How Amazon's ambitious new push for same-day delivery will destroy local retail - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/articles/business/small_business/2012/07/amazon_same_day_delivery_how_the_e_commerce_giant_will_destroy_local_retail_.html <comment><USER3> Amazon has been doing this in parts of Germany since 2009. The results haven't been nearly as dramatic as the article predicts. As others have indicated, the limiting factor isn't so much speed of delivery as the inclination to physically inspect items before buying them. That said, Zappos, now a part of Amazon, has succeeded in doing that in one of the markets that tends the most towards such. Even so, there are still a lot of places to buy shoes.

<comment><USER4> When Zappos first came out I thought they'd tank. I purchase new basketball/running shoes every 6months, and never ever make a new purchase without trying it on. Playing basketball or running with an even slightly uncomfortable shoe can lead to blistering, back problems, ankle sprains, etc.

But my gf at the time thought it was brilliant. What I learned was that a lot of women's shoes are purchased based on anything except comfort. The quality can be shoddy, the wear can cause excruciating pain, yet some top brands sell for hundreds and even thousands a pair. Swing by the Nordstrom's women's shoe dept sometime and take a look at the quality of build. Eavesdrop a bit and take inventory of the questions the clients ask about. (Zappos is started by a bunch of ex-Nordy folks).

To this day I've only purchased 1 pair of shoes on Zappos, and that's after I had bought it previously at the dept store (New Balance 993, imo best shoes for walking/running in case you're wondering).

<comment><USER5> Yes. The build quality of women's shoes is astoundingly bad. Sometimes I look at them and they literally feel like glued on piece of leather, pretty on the outside, and nothing more.

It's interesting how two different markets have developed (men's shoes and women's shoes) that have such different parameters. Men's shoes have outstanding build quality --- to the point where a good pair of quality shoes gets resoled multiple times. Do women ever resole shoes?

<comment><USER6> This isn't just true for women's shoes, but women's clothing in general. I don't understand the reasons, but men's clothing tends to be made with less design and more durability.

A fashioner designer once told me he made the men's clothing first, then crafted the women's clothing out of its leftovers + some embellishments.

<comment><USER7> Women's fashion changes quickly, so if she keeps up she may only be wearing whatever it is for a single season. It doesn't make sense to make something durable if it's only going to be worn a handful of times.

Men's fashions change much more slowly, and within much narrower parameters. It actually makes sense to spend a few grand on a suit that you're going to wear to work every week for a couple years, and it has to be pretty well made to last that long.

The hipster doofus stuff is as shoddy as women's wear and for the same reasons.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > Amazon has long enjoyed an unbeatable price advantage over its physical > rivals. When I buy a $1,000 laptop from Wal-Mart, the company is required to > collect local sales tax from me, so I pay almost $1,100 at checkout.

This is such an over blown argument. Sure, Amazon is ~7% (where I live) cheaper than traditional stores due to sales tax. But that $1000 Wal-Mart laptop has a $900 sticker price on Amazon, and most non electronic items are 20-40% cheaper than in stores.

If laws change and I have to start paying sales tax on Amazon, it won't change a thing about my buying habits.

Edit: They also have an inventory many times larger than any brick and mortar store. Whenever I go shopping, I have to choose between the least crappy option Wal-Mart decides to stock. On Amazon, I get exactly the one I want.

<comment><USER9> Indeed, when you look at surveys that ask people why they prefer shopping online, things like "24/7 convenience", "saves time", and "better selection" usually end up ahead of "costs less money, even after shipping" and taxes are usually a small part of that.

The lack of sales tax hurts local tax entities far worse than it hurts Amazon's competitors.

<comment><USER10> not having to drive to the store is huge

on Amazon you just search, compare, read reviews and click buy.

with brick and mortar stores, you have to drive to the store, park, then roam the store to find what you are looking for, then hope that they have it in stock before you buy, then drive back home. Even a small purchase ends up costing you an hour of your time.

and for large purchases almost always you have to wait 20-30 for the store associate to bring out what you want to buy...and you have to deal with a sales pitch for an extended warranty

<comment><USER11> Maybe for electronics but for clothes I don't mind driving to the store. Trying stuff on till I find what works. Asking knowledgeable staff for suggestions/opinions.

I think I've had one positive result from buying clothes online.

<comment><USER12> I have an idea for a side project/startup tackling that problem.

What's your main problem? Finding out how it would look on you? How it feels/quality? What are the suggestions and opinions you look for?

Thanks :)

<comment><USER11> All of the above are problems.

Huge problem is fit. Especially pants. So many things can go wrong. Too tight in the thighs, pants run short, pants are tighter than usual in the hips, weird fit in the butt, etc. . .

Feel/quality is a big one for me personally because I have some hangups with textures. If something has a certain feel it makes my skin crawl.

As for suggestions and opinions, I'm usually looking for advice, make sure I'm not committing any faux pas with my choices. For example, when buying some leather shoes I may want something that can be worn with jeans or with slacks if needed. If the sales associate is knowledgeable I will probably go with something I initially was tentative about or didn't consider.

Hope that helps.

<comment><USER12> It does :) . Thank you ! As soon as I have an MVP I'll post it here on Hacker News :) .

<comment><USER13> Send out measuring tapes for free to customers (like Square's credit card readers). The tapes will be branded with your logo/URL. You let users store their exact measurements on their profile, and your company takes care of the rest (building an online catalog of well-photographed stock, all of which your team has gathered samples of and tested for exact measurements.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This is already happening in China. Because of the nature of shipping companies here it's not unusual to buy a product (typically off of <http://taobao.com>) and get it later that day or the next day. Many of these businesses are based in Shanghai and if you live there delivery happens nearly instantly. One online shop, <http://cheers-in.com/> delivers cold beer in Shanghai in 1 - 2 hours from an order. Stuff like this is absolutely fantastic and it would be amazing to see it come to the US.

<comment><USER15> Great for consumers like us, but terrible for all of the people who work ridiculous hours under constant stress on warehouse floors or do deliveries day in and day out. I try to buy from brick & mortar shops purely because running a shop is a job that has a shred of dignity left in it.

