XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science
From: seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com
On 1/17/14 2:39 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article , gossg@gossg.org says...
>>
>> Doc O'Leary wrote:
>>
>>> In article ,
>>> Bernard Peek wrote:
>>>
>>>> There's a different shortcoming in the system for me. I always check the
>>>> shelf of stuff that's going out of date today. It's often got stuff that
>>>> I wouldn't pay full price for.
>>>
>>> No reason that couldn't be the MO of online shopping as well. The main
>>> problem you might face is that, by improving the supply chain, you may
>>> find there is less and less inventory that winds up expiring. But if
>>> the efficiencies allow prices to be kept down overall, you'll probably
>>> still save more than digging through the bargain bin.
>>
>> If you drive down the costs of the supply chain, then you might just
>> raise the profit margins.
>>
>> The sign outside the WalMart warehouse near where I live says "Supply
>> Chain Management Inc" indicating how important one company takes
>> managing the supply chain.
>
> But will a podcrawler going through the neighborhood every 10 minutes
> actually reduce the costs? The Postal Service only does one a day and
> they're going broke.
>
Not to argue for the pod concept, but the USPS is ONLY going broke
because of a ludicrous requirement to fund retirement AHEAD of time...
for SEVENTY-FIVE YEARS. No other private OR government organization's
had to do that.
Leaving that stupidity aside, they're assuming full-autonomous
integrated vehicles, so you eliminate the cost of people entirely in
your chain, which is a VERY large cost indeed. Plus your pods can
eliminate all the "driver" support components.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
