4 ms·

Is that because they didn't know what they were doing or because they saw the writing on the wall and planned their exit? Low margin industries tend to have a

Is that because they didn't know what they were doing or because they saw the writing on the wall and planned their exit? Low margin industries tend to have a lot of things that are done "wrong" by the calculations of the clipboard warriors that dominate online discourse because said calculations tend to assume constants for things that should are variable (like the regulatory situation, state of technology in an industry or rate of progression therof) and assume amortization timelines that are unrealistic. When your margin is razor thin it often makes the most sense to do things in a manner that's non-optimal on paper but yields guaranteed returns today. Do that every day and you stay in business. You might make less money in the long run but you aren't taking on risky capital investments or boxing yourself into a risky corner with inflexible business practices. There are two metal recycling yards local to me. One is part of a chain, run by a subsidiary of a public company. All they do is scrap metal and they are highly efficient at it. Things are clean and run by the book. The facilities are orderly. The machines are new. You can't scrap a car, a street sign, or anything else that's suspect without giving them all sorts of ID. On paper, they do everything right. The other one is a 150yo family own business. They do scrap metal but have a handful of other income streams using the same facility (everything is for sale, basically). I don't think they have a single tool or piece of equipment that was made this century. The facility is always overflowing with piles of various materials that come and go in no apparent order. Their workplace safety is fine, but absolutely rife with tiny things they could get fined for. They pay their employees crap and make up for it with perks (free lunch every day, free fuel oil in the winter, can use company trucks and facilities for personal projects with permission, etc). I'm pretty sure you could scrap a stolen cop car there if you brought it in the same day that the full train cars of processed material go out. On paper all this is wrong. The clipboard warriors would have a field day making it "better" Guess who weathered the pandemic with nary a slowdown and guess who couldn't retain staff or keep their machines running and cut back hours?

shigawire 4y ago
So the answer is exploiting workers better and criminal activity?
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  The by the book business isn't hiring young people and teaching them how to drive heavy equipment. If their employees felt exploited they'd have problems retaining them. I think their employees care more about the perks and the fairly laid back work environment than they care about all the fire extinguishers on the property having an up to date tag. I know I did back when I worked those kinds of jobs.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - bumby 4y ago
    >fire extinguishers on the property having an up to date tag. I know I did back when I worked those kinds of jobs. This is a problem with how you're thinking about low probability events. Yes, rules only matter when the low probability event occurs. Do you, for example, not care about up-to-date A&P logs on the aircraft you fly in as well? I'll be the first to admit that regulations can go beyond what should be considered an acceptable risk, but we have to at least acknowledge the risk they are meant to mitigate before determining if it's a reasonable regulation. That often involves understanding the consequences of low probability events, something we're usually not good at thinking about very well on a day-to-day basis.
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    > If their employees felt exploited they'd have problems retaining them. That is not usually true. Lots and lots of people feel exploited by their employers, yet stay in their jobs. Generally, they have financial obligations, need money and benefits, and jobs aren't so easy to replace.
    - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
      The family scrap yard is hiring able bodied young men and training them to drive heavy equipment (which they then presumably slap on their resumes). I know they get free lunch and (used/questionable) fuel oil/diesel because I've discussed it with an employee (last July/August or thereabouts). Based on the demeanor of everyone there it seems like a great place to work if you don't mind working outside and a fair amount of physical labor. I don't know what they're paid but all things considered it's probably crap. They wouldn't be hiring highschoolers if the pay was good. Considering how permanent some of their employees have been over the years despite being at an age where one is typically "leveling up" quickly. I feel very comfortable saying they're not exploited. I don't have the same visibility into the "corporate" yard because I only go there when I have to (they are only closed Sundays and federal holidays) and they have organized their workflow to keep their customers at arms length.
bumby 4y ago
What builds the resiliency in the latter compared to the former? If it's "turning a blind eye to regulations" that leads to follow-up questions. Is the intent of the regulations that are not appropriate? (i.e., the requirements are wrong?) Or is it that the former is inefficient about implementing the requirement? (i.e., the process is bad). Both of those have fixes that are outside of the dichotomy proposed in your post.

shigawire 4y ago

So the answer is exploiting workers better and criminal activity?

throwaway0a5e 4y ago
The by the book business isn't hiring young people and teaching them how to drive heavy equipment. If their employees felt exploited they'd have problems retaining them. I think their employees care more about the perks and the fairly laid back work environment than they care about all the fire extinguishers on the property having an up to date tag. I know I did back when I worked those kinds of jobs.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- bumby 4y ago
  >fire extinguishers on the property having an up to date tag. I know I did back when I worked those kinds of jobs. This is a problem with how you're thinking about low probability events. Yes, rules only matter when the low probability event occurs. Do you, for example, not care about up-to-date A&P logs on the aircraft you fly in as well? I'll be the first to admit that regulations can go beyond what should be considered an acceptable risk, but we have to at least acknowledge the risk they are meant to mitigate before determining if it's a reasonable regulation. That often involves understanding the consequences of low probability events, something we're usually not good at thinking about very well on a day-to-day basis.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  > If their employees felt exploited they'd have problems retaining them. That is not usually true. Lots and lots of people feel exploited by their employers, yet stay in their jobs. Generally, they have financial obligations, need money and benefits, and jobs aren't so easy to replace.
  - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
    The family scrap yard is hiring able bodied young men and training them to drive heavy equipment (which they then presumably slap on their resumes). I know they get free lunch and (used/questionable) fuel oil/diesel because I've discussed it with an employee (last July/August or thereabouts). Based on the demeanor of everyone there it seems like a great place to work if you don't mind working outside and a fair amount of physical labor. I don't know what they're paid but all things considered it's probably crap. They wouldn't be hiring highschoolers if the pay was good. Considering how permanent some of their employees have been over the years despite being at an age where one is typically "leveling up" quickly. I feel very comfortable saying they're not exploited. I don't have the same visibility into the "corporate" yard because I only go there when I have to (they are only closed Sundays and federal holidays) and they have organized their workflow to keep their customers at arms length.

bumby 4y ago

What builds the resiliency in the latter compared to the former? If it's "turning a blind eye to regulations" that leads to follow-up questions. Is the intent of the regulations that are not appropriate? (i.e., the requirements are wrong?) Or is it that the former is inefficient about implementing the requirement? (i.e., the process is bad). Both of those have fixes that are outside of the dichotomy proposed in your post.