<comment><USER16> Yes, everyone who deals with the general public knows how unstressful and dignifying that is. That is, besides having to deal with blatant sexism[1], extreme ignorance[2], elderly genitalia[3], stealing[4], destruction of property[5], physical violence[6], bigotry[7], etc.

[1]: [http://notalwaysright.com/man-up-and-let-a-woman-fix- it/2136...](http://notalwaysright.com/man-up-and-let-a-woman-fix-it/21360)

[2]: <http://notalwaysright.com/spyware-is-strength/21253>

[3]: [http://notalwaysright.com/at-least-we-know-her-natural- color...](http://notalwaysright.com/at-least-we-know-her-natural-color/21093)

[4]: <http://notalwaysright.com/to-conjugate-a-thief/20886>

[5]: <http://notalwaysright.com/customers-can-be-tiring/20828>

[6]: <http://notalwaysright.com/cuffed-red-handed/20707>

[7]: <http://notalwaysright.com/bigotry-gets-served/20336>

<comment><USER17> Right, so you have 7 links to the same site, all written from the point of view of the wronged assistance. Wow. If that is not proof of nothing, then I do not know what is.

<comment><USER18> Who else but "wronged assistance" would demonstrate their point?

When you talk about conditions at Amazon warehouses, I assume you're referring to this article (or similar): [http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/mac- mcclelland-f...](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/mac-mcclelland- free-online-shipping-warehouses-labor)

You should know that Amazon bought Kiva Systems earlier this year, so they'll be replacing human picking with efficient robot picking over the next couple of years.

Your job becomes to stand there on a foam mat and move whichever item the laser points at from the cart to the box. This job will almost certainly be automated in the next decade as well, with something like FlexPicker.

Kiva Systems: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvQKGev56qU>

FlexPicker: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHuDvVa7mkw>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Amazon failed to collect/remit ~270M in sales tax in Texas and has owed millions for years. So what did the state of Texas do about it?

They struck a deal to erase the 270M owed, as long as Amazon starts collecting sales tax starting 7/1, create 2000 jobs and invest 200M in Texas. They were likely already planning more infrastructure in Texas, but threatened to reverse course and pull out of the state entirely.

The way I see it, Amazon bluffed the state of Texas to the tune of 270 million dollars and all I might get out of it is next day delivery?

I'll take what I can get, I guess.

<comment><USER7> Companies are only required to pay state sales tax if they have a physical presence in that state. Amazon wasn't bluffing, Texas was. We went through the same thing in California. Amazon agreed to pay the sales tax, but only after it had decided to open distribution centers in the state.

<comment><USER19> Amazon has had a continuous presence in Texas from 2005 onward.

Distribution center operated in Irving, TX from 2005 through 2011. Woot, in Carrollton, TX was acquired in 2010.

<comment><USER20> I think the distribution center was owned indirectly, through some sort of holding company; that was the linchpin of their whole argument.

Woot was probably just one of the things they were threatening to close down and move out of state if Texas didn't give them a break. And I'm sure they had an argument ready as to why Woot wasn't a tax nexus for Amazon as a whole; there's a lot of really arcane rules that go into determining nexus.

The real losers at the end of all this are going to be the tax-free states, who ended up getting a lot of Amazon (and other mail-order retail) business because putting a warehouse there wouldn't risk triggering taxation. But if the tax loopholes are closed, there's not a lot of reason to set up shop there. They are going to be the losers in the end, I think.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> A general policy that "online stores pay sales tax" also benefits Amazon vs. small internet retailers.

A while ago I sold a few bumper stickers online and ended up using cafepress. I could have made a better profit by printing the stickers in bulk and mailing them to people, but I'd have to spend $100+ on paperwork just for the privilege of paying sales tax just in case I sell any to New Yorkers.

If small internet businesses had to pay taxes to the 40+ states that have sales tax plus to all the other jurisdictions (cites, counties, who knows what) in the U.S. it would be almost impossible to sell stuff and comply with the the law.

For AMZN the overhead is nothing.

<comment><USER22> Actually a general policy that "businesses that deliver things pay sales tax per jurisdiction that they deliver thins to" (the way "online stores pay sales tax" is implemented) benefits Amazon vs small local retail stores that deliver.

Where I usually live in the US, there are at least 6-7 tax jurisdictions within 20 min. by car. For businesses in Wenatchee that may deliver within an hour's radius, there are a very large number of tax jurisdictions. Most brick- and-mortar businesses ignore the rule and figure if they don't tell the state they are delivering things, they won't get looked at too closely, but it means they are in violation of the law.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> It'll destroy larger B&M stores but I doubt it'll fully outdo local specialty shops. What you'll see is a stratification between hyper specialty B&M that sell luxury items only a tiny subset of people want, but are willing to pay out the nose for, and places like Amazon filling the role of Target and Walmart, being the catch-all for everything else that most people need on a week-to-week or month-to-month basis. While you might be able to buy a certain brand of organic mustache wax on Amazon, I don't see a day coming where they'll be able to do that same-day.

<comment><USER24> Also, amazon is kind of skeevy; I'm very leery of buying food, cosmetics, or toiletries from them because they make it really hard to tell from whom you're buying stuff. I'm happy to buy eg usb cables from the cheapest vendor, but I don't trust any of the chinese knockoff shit if it's going to regularly touch my skin or be eaten. Particularly since china appears to have no real food safety laws and poisoned 300k of their children [1] with the same well known techniques used to fake out protein readings on milk they used to kill thousands of american pets [2] the year before. China even went so far as to hurt more children by delaying a recall to avoid embarrassment during the summer olympics! If I'm going to buy food or cosmetics on amazon, they need to be much better about communicating from whom I'm purchasing and what was done to make sure it isn't a knockoff.

