What's the deal with WalMart?

[JohnnyO]

1. At a glance, having limited checkouts doesn't make any sense, but there is a logical mathematical reason for that.

2. Have you ever seen a big distribution warehouse with 50 docks for semi trucks, yet there are only two or three trucks there at a time? I'm sure most people have.

I won't explain the "why" to the two concepts above, I'll see if someone can figure it out.

Hint for #1: Linear Programming, queuing systems
Hint for #2: Operations Management

Basically it's cost. How long will people stand in line versus how many sales will we lose from people who don't want to stand in line? Each cashier is costing the company $10 an hour or whatever and you don't want cashiers standing around with nothing to do. If Wal-Mart had ONE checkout open and everybody would stand in line for two hours regardless because their prices are so cheap, then all you're ever going to see is one checkout open.
Same principle with my local Pizza Hut. Friday night it's lined up out the door. Any other night you can walk in and sit right down. Do they build a bigger and more costly building simply to accommodate the Friday crowd when the smaller building is not full itself the other 6 nights a week? We were asking ourselves this when the old Pizza Hut burned down and they built a new one just like it on the same spot.
My tolerance for standing in lines is limited. I will usually leave and go elsewhere.

 

[skippy]

johnnyo,exactly!there is no perfect system.

 

[Evan]

When tax rates are cut (to a point) tax revenue goes up. This is well-documented despite the Democrats best efforts to ignore it.

+1

You're right on the money. Anyone who disputes this is sadly misinformed. I would also say that there are many Republicans who would argue against or be unaware of this concept; at first glance it doesn't make sense.

 

[MAKG]

No, he's ignoring an important point. Yes, revenue goes up. In all examples tried to date, spending goes up MUCH more. That's the real world. In practice, it makes deficits go through the ceiling. It is also not instantaneous as is often assumed, and the several-month lag can cause instabilities.

 

[JohnnyO]

If tax revenue goes up AND the deficit goes up, then the govt is simply spending too much money and we need to elect different people to run it. Which is why term limits for everyone is a good idea IMO, the incumbents have too much of a built-in advantage.

 

[BlackBII]

I am at work and just got paid for the last 3 hours reading this damn thread.

Survival of the fittest

Life sucks, then you die

I went to wal-mart yesterday....

 

[Evan]

No, he's ignoring an important point. Yes, revenue goes up. In all examples tried to date, spending goes up MUCH more. That's the real world. In practice, it makes deficits go through the ceiling. It is also not instantaneous as is often assumed, and the several-month lag can cause instabilities.

You're incorrectly tying spending increases with revenue increases. There is no reason an increase in revenue would force an increase in spending.

Any correlation is a coincidence.

 

[krugford]

You're incorrectly tying spending increases with revenue increases. There is no reason an increase in revenue would force an increase in spending.

Any correlation is a coincidence.

What, you've never gotten an extra $200 and then went out and spent $250? But it's only a few dollars more, and look how much more you get...

 

[Evan]

What, you've never gotten an extra $200 and then went out and spent $250? But it's only a few dollars more, and look how much more you get...

I don't want a large Farva, I want a damn liter o cola!

Actually, I spend a fairly static amount of money per year, and the majority of my money gets put into savings and investment accounts. So my extra money gets saved.

If someone gets $200 extra dollars and goes out and spends $250, that was their choice; nobody made them spend the $250.

 

[MAKG]

You're incorrectly tying spending increases with revenue increases. There is no reason an increase in revenue would force an increase in spending.

Any correlation is a coincidence.

There is no fundamental reason increase in revenue should force increase in spending, but it does. It is not coincidence. Were that the case, perhaps one might find a counterexample....

I've said this before. Economics is NOT a science. You can't use scientific method on it. NEVER assign a model predictive power it doesn't have. Try that and you're Jimmy Carter. Remember that? Bayesian economics predicted 1978 was impossible.

 

[Evan]

There is no fundamental reason increase in revenue should force increase in spending, but it does. It is not coincidence. Were that the case, perhaps one might find a counterexample....

I've said this before. Economics is NOT a science. You can't use scientific method on it. NEVER assign a model predictive power it doesn't have. Try that and you're Jimmy Carter. Remember that? Bayesian economics predicted 1978 was impossible.

From the looks of this graph, there are several times in our history where an increase in revenue correlated with a decrease in spending.

You're right though, in all the major cases (only about 4 cases), an increase in revenue has resulted in a spending increase. However, even the most elite and successful economists of our time admit that they can't find the cause, and that there aren't enough data points to result in a hard and fast rule of revenue increase = spending increase. They can't confirm such a rule, yet you have.

Another thing we're forgetting (well I was anyway): an increase in government spending isn't necessarily bad...

 

[Silverado]

I try to be conscious of the country of origin of the goods I buy. Here in Canada, one of the industries that has almost gone extinct is textile manufacturing and finishing. We used to have a world class textile industry.

Try to find items of clothing that aren't made in Asia these days. Quite often the best I can do is made in Mexico.

I try to avoid Chinese products as much as possible. That often means buying products made in other Asian countries with similar labour economics.

I just have a big problem buying Chinese, with the politics and general backwardness of their country. WTF is up with a country that accepts billions is foreign aid every year (lots of it from my country), yet has a space program?

