minimum monthly payments on existing credit card debt. I thought you would be smart enough to realize that just does not work.

The issue is whether to switch from defined benefit plan to defined contribution plan, not to stop offering all retirement benefits entirely. so drop your poutrage on that score. and please, let us know of any private-sector employer that still offers a defined benefit pension plan to new hires. What's that you say? nothing? uh huh....

You also are woefully deficient as an actuary.

It is a very common practice in state governments to have multiple pension tiers: the level of pension benefits have routinely been adjusted for decades by walling off one class of people as "Tier 1" and having everyone after them be "Tier 2." etc. Connecticut currently has four different pension tiers depending upon hire date and years of service, for example. The proposal is nothing new, it is just another shift from overly-generous benefits to benefits that can be financed in an affordable manner. Who wins if the state cannot pay any pensions to anyone? ask the municipal retirees of Central Falls, RI about how well that has worked out for them!

The longer a person works, the higher their pension reserves need to be on three different measures, and so the effect is to multiply the deficit exponentially, it does not increase in additive fashion.
-- a typical defined benefit pension is final salary times a factor related to years of service
-- each additional year a person works, the higher their salary gets
-- each additional year a person works, the higher the years of service multiple becomes
-- each additional year a person works, the longer their remaining life expectancy becomes

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

This is a load of vine-ripened crap. Especially true given that corporations are people too!

I wasn't expecting proof of my observation to be so immediate or so dramatic!

If you tax a corporation, either a supplier, a customer, a shareholder, an employee, or an executive pays the tax. the corporation merely collects it and forwards it along. That is corporate accounting 101. I know facts can be inconvenient, but really, that is indeed how the world works, no matter how much it upsets you.