And knockoffs are everywhere on amazon's site. I've wanted one of these cool suck.uk bottle opener keychains that looks like an old school key for a while [3] but their shipping charges to the US are too expensive. So I found it on amazon [4]. If you read the reviews, it's full of complaints about knockoffs or the steel snapping. And I've seen it sold for as little as $2.99 with shipping while amazon sells it for $9. Adding to the skeeviness, the cheapest vendor of that item changes all the time, and for quite a while amazon didn't sell it directly. I finally bought it from amazon proper and I'm hoping they got the actual item and not some knockoff themselves, but who knows. Shit like this makes it hard to be willing to buy food on amazon.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal>

[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_pet_food_recalls>

[3] <http://www.suck.uk.com/products/keybottleopener/>

[4] [http://www.amazon.com/Suck-UK-Key-Bottle- Opener/dp/B0000B0DK...](http://www.amazon.com/Suck-UK-Key-Bottle- Opener/dp/B0000B0DKM)

<comment><USER25> They show the seller, and I agree a lot of the Marketplace sellers are horrible. I pretty much stick to Amazon.com LLC (i.e. real Amazon) and trusted sellers (Adorama, J&R, ...) for most products.

I wish there were a way to set a flag in your account to ONLY show Amazon.com LLC products.

<comment><USER24> They show the seller, kind of, but say the seller is rightguard. Is it the deodorant brand or is someone camping the name?

<comment><USER25> The seller is listed separately from that. e.g. for [http://www.amazon.com/OXO-Grips-Silicone-Pastry- Brush/dp/B00...](http://www.amazon.com/OXO-Grips-Silicone-Pastry- Brush/dp/B000JPSI8C/ref=pd_ys_sf_s_1055398_b1_2_p)

Manufacturer is OXO, but it says "In Stock. Ships from and sold by Amazon.com. Gift-wrap available." below the price. That means it's sold directly by Amazon.

You can also go to "more buying choices" where it is even more transparent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I bought 2 things on Amazon this week, both with free 2 day shipping with Prime

Item 1 spent 13 hours on a UPS truck driving around my city and was delivered about 7pm in the evening 2 days after ordering.

Item 2 was delivered 14 hours after purchasing by Amazon Fresh at 9am.

For the same price of shipping, which service would you rather have?

EDIT To Add: The delivery guy for the 14 hour item works for Amazon - <USER2> whole experience was produced by Amazon without needing a third party. UPS is another company that will be in trouble if Amazon can make this scale.

<comment><USER27> It depends on how well I know the item. If it's a commodity where I've bought exactly the same thing before (Charmin Extra-Strong Toilet Paper), then price rules all. If it's a new item that I'm not sure what I need about it (chef knife, bar stool, etc.), then seeing the item in person helps determine which item I need.

<comment><USER28> I'm not sure if you've used Amazon's return system before, but it's absolutely immaculate. In my opinion, this is more an issue of perception than reality - in many ways it's easier to return things to Amazon than to your local store.

<comment><USER29> Except for the times they charge you $8 for return shipping on a $5 item.

<comment> mh- I've never been charged for return shipping. was this purchase an item sold _by_ amazon, not merely fulfilled by them (a la amazon marketplace)?

<comment><USER20> Amazon charges you for return shipping (or obliges you to use your own shipping, e.g. USPS) depending on the reason you are returning an item. If you are returning it just because you decided you didn't want it, they don't pay to take it back.

That was my experience with some housewares stuff, about three weeks ago. I decided to take the item down to the Post Office to ship it back rather than using Amazon's label, because it was cheaper that way. (If I'd used the label, they would have deducted $8 or something out of the amount they were going to refund me eventually; USPS was something like $4-5.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> This is the trojan horse. Once Amazon has a large presence in each major centre, the next logical step for them is use some of their massive space as a showroom (think Ikea but on a much larger scale).

[Edit: To clarify, the showroom and warehouse would be in the same complex but separated. Shoppers + heavy merchandise + fast moving robots is a recipe for disaster.]

Then they can satisfy both the "I want to see it before I buy it" crowd as well as the "I know what I want - just give me the best price" crowd.

Mark my words. Amazon has the Costco's, Walmart's and Best Buy's of the world squarely in their crosshairs.

*Of course there will of course always be specialty categories that are too niche to fit in this model, thus many specialized retailers will still exist.

<comment><USER25> Interesting idea, but I seriously doubt Amazon would do this with their normal warehouses -- maybe paying sales tax and thus being able to have presence in major cities would let them set up dedicated showrooms for certain kinds of high-lifetime-margin products, like Kindles and maybe a Kindle Phone, though.

Big warehouses are highly automated (especially Amazon's), essentially unsafe for untrained people (forklifts, robots), and potentially at risk for theft. Not the kind of place you'd want customers milling around. Amazon is more likely to promote their existing easy return policy -- buy 3 pairs of shoes and send back the two you don't like -- vs. letting people into their warehouses.

Small, Apple-store style showrooms, or partnerships with someplace like Starbucks, would make a lot more sense. The lifetime value of a Kindle user far exceeds the cost of a Kindle (I probably have 200 x $10 books on mine at least), and it's the kind of product where try before you buy could be important. I'd rather have a bunch of Kindles and Kindle Fires in a cafe setting where you could check one out for a few hours, buy or get free drinks, and comfortably use the devices in an ideal environment, though. This could work for all the Amazon first-party products.

Maybe there are third-party products which would benefit from this, so Apple store sized showrooms with rotating third party stock (and fixed first party stock) could work, but they are really unlikely to be the existing warehouses.

<comment><USER31> If Amazon can deliver in one-day, why even worry about stock at these showrooms. Find something you like, order it, and it's delivered to your door the next day.

<comment><USER25> Certain huge items are obnoxious to purchase, evaluate, and then return if unsatisfied -- like 80" LCD TVs. Not sure what percentage of Amazon that is.

Also, many people feel "bad" about buying and returning. The "buy 3 pair of shoes, return 2" where you know you'll only keep 1 from the start feels dishonest in a way, although I'm more than happy to return something which isn't as described or is otherwise unpredictably unsatisfying.

I actually do a mental calculation before buying something which I might return, trying to figure out if Amazon is better off by me buying it (given my odds of returning it, and the costs/residual resale value if returned), and if the return is due to a bad description (Amazon's fault, and thus ok to return if the product turns out to match the wrong part of the description, like when it is internally inconsistent with the photo or whatever).

