There's are three more components in this issue; social connections, revenue, and jobs.
Re social connections... Locally owned businesses can have a more positive impact on a local community. There is a stronger sense of community or of a social connection. I experienced this myself while working at a small grocery store when I was in high school.
Re revenue... There have been studies that support the idea that locally owned businesses keep more of the money earned by that business within the community. Corporate owned businesses (like Dollar Store) remove from the local community a large portion of the money earned by that operation.
Re jobs... Here again, the impact is more localized. Since the owner of the store is most likely from within the community, the positions are more likely to be filled from within the same community. The owner has a vested interest in the community in order for the business to be a success.
You can see the trend in the country today. More and more communities are sourcing their produce locally instead of from some remote mega-corp. Some communities have garden plots set up right within their neighborhoods by using empty lots. Others are seeing more farmers' markets appearing. Still others are seeing cooperatives developing.
In our town we have several big-box stores standing empty; some for over 10 years. We've lost Sears, K-Mart, Penny's, Boston Store, and soon we'll lose Shopko. These all represent lost tax revenues and job opportunities. When communities depend on corporate operations they leave themselves vulnerable to the market performance of those corporations. Just this one detail alone is justification for that Tulsa community to respond the way they are responding. But they need to include with it a strategy to encourage and develop locally-owned businesses to fill the void. It's certainly not an easy challenge, but they will find they are better off when they do.
I think it's what the Republicans are doing for soy bean farmers. Unfortunately, even with that policy a number of farmers in the midwest have gone bankrupt.
As long as there are no exploitable resources it should be fine. But if someone discovers something useful or that can be sold, it won't take long before we humans manage to lay waste to most of it. Sadly that seems to be the way we operate as a species. We've just gotten very efficient at it as we advance.
Another possibility is Amazon's recent starting pay increase. Very simply that means each employee costs more. And the budget for this year might provide only a certain amount of money for the work force. IOW, they don't want to exceed their budget.
lgw's comment is correct:
All these robots do is move shelves full of bins around. That's it. They don't sort. They don't pack. They don't ship. They help with picking (and stowing) by bringing the shelves to the human who does everything except walk to the shelves.
We know people who work in a distro center near us. People handle the products in all phases. I think some automation is used to pull the inventory (off the high shelving), but then the robotic pallets simply move the bins around the warehouse.
FWIW, here's one video of ops inside a "fulfillment center."
I expect they're going to follow this up with a "pre-crime" (ala "Minority Report") initiative. They'll monitor people's actions, manners, and postures in the store and learn to anticipate when somebody intends to steal. Then they'll arrest them before the crime is committed and build a case based on "the intention to steal."
It strikes me as though there is a large number of oral medications and injectables all geared toward "managing" diabetes. That's a lot of revenue for somebody. Now to have something that (if it's true) can reduce the need for diabetic medications seems like it would make those drug manufacturers very unhappy.
I think that's a valid concern although I don't see results as dire as what you're describing.
My impression is funds that invest in energy products/services are beginning to diversify into renewables. These people spend their days watching the markets in an attempt to anticipate changes. And I think the drop in demand for oil will be gradual; not sudden.
But I do agree re fossil fuels; esp. oil. Oil has been a world-wide exchange medium for several decades, but that is about to change. Coal, IMO, is on its way out. I just reviewed a potential investment (energy sector) where the group was clearly moving out of coal since more and more energy producers (aka utilities) are switching plants to gas. These utilities also seem to be looking at blending renewables into their grids.
And I know there are plants that are going to use coal, but I think those are meant more for PR than any actual trend.
So, again IMHO, anyone invested heavily in fossil fuels should be watching the markets.
So do you not believe that this is the cause of colony collapse or do you not think that a huge decline in pollinators is a problem?
It seems like we'll soon be getting a reasonably definitive answer on that first question. If colonies rebound after the ban, then that's a pretty good indicator of causality. Likewise, if no rebound occurs over a period of time, such that persistent contamination is ruled out, then that also is an indicator that there may be something else at play.
Exactly! Where are my mod points when I need them? Thank you for a well-reasoned, insightful response. You made the most rational point without belittling or insulting anyone. I almost never see this anymore. You made my day.
It's what politicians and lobbyists do. Unfortunately our society is very susceptible to it. Maybe better education can make our country less susceptible to it. But with the way present-day politicians are slashing educational budgets, it doesn't look encouraging.
You nailed it. I've been pitching that to anyone who will listen.
I worked for a medical device company that had exactly that operational philosophy. We grew from a small business that wasn't even ranked in terms of influence in the market and wound up being number one in two of the major areas for hospital equipment. We beat out competitors like HP, Siemens, and Spacelabs.
