RogerDodger

Failed to prove according to the law but instead what some people might understand the word? Have you and the judge bumped your heads?

Grillo and English.

Kiss of death. Thanks a lot.

Dance Rusty, dance!

100% agree. I never said anything different. If you ctrl-f "maximize" you'll find me saying that multiple time. Now if you suddenly had to fill Bud Light's shelf space in addition to yours, you need more trucks and drivers etc.

You shouldn't target to have idle rigs in the first place. Why did you buy a bunch of extra trucks that arent making money? Sell them. Lease them out. Do something, it's dead money.

Everything sounds dumb coming out of the BonusBoy filter. But what you accidentally said isn't too bad of an idea. If you've got extra trucks that are idle they would be making money if you leased them out. Bud Light can have a recall clause in the lease agreement to get them back quick if anyone ever decides to drink their beer again.

Pretty sure if I ctrl-f "double" I won't get any hits except your post. If you can't refute what they say, just make chit up that they didn't say. Gutterboy Posting 101.

Helpful Hint: If you want to maximize profit you try to get all your equipment running all the time. Just like you want all your employees to be working all the time. Equipment sitting idle is a big time money loser. Add this to your business plan: - Rental agreement to temporarily replace trucks that break down or need service. - Service agreement for repair shop, top priority. Lock in prices. - If your fleet is big enough do a cost comparison if it make sense to hire your own mechanics to service and repair. You're welcome.

I just picked the drivers example to try and help dumb it down for you. All these people are going to loose their jobs because of this! But it's the same amount of beer, the jobs just move elsewhere. The other retailer's employees just pick up the slack! C'mon, Economics 101.

Sounds like I could jump in and make your little local distributor a lot more money. Lots of resources sitting idle. But that's not what we are talking about, are we. We're talking about 10,000+ employees of a huge corporation. Huge corporations are my industry.

You should have taken Gutterboy. He was all pissy because apparently he didn't get to go.

Yep. And when volume increases and that driver has to go back a third time he hits the maximum HOS allowed by FMCSA and you need to hire another driver. And then possibly a new truck because your deliveries are late and the stores shelves are sitting empty. I think you got it now.

Things you've invented so far so that you're not wrong: - only 100 employees - only for a week - 100% efficiency is an absolute - only a short term demand fluctuation.

Take any one of your examples. But the truck driver one works best. You think trucks drive around half empty? The distributor makes sure the trucks are completely full and can make as many deliveries as possible per load. More product to move means more deliveries. More deliveries means more TIME and those damn truck drivers can only work the maximum allowed by FMCSA. . That means you have to hire more truck drivers.

Ah, now we are getting somewhere. "More work for the existing employees" That's your logical fallacy. If your boss comes in and dumps more work on your desk, that takes more TIME. You don't just majically work faster and harder because if you had capacity to do more work in your 40 hours of TIME, your TIME isnt optimized and your boss and company are losing money. Doing more work in the same amount of time requires more resources and employees.

The new distributor has it's own employees that come in to take the jobs away from the old distributor. That's your claim. What were they doing the day before because it seems some new jobs just opened up.

Oh so sorry I didnt say "the second you regularly" because I'm dealing with an idiot. The scenario was set with the 10,000 BL employees losing their jobs. 5 Points made it sound bad, so tragic for those guys. Sounds permanent. So: Things you've invented so far so to avoid being wrong: - only 100 employees - only for a week

FFS. A week? The example we are discussing moron is permanent. If it's just a week the 10,000 employees you're worried about get their jobs back. Dumb as chit.

All the employees? Nice shift of the goalpost. What were the people they already have doing the day before? Just pull them off the shelf huh. A man-hour is a man-hour.

You cant read. He said 10,000 people. Shocked that you whiffed at the goal being 100% and instead took it as an absolute. Do you understand the definition of "maximize"? Simple example even a retard like you can understand. The second your current employees have to work a cumulative 40 hours overtime you should hire another person so you dont have to pay overtime. Conversely you'll loose employees if you can give them enough hours. You maximize that for profit. You've never managed people or ran a business. GTFO

Actually I do. Any business that's for profit maximizes their efficiency and output. Thats how you make money, highest return on your investment. No major brewery is sitting there with a bunch of equipment and workers just waiting for people to buy more beer or hoping their competitors go under. If breweries experience more demand they need and use more resources. That's just Business 101.

Wrong. It's a man-hour no matter who does it or where it's done. If they switched to smaller breweries with less reach than AB it would actually create more jobs. Literally happens every day all day long if you ever get above Hardee's manager level.

Hes trying to read off the note cards they give him.