"Which of these two should I buy" is sometimes addressed by buying both, but buying 10 items and returning 9 is probably going to get your Amazon account flagged at some point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> More technology driven hyper-deflation on the way.

The future: high inflation in food, energy, fuel, and consumables, hyper- deflation in everything else except to the extent that it depends on or consumes the former.

<comment><USER33> Solid analysis, the only other online community I frequent is zerohedge and they have been calling it biflation for some time now.

Things like housing, equity, and bond prices will deflate while commodity prices will continue to inflate.

<comment><USER34> The act of predicting the future alters the future. Especially true with economics.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Isn't this just one step away from Amazon just being another brick-and-mortar? If this is the case, is not having an actual store that is accessible by customers (and coincidentally, the neccessary staff), _that much_ of a operational advantage?

Or is this just a case of the more efficient company (Amazon) beating out less efficient companies (Best Buy, Barnes and Nobles, etc...)?

<comment><USER36> It's not just the staff, I think -- it's the real estate. Amazon doesn't have to have conveniently located distributed locations and the inventory headaches associated with them; they can just have one gigantic warehouse in Jersey that provides goods to all their customers in Manhattan.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Amazon is playing chess while the brick and mortar stores are playing checkers.

<comment><USER38> Can you elaborate?

<comment><USER39> Amazon is playing a complicated but more rewarding game with millions of moves and therefore ample opportunities to innovate, while old fashioned brick and mortar stores are stuck in a simple game with little to no room for more innovation.

<comment><USER40> I think the small stores have had their chance, which has come and gone.

Simple rule while you do anything it to ponder the 'next steps'. You just can't keep waiting and expect your competition to do nothing in return.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> "I have no idea how Amazon made any money on my order (the whole bill was less than $30) but several people on Twitter told me that they've experienced similarly delightful service."

Therein lies the problem. At some point there will have to be revenues to justify the company's valuation. I suppose their goal is to initially obliterate all competition in entirety and then have everyone purchase from Amazon. I'm doubtful this will work. Of late, there has been a trend towards experience stores - with manufacturers creating their own stores instead of distributing to retailers. Many luxury brands do this and even some non-luxe ones, such as Samsonite, have been getting into the game. There's some value added here, and it's something Amazon won't be able to directly compete with.

<comment><USER42> I think you might be underestimating amazon's position. They already have massive revenues, and better mindshare than most of the brands they sell. They aren't some new startup, they bring in millions of dollars a day and are historically proven to be a successful company. Your post would make sense if amazon were a year old. They aren't. They've been doing this for a long time now and are very very good at it.

<comment><USER43> Q1 2012 Amazon had $13B in revenue and basically broke even, Costco had $23B in revenue, and Walmart has $113B. Where are you getting your financials from?

<comment><USER44> And Amazon's revenue is growing 33% YoY. Costco is 8%. Wallmart is 8.5%. See where this is going?

<comment><USER43> While making very little profit; that's not infinitely sustainable in retail where margins approach nothing. Amazon 2012 profit was $650M, Costco $1.4B, and Walmart $16B. If Walmart decided to go zero profit they could drive out a lot of competition and get a visit from the DOJ...

<comment><USER45> Amazon has a great story to tell the DOJ:we've not reduced our prices, we're working on offering better service: prime service is expensive, and we're building costly warehouses and bought a robotics company, and investing in pack-stasions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> This is crazy - I ordered 3 things from Amazon today through Prime and started wondering if/when a day would come when you'd have same day delivery from Amazon and what it would look like. I figured it would happen someday, but thought the complexities would be too much to handle for a while. Looks like they're way ahead of me. This is why I _love_ Amazon.

<comment><USER47> I think this will come into it's own with driverless car technology. Once we combine the current automated warehouses with automated delivery the timescale and costs will drop dramatically.

<comment><USER48> I think the implications of emerging technologies are greater than most people realize. Between driverless cars, voice-recognition systems, and the Internet, it doesn't seem far-fetched to imagine saying, "Computer: deliver one large pepperoni pizza and a Sprite", and having it appear on your doorstep within 15 minutes. All without human intervention.

<comment><USER47> And then we have 3D printing. This is one tech that IMO is going to come fast as companies continue advancing this tech. And then we can swap delivery time for print time on basic items!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> The only advantage local retail stores have is immediacy. You can buy it as fast as you can drive there (and park/find it in the store/wait in line). Amazon has almost every other advantage. Ive come to find shopping local retail stores more and more frustrating. Shopping without reviews or videos, and having to flag down employees to help you locate items. It's really hard to beat online shopping with one day or two day shipping. Not impossible, but challenging. Target, Best Buy, and other generic mass retailers would be hurt the most

<comment><USER50> Yeah, but most of the time your local retailers will not have the right product in stock (unless you are very vague about your requirements).

On top of that, local stores are annoying: it takes time to go there, you need to deal with traffic, weather condition, sometimes shop employees being too intrusive and wanting to see you additional services (or recommending you bad products), waiting in line just to pay. etc... It's just not worth anymore.

Amazon delivers at my door usually 2 days after I order something. In case of defect they even come at my door to pick the malfunctioning product.

They are clearly doing what's BEST for customers. I don't even understand why local shops who have stores a few kms away from me don't even offer delivery services. They don't even think about improving anything, and they well deserve to disappear. No regrets.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Because the last mile is always so expensive and subject to theft, I think we'll eventually have a centralized local pickup location for all sorts of small deliveries. We'll just stop there on the way home if something has arrived.

That will even include your postal mail if the postal service ever wakes up. There's no need to physically deliver mail every day if people could see what mail they've received remotely and can pick it up or request deliver if they can't leave home.

<comment><USER52> We've built a little nook for packages on our front porch, I wonder if more people will do that sort of thing as well.

<comment><USER51> In the old days, they had milk boxes. One house I lived in as a kid had one. There's usually a door on the outside and a locked door on the inside. Here's one:

[http://www.wellsphere.com/allergies-article/built-in-milk- bo...](http://www.wellsphere.com/allergies-article/built-in-milk-box/1077155)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Looks like Amazon is finally bringing Webvan to fruition. Only took 11 years.

<comment><USER54> By building many warehouses before proving the idea works, they appear to also be repeating Webvan's greatest error.