It was specifically due to that philosophy. The founders focused on taking care of the employees and the customers. And success followed. Pure and simple. When we had a good month, we celebrated. That was just one of the benefits that made the employees feel like they shared in the success. So we were seriously motivated to do our absolute best each and every month.
There is practically NO competition at the insurer/provider level. This has been remove from the system through regulatory capture and other techniques for a lot time now, and the price is being paid.
Brilliant! THANK YOU! And yes, I meant to use all caps for that.
Finally someone who understands what has happened to our government.
I'm tired of hearing the term "big government" or the claim that it's the source of all our problems. That is a distraction from the real cause which is big business which now essentially owns the government. That allows them to generate the influence to effect regulatory capture. This is why people have been saying "we are owned."
For me, the day "Citizens Divided" passed was the end of our democracy. And that should be the name of that crap rationalization of a legal concept. Calling it "united" was a slap in the face to all of America. That was the "owners" version of giving us a spoonful of sugar to help swallow the poison.
We ref'd to that as "labor and burden." We used a multiplier like 2.5 to determine the total. So if an employee was paid 40k a year, labor and burden put their total cost as 100k. The multiplier would change depending on area of operation.
However, after seeing three vehicles run red lights in one day last week, I'm starting to reconsider. I mean the lights were clearly red because the cross traffic where I was sitting had a green light. It had been green for at least 2 seconds. Normally I accelerate as soon as the light turns green, but not any more. Now I look both ways before I venture into the intersection.
There seems to be a real breakdown of respect for rules of the highway occurring in my area. It's getting more like anarchy all the time.
What sticks with me is the concept of the "blitvert." The Max Headroom writer(s) showed remarkable prescience by featuring that idea. Look at the commercials broadcast today. A large number of commercials are resorting to using a barrage of images many of which are irrelevant and utterly meaningless. It's not uncommon to see a commercial where they'll run a series of images at around 1 every 0.5 seconds if not faster. Then there's also the method of rapidly cycling the screen between brightness and darkness. This doesn't do anything to make me want to buy their product.
My degree and experience is in management. I did the interviewing and hiring for my dept. I retired about 5 years ago, but I'm skeptical about this "can't find candidates with the right skills" explanation I'm hearing these last several years.
The impression I'm getting, admittedly from anecdotal evidence, is organizations have "streamlined" the interviewing process to make it easier for their HR depts. They appear to be using filtering algorithms based on their job descriptions. Consequently there is a large number of people getting overlooked for tech positions. If this is the case, then that explains the shortage. IOW, they've created a narrowly focused requirement for hiring. And I'm sure they're also limiting the pay which is another limitation for filling a position which allows them to say they "can't find candidates with the right skills."
When I was hiring people, I knew I would never find an exact fit based on the job description. IMO that's just not realistic. However, what was most important to me was how well the individual would fit into the dept. My emphasis was on personality and I had questions that were geared toward understanding that. Also when somebody interviewed for my dept, they had to spend time with several of the more senior people who were working there. Afterwards those people and I would have a discussion to compare impressions.
The point I'm trying to make is the emphasis was on how well the person worked with others. Their technical skills were important too, but I knew if they were clever (usually exposed via the resume and the interview questions) they could pick up whatever they might have lacked. And truth be told, every business has different SOPs, policies, etc. The new employee will have to learn something new no matter what.
The impression I get re today's HR hiring methods is they've chosen a lazy way to do it. I even hear ads on the radio promoting how a service will filter people for the hiring firm. I'm sure that one of the reasons for this approach is management has limited staffing for HR forcing HR to do more with less.
So the "can't find candidates with the right skills" excuse sounds bogus to me.
There are more and more stores repairing old audio equipment. In fact, my nephew does it. I know of at least two other stores in our medium size community that are doing it. And I've replaced a drive belt in my audio component cassette player. It was very easy. Maybe half an hour. I forget the make of the unit, but it's from the late 70's. You might be able to find a Youtube about how to repair your unit, who knows.
Slashdot Mirror
LMAO! And no mod points to give.
Well said, Mr D.
There's are three more components in this issue; social connections, revenue, and jobs.
Re social connections... Locally owned businesses can have a more positive impact on a local community. There is a stronger sense of community or of a social connection. I experienced this myself while working at a small grocery store when I was in high school.
Re revenue... There have been studies that support the idea that locally owned businesses keep more of the money earned by that business within the community. Corporate owned businesses (like Dollar Store) remove from the local community a large portion of the money earned by that operation.
