2020 Presidential election
- Thread starter gandalfe
- Start date
Zombie
Well-Known Member
I used to work at a successful cell phone retailer with a 50% turnover rate.
This place gave their store managers little authority over their own stores (not even able to do things like POS overrides not to mention hiring etc) and had territory managers driving hundreds of miles each week to stores across the state because of that.
The amount of plastic paper and cardboard waste was absolutely unconscionable, especially for a company that was "paper free."
The marketing department dumped tons of cash into automated text messaging campaigns that were as good as dumping money down a drain.
And yet they were consistently the top performing retailer in our market.
So yeah, I don't buy for a second that capitalism necessarily drives efficiency.
This place gave their store managers little authority over their own stores (not even able to do things like POS overrides not to mention hiring etc) and had territory managers driving hundreds of miles each week to stores across the state because of that.
The amount of plastic paper and cardboard waste was absolutely unconscionable, especially for a company that was "paper free."
The marketing department dumped tons of cash into automated text messaging campaigns that were as good as dumping money down a drain.
And yet they were consistently the top performing retailer in our market.
So yeah, I don't buy for a second that capitalism necessarily drives efficiency.
Political Jazz Fan
Well-Known Member
I think "efficiency" is not the right word when were talking about things on that level. Efficiency in a marketplace, I don't know, maybe. Efficiency in getting the goods people want where they want them (despite sometimes also getting the goods people don't want where people still don't want them). Capitalism is efficient for consumers. If you want something there are probably 10 or 100 or 1000 people trying to get it onto your hands right now.
A low efficiency restaurant can stay in business if they have the sales to cover it. I mean there are dozens of workable business models for restaurants. You can stack 'em deep and sell 'em cheap, or you can be exclusive and have 10x the average tab per customer, or you can manage your inventory perfectly and have average traffic and average prices. I mean there's a lot of ways to run a restaurant. Yet, most restaurants go out of business within a year or two of opening.
Capitalism keeps restaurants around because they are the ones consumers prefer. That's the primary factor. If people want to eat there and you're not being stupid about your inventory or your labor costs or your waste, you'll probably be able to figure out how to make it work. It's only once people decide they don't want to eat there that you have to become dedicated to efficiency in order to hold on just a little bit longer.
A low efficiency restaurant can stay in business if they have the sales to cover it. I mean there are dozens of workable business models for restaurants. You can stack 'em deep and sell 'em cheap, or you can be exclusive and have 10x the average tab per customer, or you can manage your inventory perfectly and have average traffic and average prices. I mean there's a lot of ways to run a restaurant. Yet, most restaurants go out of business within a year or two of opening.
Capitalism keeps restaurants around because they are the ones consumers prefer. That's the primary factor. If people want to eat there and you're not being stupid about your inventory or your labor costs or your waste, you'll probably be able to figure out how to make it work. It's only once people decide they don't want to eat there that you have to become dedicated to efficiency in order to hold on just a little bit longer.
Thanks for pointing out the obvious and imagining others do not understand by deliberately misconstruing words. If you want to have an intellectually honest argument, bring it on. You are better than that.
There are many economists who focus their research on specific industries. If you want to learn about hospitality economics I can try to track down one of my college friends and introduce you. Haven't spoken to him in years, but let me know if you want to learn about the job.
We were talking about efficiency. I don't think there is much debate that efficiency is a good thing that leads to profitable and successful companies. So I have no clue why this is confusing to you. Not really interested in engaging in an side-tracked academic argument over pure semantics that is not relevant to the topic under debate.
One Brow
Well-Known Member
Words have meanings.
ef·fi·cient
- (especially of a system or machine) achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense.
- (of a person) working in a well-organized and competent way.
- preventing the wasteful use of a particular resource.
However, if you didn't mean that, what did you mean?
One Brow
Well-Known Member
So, basically just an economist? Have they bused tables, washed dishes, or managed a restaurant, or are they more focused on economic trends and predictions?
I'm not going to debate claims that you invent out of thin air. Go find someone who believes this and argue with them.
One Brow
Well-Known Member
Creationists don't think there is much debate that evolution is untenable and antivaxxers don't think there is a debate that vaccines are unsafe. Both are right in the exact opposite sense that they wish, there is no debate because they are so wrong.
They often shift the goalposts in a discussion as well, similar to moving from the obviously false "restaurants that are inefficient go broke" to the much milder and more generic "efficiency is a good thing that leads to profitable and successful companies".
I agree that "efficiency is a good thing that leads to profitable and successful companies", in a vacuum. I disagree that "restaurants that are inefficient go broke".
One Brow
Well-Known Member
If they believed this, why would I argue with them about it.
How about you go talk to 5 managers of successful restaurants, and ask them what their top priority is. See how many come back with "efficiency".
Success of Liberal democracy, capitalism and free markets is an empirical fact. Read some Stephen Pinker, he has lots of charts and graphs and data.
But it is always a good move when you are on the losing side of an argument to dismiss the other person as religious, so debate points to you.
Efficiency is accomplishing something with the least waste of resources (time, effort, materials, capital).
So, for example, there is marketing efficiency is making the best use of marketing personnel and spend. If you place ads in the wrong publication, this means poor marketing efficiency (few new customers per marketing hours and dollars spent).
There is purchasing efficiency which uses as few buyer-hours to get the best supplies for the lower costs.
Efficiency is applied to every commercial dimension, not just food waste, which is how you have narrowly discussed it.
And while you compartmentalize efficiency and effectiveness as a completely independent parameters, they are in fact intertwined
Hope that helps.
Last edited:
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
Good taste, Dave.
I suggest you read Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress
The poor are overall much better overall better off under capitalism than in all other systems. That is an empirical fact.
In the mean time, I'll eat at private restaurants and you eat in state run restaurants and we'll both be happy. smile.
Since precisely no one is saying that efficiency should be their top priority, I guess you could go argue with an imaginary friend self if that floats your boat.
Ask 5 restaurant managers to imagine a restaurant with inefficient buyers, inefficient managers, inefficient cooks, inefficient servers, inefficient investors, inefficient inventory management practices, etc.
Now ask them to estimate how long they expect that restaurant to remain in business.
I guess to the same degree that a brain surgeon and a dermatologist is just doctors. And a Chemical and Electrical Engineer are just engineers. And a Cessna pilot and a F 16 pilots are just pilots.
Since you believe that efficiency is a good thing that leads to profitable and successful companies, may I assume that you also believe that inefficiency is not a good thing and leads to unprofitable and unsuccessful companies? And if you then agree that unprofitable companies go broke, then we are in complete agreement.
Alright, time to move on.