<comment><USER55> They are offering same day delivery in some markets today, including Las Vegas. I've used it twice, with the $10 same day delivery being less expensive than other expedited shipping options. It was very cool having a courier drop a package at my door with my purchase the same day I bought it. Even with $10 delivery the final price was cheaper than buying from a retail store at retail prices.

I think with these test markets, Amazon has proven to themselves already that the idea works. I know that I'm very happy with the results so far!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Remember when home videos were going to obliterate movie cinemas? Who would go out when they can watch a movie on their couch?! For a while too things dipped. Then people realized there was a social element to going to the movies that made it a compelling experience. Add to that iMax and 3D etc. Heck, who would bother going to an Apple store when you can buy everything online!

Amazon is to shopping what McDonalds is to food. We all know what happens when you have McDonalds every day.

<comment><USER57> You get fat?

I rarely go to the movies because I can watch netflix on my couch (and save $20-$30). Movie attendance still grows because of economic growth, but in relative numbers it's falling (down 4% in the US/2011).

<comment><USER58> And there are other factors; 3D movies apparently have contributed to profits.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> "I'd gotten next-day Saturday service for free. I have no idea how Amazon made any money on my order (the whole bill was less than $30) but several people on Twitter told me that they've experienced similarly delightful service."

I've got news for you- they didn't make any money on your order. Amazon is profitable but has razor-thin margins on the whole. They take losses on several markets, including Prime, gambling that the entire seamless, low-cost user experience will cause enough people to spend enough money to push them over the edge of profitability.

I for one have serious doubts about whether what the author describes (based to a large extent on pure speculation) would be a profitable business model. It's one thing to keep huge amounts of inventory in centralized locations and ship items out across the country over the course of days. It's quite another to stock all that inventory redundantly throughout every state. So if I want to buy a specific pair of shoes that I can't find at Foot Locker, is Amazon going to stock 50 pairs on the off-chance that somebody down the street is going to buy them? Probably not.

In fact, the USPS runs a similar business model. One would then logically think (if this article is any indicator) that UPS and FedEx would go belly-up. I mean after all, if I can distribute mail to somebody's house for $0.50 in a day, how could UPS and FedEx compete with that? The reality is just the opposite. UPS and FedEx enjoy such enormous margins when compared to the USPS, that they want no part of the markets in which the USPS operates and it's too late for the USPS to compete with UPS and FedEx on parcels and important packages. I don't agree with the author's prediction at all.

</comment><comment><USER60> When Amazon lets me physically try out the feel of things while browsing them, see how well built a tool is, or how a piece of clothing fits, it might have a chance of killing local retail.

Until then, I like to see which pants fit best, which knife is most comfortable in my hand, which tablet is most responsive. Yes, if I already know what I want, I'll go to Amazon. But if I'm not entirely sure and I want to compare things, I'll go to a local store.

</comment><comment><USER61> At long last, the dreams of the Coyote ordering from Acme and getting immediate delivery of his latest gadget to catch the Roadrunner come closer to fruition.

</comment><comment> k-mcgrady I don't think it will destroy local retail. All the businesses within a 10 minute walk of your home will be fine, it's still more convenient than same day shipping unless your very busy. It's the businesses slightly outside the core of the town that will suffer. If it takes you 30-60 minutes to drive to a store you might order same-day from Amazon.

</comment><comment><USER62> The biggest challenge I see for amazon to come is, besides competition and makets and all that their ability to handle their whole supply chain. Amazon already proved that in terms of warehousing and distribution they are really ggod. but if there is one thing that comes with an ever increasing number of arehouses, especially if you want same-day delivery, is a ever increasing inventory level, in both number of items and value.

So from the outside one cornerstone of a strategy like this would be inventory management at at least regional if not even warehouse level. It's do-able, no question, but difficult. An advantage amazon has here is a huge history of point-of-sales data for most important regions they are operating in, no matter if there actualy is a amzon warehouse or not. And if they don't have (enough) point of sales data, well then it's to early to offer same-day service and all that.

All amazon has to do now is to keep operations up to the task... :-)

</comment><comment><USER63> Here's the original Financial Times article that this one was mostly taken from (nb: this link avoids their paywall via google's url redirection):

[http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/9...](http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/9bde8748-c201-11e1-8e7c-00144feabdc0.html)

<comment><USER64> It's not "mostly taken from." Read both articles.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> The other day I ordered something from Amazon, and it showed up in a small cargo van, delivered by a guy without a uniform, and in a package with no UPS or FEDEX label (or any other delivery label I could discern apart from the amazon labels).

Was this some kind of test for Amazon ran delivery from a local warehouse?

<comment><USER26> The package I had delivered today came via Amazon Fresh - the grocery delivery service they are testing in the Seattle area. It looks like they're also using it for non-Fresh items too for small, commodity items like CDs

This is Amazon owning the entire process from order until the item is in my hand.

<comment><USER66> I use Amazon fresh all the time, and it's possible to get all sorts of non- grocery things through it. I think it's whatever Amazon.com stuff they have available in the local warehouse.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> Workplaces should be an easy place to get same day delivery. At a large office you probably have 100+ Amazon orders each day that conveniently get delivered by the company's staff. Amazon could have their own truck just drive straight to the office building without getting UPS involved at all.

</comment><comment><USER68> OK so pretty soon Amazon will have same day delivery. That's going to be great!

Then, can we have evacuated tubes that connect our homes to all of the retail outlets, or homes to homes maybe also, and then they could have like 5 minute delivery, or however long it takes the picking robot to get it and then for it to travel at hypersonic speed through the tube?

Maybe we should all live within a few hundred yards of the warehouses. Then upgrade the picking robots and streamline the warehouses and tubes so they can deliver items in less than a minute.

Then we can all have robots that pull the items out of the tube, open the packaging and hand it to us on our couches/beds.

I would totally buy a giant plastic jug of cheeseballs right now if it could arrive in less than a minute and be delivered to my hands.

</comment><comment><USER69> In the chicago area, you can order from McMaster Carr (mechanical hardware), and get same day delivery. Any company that builds anything mechanical is probably ordering something from McMaster Carr. This isn't an impossible problem.