Re jobs... Here again, the impact is more localized. Since the owner of the store is most likely from within the community, the positions are more likely to be filled from within the same community. The owner has a vested interest in the community in order for the business to be a success.
You can see the trend in the country today. More and more communities are sourcing their produce locally instead of from some remote mega-corp. Some communities have garden plots set up right within their neighborhoods by using empty lots. Others are seeing more farmers' markets appearing. Still others are seeing cooperatives developing.
In our town we have several big-box stores standing empty; some for over 10 years. We've lost Sears, K-Mart, Penny's, Boston Store, and soon we'll lose Shopko. These all represent lost tax revenues and job opportunities. When communities depend on corporate operations they leave themselves vulnerable to the market performance of those corporations. Just this one detail alone is justification for that Tulsa community to respond the way they are responding. But they need to include with it a strategy to encourage and develop locally-owned businesses to fill the void. It's certainly not an easy challenge, but they will find they are better off when they do.
This strikes me as an effort made by a person who is afraid of becoming irrelevant.
I think it's what the Republicans are doing for soy bean farmers. Unfortunately, even with that policy a number of farmers in the midwest have gone bankrupt.
I think the AC was expecting somebody to mod the comment as "Funny."
As long as there are no exploitable resources it should be fine. But if someone discovers something useful or that can be sold, it won't take long before we humans manage to lay waste to most of it. Sadly that seems to be the way we operate as a species. We've just gotten very efficient at it as we advance.
Agreed. +1
Video from a Wired Business Conference
How the Amazon Warehouse Works
Or a series of pics from Business Insider.
See what it's like inside Amazon's massive warehouses
Another possibility is Amazon's recent starting pay increase. Very simply that means each employee costs more. And the budget for this year might provide only a certain amount of money for the work force. IOW, they don't want to exceed their budget.
lgw's comment is correct:
All these robots do is move shelves full of bins around. That's it. They don't sort. They don't pack. They don't ship. They help with picking (and stowing) by bringing the shelves to the human who does everything except walk to the shelves.
We know people who work in a distro center near us. People handle the products in all phases. I think some automation is used to pull the inventory (off the high shelving), but then the robotic pallets simply move the bins around the warehouse.
FWIW, here's one video of ops inside a "fulfillment center."
Behind the scenes of an Amazon warehouse
I expect they're going to follow this up with a "pre-crime" (ala "Minority Report") initiative. They'll monitor people's actions, manners, and postures in the store and learn to anticipate when somebody intends to steal. Then they'll arrest them before the crime is committed and build a case based on "the intention to steal."
It strikes me as though there is a large number of oral medications and injectables all geared toward "managing" diabetes. That's a lot of revenue for somebody. Now to have something that (if it's true) can reduce the need for diabetic medications seems like it would make those drug manufacturers very unhappy.
I wonder how FMC feels about a Chinese company using its name.
I think that's a valid concern although I don't see results as dire as what you're describing.
My impression is funds that invest in energy products/services are beginning to diversify into renewables. These people spend their days watching the markets in an attempt to anticipate changes. And I think the drop in demand for oil will be gradual; not sudden.
But I do agree re fossil fuels; esp. oil. Oil has been a world-wide exchange medium for several decades, but that is about to change. Coal, IMO, is on its way out. I just reviewed a potential investment (energy sector) where the group was clearly moving out of coal since more and more energy producers (aka utilities) are switching plants to gas. These utilities also seem to be looking at blending renewables into their grids.
And I know there are plants that are going to use coal, but I think those are meant more for PR than any actual trend.
So, again IMHO, anyone invested heavily in fossil fuels should be watching the markets.
So do you not believe that this is the cause of colony collapse or do you not think that a huge decline in pollinators is a problem?
It seems like we'll soon be getting a reasonably definitive answer on that first question. If colonies rebound after the ban, then that's a pretty good indicator of causality. Likewise, if no rebound occurs over a period of time, such that persistent contamination is ruled out, then that also is an indicator that there may be something else at play.
Exactly! Where are my mod points when I need them? Thank you for a well-reasoned, insightful response. You made the most rational point without belittling or insulting anyone. I almost never see this anymore. You made my day.
Because who are you going to switch to? Bing?
How about DuckDuckGo? I switched to it about 4 or 5 years ago, right after I was filter bubbled by Google.
One more reason NOT to use Google.
Cryptocurrencies smell like tulips.
It's what politicians and lobbyists do. Unfortunately our society is very susceptible to it. Maybe better education can make our country less susceptible to it. But with the way present-day politicians are slashing educational budgets, it doesn't look encouraging.
You nailed it. I've been pitching that to anyone who will listen.