I will always buy Made in Canada or Made in the USA if it's available. Most often I pay a lot more for the product; the quality is often better, but even if equal I'd rather support a Canadian or American family's income than one in a foreign country.

 

[Evan]

I avoid Wal-Mart. In college I liked it as I was always a little low on money. Now, I'd rather pay a little more for a higher quality product and smaller lines at the registers. If you shop around a little, you can many times find deals just as good or better than Wal-Mart. It's not the only retailer that has some buying power and an efficient distribution system.

If you only have time for or like the convenience of only going to one place, you'll save some money at Wal-Mart.

 

[Ozwynn]

Wal-Mart is evil, but a necessary evil. Because of Wal-Mart's low prices it has dropped consumer prices across the board roughly 7% for all consumer products regardless of country of origin. However I will not haul a Wal-Mart load because of the way they treat outside carrier drivers and is also the same reason I won't haul a Proctor and Gamble load or a Kellogg load.

it wont take long for the unions to screw up the cheap labour in China and the Chinese crap will be expensive too, Unions don't care about union members, Unions care about membership and dues. But Skippy, the Fair tax is not the Answer either. I don't like the rate of 23.5% that is actually 30% at point of purchase with no guaranty that it won't go up. That tax rate will cripple the economy if Government can't reign in spending (wich they either can't or wont) plus it requires an appeal of the illegal (and not ratified)16th amendment power grab that will remove power from the Federal Government wich they wont allow. then it require a constitutional amendment to enact it and another that prevents the federal government from being able to tax us in other ways. Taxes are not about paying money to the government, taxes are about control.

the current tax code is used to create loyalty and to punish us for things the government doesn't like.

They give the recipient of tax payer funded services just enough to keep them loyal and voting for the people granting the gift from the treasury. Then they let the working class keep just enough to keep them working and from revolting. Taxes do not effect the top 1% because they have enough money to not be effected, what does effect them is somebody getting to where they are which is something else the current tax code prevents, the small buissness from becoming the next Wal-Mart.

Taxes are not the price you pay to be free to make your own choices. That was bought and paid for with blood 231 years ago. Income taxes and taxes like the cigarette tax or the gasoline tax are designed to control the working and middle class and to keep the same elite families (like the Kennedy Family) in power thus creating a ruling class with out the need of a coup.

Before 1913 there was no Federal Reserve and no Federal Income tax. the Federal government was funded by interstate and international tariffs placed on trade.

The questions we should be asking is not which tax code is better but why do we continue to knuckle under to this power grab.

If we abolished all Federal Taxes and went back to a Tariff system with say a 9% federal sales tax at the point of purchase (like state sales tax) we would have companies begging to set up shop in the United States and we would have to import workers due to the labour shortage and the Federal Government would have more money than they would know what to do with.

 

[skippy]

Wal-Mart is evil, but a necessary evil. Because of Wal-Mart's low prices it has dropped consumer prices across the board roughly 7% for all consumer products regardless of country of origin. However I will not haul a Wal-Mart load because of the way they treat outside carrier drivers and is also the same reason I won't haul a Proctor and Gamble load or a Kellogg load.

it wont take long for the unions to screw up the cheap labour in China and the Chinese crap will be expensive too, Unions don't care about union members, Unions care about membership and dues. But Skippy, the Fair tax is not the Answer either. I don't like the rate of 23.5% that is actually 30% at point of purchase with no guaranty that it won't go up. That tax rate will cripple the economy if Government can't reign in spending (wich they either can't or wont) plus it requires an appeal of the illegal (and not ratified)16th amendment power grab that will remove power from the Federal Government wich they wont allow. then it require a constitutional amendment to enact it and another that prevents the federal government from being able to tax us in other ways. Taxes are not about paying money to the government, taxes are about control.

the current tax code is used to create loyalty and to punish us for things the government doesn't like.

They give the recipient of tax payer funded services just enough to keep them loyal and voting for the people granting the gift from the treasury. Then they let the working class keep just enough to keep them working and from revolting. Taxes do not effect the top 1% because they have enough money to not be effected, what does effect them is somebody getting to where they are which is something else the current tax code prevents, the small buissness from becoming the next Wal-Mart.

Taxes are not the price you pay to be free to make your own choices. That was bought and paid for with blood 231 years ago. Income taxes and taxes like the cigarette tax or the gasoline tax are designed to control the working and middle class and to keep the same elite families (like the Kennedy Family) in power thus creating a ruling class with out the need of a coup.

Before 1913 there was no Federal Reserve and no Federal Income tax. the Federal government was funded by interstate and international tariffs placed on trade.

The questions we should be asking is not which tax code is better but why do we continue to knuckle under to this power grab.

If we abolished all Federal Taxes and went back to a Tariff system with say a 9% federal sales tax at the point of purchase (like state sales tax) we would have companies begging to set up shop in the United States and we would have to import workers due to the labour shortage and the Federal Government would have more money than they would know what to do with.

bdab,much merit to your words.fair tax at point of purchase is 23%,16th amendment is repealed,irs gone,treasury dept-sales tax division collects taxes,alcohol,tobaco and gasoline not under fair tax,working poor get a prebate from government each month for taxes on neccesities up to the poverty level.