</comment><comment><USER70> > Physical retailers have long argued that once Amazon plays fairly on taxes, > the company wouldn't look like such a great deal to most consumers.

I love the audacity of "If you can't beat them, find some other way to beat them."

</comment><comment><USER71> Local retail is their own worst enemy, at least those that have websites.

If I go to the website of a brick and mortar store, chances are I want to know what they carry in-store, because I need something specific and am planning to visit a store.

Ideally I'd be able to see what they have in stock at the local stores, so I can avoid a needless trip.

Instead, many retailers have larded up their online stores with online-only products. Some don't even give you an easy way to exclude those and see only in-store items.

This is stupid, and just makes me more likely to not bother visiting the store at all, opting to just order from Amazon.

</comment><comment><USER72> In Germany, when you order in the morning before noon, you will most likely get your stuff by the next morning without any special shipping at all. That's how efficient the German postal service is :)

</comment><comment><USER73> There are a few fundamental, hard problems : energy and transportation. Amazon is trying to solve a subset of the latter here. However, I like to see/feel some things in person before buying. I often go through lot of items before finding "the one". Examples: food, pens, shoes. It would revolutionize the industry if Amazon could solve that. Until then, it's just a really large online store. Also - USA isn't the world. Non-US Amazon is heavily sub-par to other online stores: worse prices, small selection. So there's that, too.

<comment><USER45> I think amazon is concentrating on the clear and really hard pieces of eCommerce: warehouses everywhere, robotics, pack stations and leaves the fuzzy and less hard pieces to start-ups.

So now for example there are many start-ups working on the clothes and shoes fitting problem. In the future when the solution will be found , amazon would buy them , or just use their eCommerce muscle to force them into good terms or just copy them if possible.

<comment><USER12> Do you have some examples of startups working on the clothes and shoes fitting problem? (I have an idea about that, which I hope to turn into an MVP)

<comment><USER45> Fits.me, Styku, Zugarz, shoefitr,true fit,fitiquete,Quincy Apparel, fitted fashion.

<comment><USER12> Thank you :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> I'd have died to have that in the US or Japan for e.g., anywhere delivery of basic goods actually works and isn't painful. I feel the main barrier to this is to have the local delivery company deliver things on time and in a friendly fashion.

That's not something you could expect in any country amazon operates (french's chronopost delivery is really hostile for ex., but there should be a ton of others). It'd bear with it for things I expect in weeks anyway, it would be horrible to have it for goods that are supposed to be there today.

</comment><comment><USER75> I already don't shop locally except on a whim and when there are items I'm not price sensitive about at all. Well, groceries are an exception but I like to pick my own produce.

</comment><comment><USER76> To be honest, I feel this has a good outcome for environmentalism as well. Same day delivery putting physical retailers out of business means less overall driving.

</comment><comment><USER77> First the internet revolutionized music and eliminated record stores Then it revolutionized videos and took down video stores It didn't stop there, and moved on to bookstores and wiped them out. And now its taking out brick and mortar stores in general. Honestly, I LOVE IT! The internet is so great. Anything that gets stuff in my hand faster or easier is great in my eyes.

</comment><comment><USER78> I don't see how they can possibly achieve the same economies of scale with a lot of small local distribution centers vs. a few huge ones. Plus coordinating deliveries in all those local markets vs. just having UPS or FedEx handle that part. To a point this may be successful, but it sounds self-limiting to me.

</comment><comment><USER79> I'm surprised Amazon just hasn't started their own logistics company. With the spread of their warehouses now, is the next logical step becoming their own USPS/UPS/FedEx? I can only imagine what would happen once Amazon takes over the part of the process that seems to always have the most problems.

<comment><USER25> Until now it would have meant becoming a business in each delivery state and thus exposing themselves to sales tax. Maybe this will change in the future, and they are their own delivery company for AmazonFresh in Seattle I think.

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> I remember my grandmother telling us how first the bus and then the family car let her shop where she wanted to. Stores adapted. Face it, lack of transportation will allow bad service to exist simply because the customers are trapped.

When your the only game in town, well.

So I don't buy the dire predictions.

</comment><comment><USER81> I hope this applies to international shipping as well.

I buy stuff regularly from Amazon and their prices are even cheaper than what my country's local stores are offering after shipping included. E.g. A book from Amazon cost ~30% cheaper than the shops here in Singapore.

</comment><comment><USER82> I actually have a problem with Amazon's shipping. I live in a small town. Often FedEx shipments are dropped off at the USPS, so a two day delivery turns into three or more days. The worst was 5 days. UPS OTOH often delivers the next day.

</comment><comment><USER83> My opinion is that this may not be the end of local retail. I would still prefer to shop at my local grocers and farmers market on the weekend. Sometimes shopping is more than just shopping, its also an outing with family.

<comment><USER84> What percentage does this comprise of your annual purchases?

<comment><USER83> Roughly : local grocers ~75-80%, farmers market ~10% , big superstores ~10-15% .

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER85> A business is required to pay sales tax, not collect. Like some other businesses, Amazon can just include the tax in the price.

For instance, bars will include the taxes in the drink tax because if they show you how much tax is in a glass of beer you'd be very surprised, it's something like 40%.

It's an mental game though. Do you get people "through the door" with an item at $19.99 and hope they don't close the tab when they see the $1.00 tax, or do you just advertise it at $21.99 and hope that people are attracted to you because of name, etc even though joesonlineshop.com has it for $19.99?

<comment> mh- not really accurate.

Businesses don't pay sales tax on purchases for resale. Sales tax is paid by the consumer, but _collected_ by the business.

In most states, there is an exception afforded to food/liquor businesses that allows them to advertise prices tax-included.

Otherwise, the state laws usually look like this one: [http://dor.wa.gov/Content/GetAFormOrPublication/PublicationB...](http://dor.wa.gov/Content/GetAFormOrPublication/PublicationBySubject/TaxTopics/TaxIncluded.aspx)

<comment><USER85> Sadly the link is broken.