I worked for a medical device company that had exactly that operational philosophy. We grew from a small business that wasn't even ranked in terms of influence in the market and wound up being number one in two of the major areas for hospital equipment. We beat out competitors like HP, Siemens, and Spacelabs.
It was specifically due to that philosophy. The founders focused on taking care of the employees and the customers. And success followed. Pure and simple. When we had a good month, we celebrated. That was just one of the benefits that made the employees feel like they shared in the success. So we were seriously motivated to do our absolute best each and every month.
Then GE bought us and it was over.
Turns out Jack doesn't know jack.
Wells Fargo is ANOTHER example of why there needs to be regulation.
The economic concept of "self interest" can mutate easily into "greed". When that happens, destructive behaviors are the result.
To think we can have a marketplace without any oversight or regulation is at best naive; more likely wilfully ignorant.
There is practically NO competition at the insurer/provider level. This has been remove from the system through regulatory capture and other techniques for a lot time now, and the price is being paid.
Brilliant! THANK YOU! And yes, I meant to use all caps for that.
Finally someone who understands what has happened to our government.
I'm tired of hearing the term "big government" or the claim that it's the source of all our problems. That is a distraction from the real cause which is big business which now essentially owns the government. That allows them to generate the influence to effect regulatory capture. This is why people have been saying "we are owned."
For me, the day "Citizens Divided" passed was the end of our democracy. And that should be the name of that crap rationalization of a legal concept. Calling it "united" was a slap in the face to all of America. That was the "owners" version of giving us a spoonful of sugar to help swallow the poison.
We ref'd to that as "labor and burden." We used a multiplier like 2.5 to determine the total. So if an employee was paid 40k a year, labor and burden put their total cost as 100k. The multiplier would change depending on area of operation.
I'm with the very concerned crowd.
However, after seeing three vehicles run red lights in one day last week, I'm starting to reconsider. I mean the lights were clearly red because the cross traffic where I was sitting had a green light. It had been green for at least 2 seconds. Normally I accelerate as soon as the light turns green, but not any more. Now I look both ways before I venture into the intersection.
There seems to be a real breakdown of respect for rules of the highway occurring in my area. It's getting more like anarchy all the time.
What sticks with me is the concept of the "blitvert." The Max Headroom writer(s) showed remarkable prescience by featuring that idea. Look at the commercials broadcast today. A large number of commercials are resorting to using a barrage of images many of which are irrelevant and utterly meaningless. It's not uncommon to see a commercial where they'll run a series of images at around 1 every 0.5 seconds if not faster. Then there's also the method of rapidly cycling the screen between brightness and darkness. This doesn't do anything to make me want to buy their product.
My degree and experience is in management. I did the interviewing and hiring for my dept. I retired about 5 years ago, but I'm skeptical about this "can't find candidates with the right skills" explanation I'm hearing these last several years.
The impression I'm getting, admittedly from anecdotal evidence, is organizations have "streamlined" the interviewing process to make it easier for their HR depts. They appear to be using filtering algorithms based on their job descriptions. Consequently there is a large number of people getting overlooked for tech positions. If this is the case, then that explains the shortage. IOW, they've created a narrowly focused requirement for hiring. And I'm sure they're also limiting the pay which is another limitation for filling a position which allows them to say they "can't find candidates with the right skills."
When I was hiring people, I knew I would never find an exact fit based on the job description. IMO that's just not realistic. However, what was most important to me was how well the individual would fit into the dept. My emphasis was on personality and I had questions that were geared toward understanding that. Also when somebody interviewed for my dept, they had to spend time with several of the more senior people who were working there. Afterwards those people and I would have a discussion to compare impressions.
The point I'm trying to make is the emphasis was on how well the person worked with others. Their technical skills were important too, but I knew if they were clever (usually exposed via the resume and the interview questions) they could pick up whatever they might have lacked. And truth be told, every business has different SOPs, policies, etc. The new employee will have to learn something new no matter what.
The impression I get re today's HR hiring methods is they've chosen a lazy way to do it. I even hear ads on the radio promoting how a service will filter people for the hiring firm. I'm sure that one of the reasons for this approach is management has limited staffing for HR forcing HR to do more with less.
So the "can't find candidates with the right skills" excuse sounds bogus to me.
There are more and more stores repairing old audio equipment. In fact, my nephew does it. I know of at least two other stores in our medium size community that are doing it. And I've replaced a drive belt in my audio component cassette player. It was very easy. Maybe half an hour. I forget the make of the unit, but it's from the late 70's. You might be able to find a Youtube about how to repair your unit, who knows.