6 ms·

I wrote a simple inventory program for a yachting company, after entering the inventory data into the computer it turns out a lot of expensive parts had been do

I wrote a simple inventory program for a yachting company, after entering the inventory data into the computer it turns out a lot of expensive parts had been double ordered and even triple ordered. But the Ontario added a luxury tax and sales tanked. It looks like they had over three million dollars in excess inventory. And soon the company went bankrupt, to this day I think the company would had pulled thru if it did not have the extra money in the bank instead of inventory they could not use.

robomartin 5y ago
I can't tell you how often I see comments on HN about "corporate greed" and such things as "businesses just want to make money at any cost". What these commenters don't understand is that cash is like the blood pumping through the veins of the business. Without cash the business dies. Even worse, people lose jobs, families lose security and the chain reaction can be massive. Businesses need profit and careful management in order to accumulate cash to grow and survive through events and circumstances most people who have never run a non-trivial business couldn't even begin to imagine. Every time I read such comments I reflect upon how terrible of a job we are doing in teaching young people about finance, business and entrepreneurship. In the US most high school graduates have no skills to offer other than, perhaps, stacking boxes and making coffee (after some training). I truly don't understand how people are happy with this in a so-called "developed" nation. We launch young adults into the world and they know so little about it. That's where such comments come from. How could you blame them? The entire country failed them by not ensuring their education includes perspectives and knowledge that allows them to deliver value to potential employers.
- yakubin 5y ago
  Those comments aren't entirely unreasonable. Money is important, but it can't be the be-all-and-end-all of a company. There are companies like Sun Microsystems, and then there are companies like Oracle. There are companies like Gandi, and then there are companies like GoDaddy. There are companies like Fastmail, and then there are companies like Google. I prefer to look up to the first group.
  - robomartin 5y ago
    Sure. Agreed. However, I think it is entirely fair to say that this isn't a 50/50 situation where half the companies are evil. In fact, even companies like Google --which I have grown to dislike-- are not evil. They behave badly in some areas while doing great things in others. One of the things I have grown fond of forcing myself to say or think as a way to center myself is that reality can't be reduced to a single variable. Reality is a complex multivariate problem. As such, a reduction to a single variable, is both irrational and unrealistic. No matter the issue, there's a lot more under the surface than a single variable, issue, property, behavior, etc. A lot more. The sophisticated thinker will recognize this and try their best to avoid the kinds of sweeping generalizations that are, sadly, so common these days. Entire groups of people negatively painted with a broad brush is probably the most recognizable for of this effect today.
- dennis_restle 5y ago
  If a company has a honest business, then i agree with you. Money is the blood in their vein and they need it and should get it. Well, i cant speak for others, but when i talk about company greed i think of practices like using fake cheese to cut costs but hide it from the customer. Or when they break their product by update and tell you to buy the bigger one. (Like Synology recently) Or to intentionally slow down the product by Update (like Apple) and lie to your customers about doing it. Or drying up the well from villages(Like Nestle). Or demanding tax returns from taxes you never paid (Cum-Ex). Those companies give a shit on society for each dollar they can get no matter what. that is greedy and in my opinion very wrong. Every time i read a comment about how someone defends that i reflect upon how short sighted or antisocial a person must be. Those people have probably no skill beside locust style investment and stealing lolipops from little babies. We launch young Business Administrators into the society and they know so little about how to actually be productive. That's where such comments come from. How could you blame them? The entire Society failed them by not ensuring their education includes perspectives and knowledge that allows them to deliver actual value to economy or society.
  - robomartin 5y ago
    Starting from the basis that there are less-than-honorable people in every domain it is perfectly reasonable to assume that a certain percentage of businesses might be (or are) willing to cut corners or behave badly in pursuit of whatever drives them. This could be profits, survival, competitive advantage, all of the above, etc. I tend to react badly to broad-brush painting of business and those who run them as greedy and evil. There is a cultural undertone that seems to think this way. I can't understand how this happens other than to think that people who think this way (broad characterization) simply don't engage in any critical thinking at all and don't understand business. The vast majority of businesses, large and small, are comprised of honest hard-working people who have no ill intent of any kind. The percentage has to be in the high 9's, like 99.999%. If this were not the case it would be very evident. Large corporations can behave badly due to the power they can wield. A simple example of this are companies that have entire floors full of attorneys and can muscle little guys into submission by simply being able to outspend them in legal jousting. I have been at the receiving end of this and it is nasty. You are entirely powerless and can't do a thing about you. The asymmetry is beyond evident and, yes, very much unfair. This, in my opinion, is a structural failure of our legal system. I am not a lawyer, so I can't really dissect this down to details. I just think that "equal under the law" depend on how much money you have to tilt that equality. I don't know what could be changed in order to achieve balance. A simple example of this could be patents. A good utility patent can cost in the order of $25K to $50K to secure and take years. A large company has the resources to write hundreds of patents per year. Small to medium businesses are generally more innovative and creative than large organizations with lots of inertia. However, they are often starved for cash, which means they have to choose between innovating, paying the bills, keeping people employed and existing or dumping cash into patent after patent. This creates a situation where small to medium businesses end-up living in a very real legal mine field of patents that could, at any time, take them out. Beyond that, patent litigation --any litigation-- is so expensive that almost anyone has to cave immediately. Yes, we could do a lot better in ensuring fairness and socially responsible behavior across the board. Not sure how we get there when our political system's fitness function is completely disconnected from delivering anything of true value to society. As long as politicians are evaluated through a fitness function with that consists of votes and not much else, we are not going to have leadership who cares about doing anything other than lying and pandering for votes. How do we fix anything when these are the kinds of people running the nation?
Chris2048 5y ago
How long did it take for the luxury tax to take effect?

