you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 211 points 2 years ago (27 children)

You mean that Target wasn't closing stores because of theft after all?! I'm shocked.

  • source
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 121 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    That was just the coverup so they didn’t get backlash from laying everyone off after another round of C-Suite bonuses.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 52 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

    You don’t understand what it’s like for them. They don’t like sacking people for bonuses but they just can’t come up with any other ways to increase profit. What are they supposed to do? Get creative? Build a strong respectful work culture? Not take a bonus? You see. It’s not as easy as you think. Timmy can miss out on his toy train this Christmas. Besides, it’s just business

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    When little Timmy got a train
    "twas put beneath a tree
    Christmas day had fin'lly come,
    Such fun for all to see

    The poor were done, they knew no fun All stolen by some jerk(s)
    Their patience done, their time had come
    And quickly went to work

    Timmy's dad had been quite bad
    He stole, and cheated and lied
    When they burned the system down,
    Little Timmy fucking died.

    Added context: "Little Timmy" is 35, has a cushy VP job in his dad's company, and is lined up to be the next ceo. It was his suggestion to cut 50,000 jobs so he could collect a finders fee for "finding" unnecessary expenses.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago* (11 children)

    I’ll give Target a bit of lee at here because they were only there first to admit they were wrong, they also shared a bunch of data about how their shrink calculation methodology, which much of the retail sector shares, is flawed.

    I have worked for target. Their logistics methodology is incredibly on point. They are highly invested in getting things right, if no other reason, for the sake of their own profitability.So as there are being open, they have some credibility here, I would say, especially given that others here are so closed. This interest certainly serves their profit motive as much as it services our our motive.  There is, at least, for now, no reason to distress them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    Target: logistics methodology....

    laughs in Canadian

    No they don't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    Canadian logistics sucks in general because Canada is one of the worst places, in terms of how population is scattered, to deliver any goods to.

    As a result, Canadian drivers often get US transport authority so they can make more money, but American drivers will rarely get Canadian authority.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (5 children)

    No, not really. 2/3rds of the population lives along the Great Lakes and the St Lawrence River. The only out of the way centers are Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver. But goods coming from Asia are going through those anyways.

    Target executives were explicitly told by HBC executives that their logistics weren't up to par, before the company moved up here.
    I have friends who worked for Target here who described their logistics as a bad joke. And they work for the government now in logistics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

    I worked in logistics for years and ran a decent amount of international (both from ports and into Canada). I'm commenting about why Canadian logistics, not Target specifically, is tougher than it otherwise would be

    I'll take your word on things regarding Target specifically for sure, because it isn't my forte. Looking at your post, the Canadian gov probably knew their infrastructure wasn't up to the different challenge from the jump.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    HBC is Hudson's Bay Company. Not the government.

    Target has for the last 15 years or so owned a controlling share of the company hence the high degree of cooperation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Ahhh makes sense. Also makes sense how they'd understand the realities of logistics there to a much greater degree than Target. Here's hoping their influence helps.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    A couple of regions aren't enough to make it worthwhile, at least according to an article I read recently.

    From the link:

    1. Economies of scale. Canada has a population of 39 million spread across a very large geographic area. Compared to other G-7 countries, retailers don’t benefit from economies of scale in Canada unless they operate across the entire country. A regional operator in the northeast U.S., for example, has a potential market of more than 125 million, while a regional operator in Canada is lucky to have a potential market of 15 million.
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -11 points 2 years ago (8 children)
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    Theft clearly doesn't affect their overall profits considering how many chains have had record profits.

    Looking at you Walmart

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 2 years ago (6 children)
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (5 children)
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Depends where you set the bar. Does it make it more likely that certain locations are closed? Probably.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Yeah but they're only closing because they're not bringing in maximum profits.

    They're still making profits they're just butthurt they're not making more and that was my original point.

    If you can lose $3b in theft and still make record billions then no, theft does not affect you at all.

    With all that said though if the store is legitimately being robbed to the point of affecting profits that much then yeah go ahead and close. But the companies that claim theft as the reason for closing stores are bullshitting you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    If you can lose $3b in theft and still make record billions then no, theft does not affect you at all.

    But it does. You are using "at all" wrong lol.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    No just understanding that they're making so much money the theft is doing essentially nothing to their profits.

    Lemmings really need to stop this whole shtick about not understanding the nuance in word choice. Everyone here acts like a fuckin lawyer when it comes to breaking down and analyzing specific word choice.

    It's clear through the context of everything else I said what I mean by "at all". It's such a negligible impact on the company as a whole that it's not even worth mentioning 90% of the time. Like a guy who just won the lottery dropping a nickel. It's completely inconsequential.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago*

    It's not nuance to just use the wrong words. Also no, it's not completely inconsequential either. It does matter when considering what stores to keep and which ones to close. It's one of the aspects you'd consider.

  • source
  • parent