I remember when I did a small computer repair business out east 10 years ago that this was not the case.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER86> I thought of this November 3, 2010 :-)

<http://beginwithyou.org/2010/11/03/the-next-ebay/>

</comment><comment><USER87> I do wonder how much online retailers have saved by not dealing with shoplifting and the overhead involved with a fleet of loss-prevention employees.

<comment><USER78> I'm quite sure any warehouse operator will tell you that there is still a problem with theft.

</comment></comment><comment><USER88> TL;DR: "Amazon's going to wreck retail now that they're giving up their unfair advantage and relying solely on better service."

Boo hoo.

</comment><comment><USER89> Once 3D printing tech gets off the ground, same-day delivery could end up becoming common or even the standard.

</comment><comment><USER90> I can think of several local stores I would like to be erased from existence.

</comment><comment><USER91> Amazon is trying to become a specialized shipping service?

</comment><comment><USER92> Retailers pushed to impose the sales tax on Amazon. Now it looks like they are going to get what they asked for.

</comment><comment><USER93> I don't shop local any more unless it's for a premium item and the customer service is beyond average. Not when Amazon can deliver consumer items the next day.

</comment><comment><USER94> I thought Walmart already destroyed traditional local retail?

This one goes in the scaremonger bag.

</comment><comment><USER95> What this is going to do is punish people in non-metro areas.

The way that happens is the same way supermarkets work. In very competitive areas, cut rate prices, coupons and promos like doubling, etc. are offered very liberally. To make up for that profit loss, they pump up the prices and cut out promotions in areas where there is little to no competition.

In areas with a walmart and target and now amazon local delivery, prices are going to be crazy good.

Everyone else will suffer as they supplement the profit-loss.

<comment><USER22> I don't know about that. In Chelan, WA (population 3000, plus tourists, whole valley population maybe 10000 + tourists) 2 supermarkets, 3 if you count the fact that one of them has another location the next town over), prices aren't any higher than they are in Seattle, and both supermarkets have _amazing_ deals occasionally.

I once bought a whole beef tenderloin for $5.99/lb during one of the specials. One supermarket has themed specials every 2-3 weeks during the summer and reasonable prices the rest of the time. They also really focus on meeting needs of everyone around, so you can find goat meat, intestines, tripe, cow feet, and shank for sale in their meat department, and the shank is about half the price that they originally quoted me when i requested it.

The fact is that if you are in a rural area, you already end up with lower housing prices and some other benefits. So I wouldn't be surprised if that compensates for the increased shipping efforts.

I am not saying I like the supermarkets. I wont do business with the local Safeway because of ways they have treated family members. However, I wouldn't say prices are higher.

</comment></comment><comment><USER96> _(Disclosure: Slate participates in Amazon Associates, an "affiliate" advertising plan that rewards websites for sending customers to the online store. This means that if you click on an Amazon link from Slate—including a link in this story—and you end up buying something, Amazon will send Slate a percentage of your final purchase price.)_

Do they really think that they'll get more affiliate conversions by being the honest guys? Seriously, what is the point of this?

<comment><USER9> It looks like they are just trying to disclose a potential conflict of interest.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: MBA in your late 30's, is it possible? - <AUTHOR> Would MBA programs accept someone in his late 30's? <comment><USER2> Probably. I can't say yes for certain since I don't know which country the university you want to apply to resides in. In the US, a lot of business schools have programs aimed directly at working professionals by offering weeknight and weekend classes. At my work, it's very common to find people in MBA programs and they're 30s - 40s.

Also, depending on which country you're in, it is likely illegal for them to deny entry to any university based on age.

</comment><comment><USER3> Do an EMBA instead. Better networking, more agreeable hours, same content, same credential, better assignments.</comment>


Why I can't return to Tennessee - <AUTHOR> http://wgrover.com/writing/2012/04/12/cant-return-to-tennessee.html

<comment><USER2> Well I'd glad you linked to the bill, I hadn't read the text of it, though I'd heard some murmuring.

Perhaps you would like to be more specific about which parts you object to.

It says "teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught."

It says administrators and bureaucrats shall not "prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught."

It also "only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine..."

This is all said to be needed because "An important purpose of science education is to inform students about scientific evidence and to help students develop critical thinking skills necessary to becoming intelligent, productive, and scientifically informed citizens"

<comment><USER3> You're cherry picking statements to make this bill sound like something positive. I'd suggest just doing a Google search though; it's been debated to death.

<comment><USER4> The bill is only a few paragraphs. Point at the horrible bits. Otherwise it seems like a big piece of nothing that's being blown up for partisan or ideological reasons (On both sides, I'm sure.)

There are seemingly a lot of people out there with a huge personal investment in the idea that there's a "war on science" going on. Maybe it's validating to feel persecuted, who knows? But there's more science being done and taught than in any time in our history. Being against human cloning or banning light bulbs doesn't require being "anti-science"; people just have different values. That's what politics is for sorting out.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're right, science keeps chugging along and I don't feel particularly persecuted as a scientist, as validating as that would be! :)

For me it comes down to the fear that because of this law, the rest of the world will view Tennesseans as less desirable to have in the world's companies/universities/laboratories/etc. because Tennesseans spend time learning about creationism instead of real science. As a Tennessean that embarrasses and worries me.

<comment><USER5> I haven't read debates about the content of the bill, but having read it directly, I'm not sure how to get from A to B (B being kids learning about creationism):

"The teaching of some scientific subjects, including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy..."

That's a true statement; and not only CAN those topics cause controversy, but they can be counted on for it. The value and substance of the controversy raised is a related topic, but not directly implicated here; the mere presence of such controversy is a valid concern for educators -- blithely pretending it's not there isn't an effective answer, I don't think.

But what to do about the controversy?

"[Educators] shall endeavor to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues."

Sounds reasonable. Not only are we acknowledging controversy, but we're bringing students into the meta-conversation about it. That, as much as the primary topic, is essential to critical thinking, collaboration, and dispassionate discourse. Ideally, they engage in civics here as well as science.

Now, obviously anything put forth by a politician should be examined with a critical eye; there are usually ulterior motives. That said, I'd hate to become so cynical that I dismiss a bill like this because, for example, it was a) raised by a politician in X Party; and b) it mentions topics I know I'll disagree with him on. In substance, I really can't find anything here about which to take umbrage.