robomartin 5y ago

I can't tell you how often I see comments on HN about "corporate greed" and such things as "businesses just want to make money at any cost". What these commenters don't understand is that cash is like the blood pumping through the veins of the business. Without cash the business dies. Even worse, people lose jobs, families lose security and the chain reaction can be massive. Businesses need profit and careful management in order to accumulate cash to grow and survive through events and circumstances most people who have never run a non-trivial business couldn't even begin to imagine. Every time I read such comments I reflect upon how terrible of a job we are doing in teaching young people about finance, business and entrepreneurship. In the US most high school graduates have no skills to offer other than, perhaps, stacking boxes and making coffee (after some training). I truly don't understand how people are happy with this in a so-called "developed" nation. We launch young adults into the world and they know so little about it. That's where such comments come from. How could you blame them? The entire country failed them by not ensuring their education includes perspectives and knowledge that allows them to deliver value to potential employers.

yakubin 5y ago
Those comments aren't entirely unreasonable. Money is important, but it can't be the be-all-and-end-all of a company. There are companies like Sun Microsystems, and then there are companies like Oracle. There are companies like Gandi, and then there are companies like GoDaddy. There are companies like Fastmail, and then there are companies like Google. I prefer to look up to the first group.
- robomartin 5y ago
  Sure. Agreed. However, I think it is entirely fair to say that this isn't a 50/50 situation where half the companies are evil. In fact, even companies like Google --which I have grown to dislike-- are not evil. They behave badly in some areas while doing great things in others. One of the things I have grown fond of forcing myself to say or think as a way to center myself is that reality can't be reduced to a single variable. Reality is a complex multivariate problem. As such, a reduction to a single variable, is both irrational and unrealistic. No matter the issue, there's a lot more under the surface than a single variable, issue, property, behavior, etc. A lot more. The sophisticated thinker will recognize this and try their best to avoid the kinds of sweeping generalizations that are, sadly, so common these days. Entire groups of people negatively painted with a broad brush is probably the most recognizable for of this effect today.
dennis_restle 5y ago
If a company has a honest business, then i agree with you. Money is the blood in their vein and they need it and should get it. Well, i cant speak for others, but when i talk about company greed i think of practices like using fake cheese to cut costs but hide it from the customer. Or when they break their product by update and tell you to buy the bigger one. (Like Synology recently) Or to intentionally slow down the product by Update (like Apple) and lie to your customers about doing it. Or drying up the well from villages(Like Nestle). Or demanding tax returns from taxes you never paid (Cum-Ex). Those companies give a shit on society for each dollar they can get no matter what. that is greedy and in my opinion very wrong. Every time i read a comment about how someone defends that i reflect upon how short sighted or antisocial a person must be. Those people have probably no skill beside locust style investment and stealing lolipops from little babies. We launch young Business Administrators into the society and they know so little about how to actually be productive. That's where such comments come from. How could you blame them? The entire Society failed them by not ensuring their education includes perspectives and knowledge that allows them to deliver actual value to economy or society.
- robomartin 5y ago
  Starting from the basis that there are less-than-honorable people in every domain it is perfectly reasonable to assume that a certain percentage of businesses might be (or are) willing to cut corners or behave badly in pursuit of whatever drives them. This could be profits, survival, competitive advantage, all of the above, etc. I tend to react badly to broad-brush painting of business and those who run them as greedy and evil. There is a cultural undertone that seems to think this way. I can't understand how this happens other than to think that people who think this way (broad characterization) simply don't engage in any critical thinking at all and don't understand business. The vast majority of businesses, large and small, are comprised of honest hard-working people who have no ill intent of any kind. The percentage has to be in the high 9's, like 99.999%. If this were not the case it would be very evident. Large corporations can behave badly due to the power they can wield. A simple example of this are companies that have entire floors full of attorneys and can muscle little guys into submission by simply being able to outspend them in legal jousting. I have been at the receiving end of this and it is nasty. You are entirely powerless and can't do a thing about you. The asymmetry is beyond evident and, yes, very much unfair. This, in my opinion, is a structural failure of our legal system. I am not a lawyer, so I can't really dissect this down to details. I just think that "equal under the law" depend on how much money you have to tilt that equality. I don't know what could be changed in order to achieve balance. A simple example of this could be patents. A good utility patent can cost in the order of $25K to $50K to secure and take years. A large company has the resources to write hundreds of patents per year. Small to medium businesses are generally more innovative and creative than large organizations with lots of inertia. However, they are often starved for cash, which means they have to choose between innovating, paying the bills, keeping people employed and existing or dumping cash into patent after patent. This creates a situation where small to medium businesses end-up living in a very real legal mine field of patents that could, at any time, take them out. Beyond that, patent litigation --any litigation-- is so expensive that almost anyone has to cave immediately. Yes, we could do a lot better in ensuring fairness and socially responsible behavior across the board. Not sure how we get there when our political system's fitness function is completely disconnected from delivering anything of true value to society. As long as politicians are evaluated through a fitness function with that consists of votes and not much else, we are not going to have leadership who cares about doing anything other than lying and pandering for votes. How do we fix anything when these are the kinds of people running the nation?

Chris2048 5y ago

How long did it take for the luxury tax to take effect?