You're right that this opens the door to the _debate_ , but shouldn't it? The ostensible focus on scientific evidence and critical thinking should subsequently wither baseless dogmas, whether they be religious or not.

Finally, I think that in practical terms the bill itself is fairly worthless, lacking in specifics as it does.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's what makes it hard to criticize this bill - of course teachers should encourage debate and critical thinking. And there are lots of subjects in science that merit debate. But the authors of the bill have a specific subject in mind - the fundamental validity of all of evolution - and giving students the impression that there is ANY debate among biologists about the fundamental validity of evolution is just dishonest.

Opponents of the bill claim that it's written the way it is (emphasizing critical thinking) to differentiate the bill from various earlier pro- creationism legislation that got overturned by the courts; details [1] and [2]. But anyway, I hope you're right and the bill ends up encouraging debate about real science.

[1] [http://ncse.com/news/2012/04/boos-tennessees-monkey- law-0073...](http://ncse.com/news/2012/04/boos-tennessees-monkey-law-007300)

[2] [http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-04-09/debate-over- how...](http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-04-09/debate-over-how-teach- evolution-and-climate-change/transcript)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> First of all, it's why I _won't_ or _don't want_ to return to TN.

But also, why is this HN's problem?

<comment><USER7> I'd contend no one will encounter a force field when trying to enter TN, so "I can't ever go back" is perfectly meaningful for anyone who is unable to stomach this anti-intellectualism.</comment></comment>


Preparing To Fire an Executive - <AUTHOR> http://bhorowitz.com/2011/08/24/preparing-to-fire-an-executive/ <comment><USER2> This is right on - particularly the part about you screwing up the hiring process, not the exec being at fault. I made assumptions about a level of professionalism that I never assessed properly. I went through this a year+ ago and I hired the wrong guy. Unfortunately he took the legal language in emails during the termination process personally - another symptom of the root cause for which he was fired.

<comment><USER3> >This is right on - particularly the part about you screwing up the hiring process

really, I think this attitude is the best way to look at it when you have to fire anyone, executive or not.

<comment><USER4> Yes and no - it's a case of asymmetric information, and while you can do your best to obtain more information (hiring process), you can't know exactly how a person will perform until they're actually there.

<comment><USER3> I said it was the best attitude for an employer to take, not that it was 100% the employers fault.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> All this makes me think is that I never want to run a really large head-count organization. The kinds of thinking and "work" he had to do at Opsware are exhausting just to read about.

</comment><comment><USER6> Very informative post. I (and I suspect many others reading this) regularly have to fire executives at multinationals with several thousands in staff and 100's of millions in turnover. I'm going to bookmark this and the next time I need to, I'll be sure to re-read this blog post - because every time I do something like this, I rely on blog posts to instruct me on how to do it.

(yes yes I'm a snarky asshole - I liked to read it too, I guess in the same way women like to read in Cosmopolitan about cocktail parties where super models wear designer dresses and party all night every night drinking 1000$ / bottle champagne and have affairs with billionaires, but really, when you look at it critically, what is the value of this to anyone but the top 1/1000th percentile of the population?)

<comment><USER7> Where does he imply that this is only for huge companies? Even small start-ups have executives, staff, and a board.

The lesson is the same no matter the scale. If you hire a CTO and then have to fire that CTO, it's most likely your screw up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm not sure why the exec is less at fault than another class of employee. If you hire a programmer or designer who can't deliver, how is that any different?

<comment><USER9> Because the executive's performance depends on the team he's working with. If there's mismatch between the executive's leadership and the team, that will result in difficulties _regardless of his skill_.

<comment><USER10> so if his performance is bad, it's the fault of his team. but if his performance is good, it justifies the huge bucks they make. i sense a discrepancy.

in my world, with greater reward should come greater responsibility.

<comment><USER9> Severance packages are often quite generous too. :-)

But the important point is that it's not about blaming people for things they can't be expected to control. Firing incompetent executives is, as the article pointed out, hopefully rare. But if they can't meet performance goals they should still be let go: if a company was in this position with regard to firing their employees, I'd be equally concerned if they were disparaging.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> My takeaway: Executives get fired, but N*&$!s get capped & bagged.

<comment><USER12> His attempt to be PC and make the firee a "she" backfired--it sounds sexist to have the failing executive be female.

Give it up, folks--just use "he" as a generic pronoun. No one thinks it means you think one gender is better than the other.

<comment><USER13> There's nothing wrong with "they" as third person singular.

<comment><USER14> Except that it sounds terrible if one was brought up according to a different light. English already has a third person personal singular.

<comment><USER15> Many languages have unexpected pronoun usage that newcomers must get used to. Many Indo-European languages have a formal 'you', for example. With French, it's the same as 2nd person plural (you). With German, it's the same as 3rd person plural (they). French also has the odd case of 'on' which, although it's a 3rd person singular (e.g., one goes = on va), is very frequently used as 1st person plural (we go = nous allons).

Where there is a missing component in language, there will be a cognitive need to fill it somehow. It can be done with formations like y'all or with more acceptable usage such as they. I think we English speakers worry too much about this sort of thing.

<comment><USER16> In Dutch, there is 'jij' (colloquial 'you') and 'u' (formal 'you'). There is a trend to replace both 'jij' and 'u' by 'joe' (pronounced as the english 'you'). This eliminates the dilemma whether to address someone formally or not. The word 'joe' was popularized by Wim T. Schippers both on the radio and in his plays and TV series.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Very interesting. One point on firing senior executives - in many cases it's the first time the executive ever failed. Silicon Valley is perhaps the only exception, but this is precisely because exits are handled well. Being good at separations increases a company's ability to take risks on hiring.

</comment><comment><USER9> Why is the rationale for preserving the reputation of the fired executive first making yourself look good and only incidentally that it's the fair and decent thing to do. The fair and decent thing to do should be reason #1.

</comment><comment><USER18> At some point when the statute ends I have to do a post about firing yourself. I did that in January (in a sense).</comment>