|
KernelSlanders posted:Lets say (and I'm pulling numbers completely out of my rear end here) you spend a million dollars (in cash, no financing to keep it simple) to build a grow facility that you expect to last for 20 years. Your costs to operate it are $50k/year and you sell the crops for $200k. After your first year you book $100k in profits (200 revenue - 50 continued operation - 50 in depreciation). Next year, the price collapses and you can only sell the crops for $75k. Your choices are (A) run the operation in which case you have $25k net positive cash flow (75k - 50k) but book a loss of $25k (because of depreciation on the facility); or (B) don't run the operation, have zero cash flow, and book a $50k loss. That's why it makes sense to continue operating the business even at a loss. The loss of not operating it would be more. If you spend a million dollars to set up a grow and are only making 100k profits, you hosed something up or are smoking all the weed yourself.
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 14:26 |
|
|
LuciferMorningstar posted:Okay, this is a fair point. I suppose it depends, to some extent, on the source of the price collapse? I don't think the cause of the price collapse is necessarily the issue, although it's possible I'm overlooking something. What are you thinking in that regard? I think its the high fixed costs that hurts you here. goodness posted:If you spend a million dollars to set up a grow and are only making 100k profits, you hosed something up or are smoking all the weed yourself. That's really not the point. A 10% ROE is pretty good, but I was trying to give an example of how it can be advantageous to operate a business at a loss. Once one understands that point, it's more obvious how a price collapse won't necessarily cause suppliers to exit the market and in turn a new supply equilibrium right on the edge of profitability. If there are high capital costs, the equilibrium price may be below profitability.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 02:48
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:I don't think the cause of the price collapse is necessarily the issue, although it's possible I'm overlooking something. What are you thinking in that regard? I think its the high fixed costs that hurts you here. I think the context of a price collapse ought to be considered. If weed is worth X now, and 1/2 X later, there has to be a reason for the decrease in value. We can ignore situations where weed just becomes illegal, because then the market ceases to exist. It also doesn't seem like a particularly plausible outcome. It seems more likely that value would decrease either due to too much product available relative to demand or due to a new producer devising a more efficient method of growing weed. If the former, then I suppose you have a point. That said, given the struggle to keep up with demand, I don't think it's a very likely outcome. It seems much more likely that production will ramp up to meet demand, and probably not overshoot it sufficiently to put a lot of producers in the red. The latter seems like a plausible outcome that could occur at practically any time, but in such a case, one can hardly claim that it was the fixed costs holding the "less innovative" producers out, when the reality is that they were simply outclassed.
|
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
The bigger factor here is that a "race to the bottom" is unlikely for weed. There will probably be tiers of weed, just like there is for alcohol - ranging from dirt made as cheaply as possible to expensive low-yield strains. You can buy a hell of a lot of Natty Ice for the price of a bottle of 1926 Macallan. I don't see either losing money.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Nash equilibria can be unprofitable. Look at the airline industry as an example. The airlines are doing quite well now, or at least Delta is. Better logistics planning, among other things, is paying off big. quote:Delta Air Lines' $2.7 billion profit for 2013 was not just a record for the company, but also a record for all airlines Edit: I think the most likely thing is that margins for pot businesses won't be nearly as large as they are now. Scarcity is driving up prices and will eventually correct. When businesses can operate regionally or nationwide then they will still be incredibly profitable. It's silly to be concerned about prices dropping. Not everyone can or wants to grow and process their own pot. Just like I don't grow all my own food, sew all my clothes, or distill my own vodka. size1one fucked around with this message at 17:27 on May 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
The current incarnation of Delta is only a few years old and the old one had most of its debt wiped out in 2007. How's AMR doing? More to the point, I think you are right that prices will fall and then stabilize. The uncertain legal status at the moment creates a big risk premium, but as that status clarifies new market entrants will erase it. At that point, expect ROCs comparable to other small agriculture producers.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
How long does weed keep? Would it be possible to buy low and sell high?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:How long does weed keep? Would it be possible to buy low and sell high? well you'd have to be able to sell weed short, ie find someone who will loan you weed that you sell now, and pay them back in (hopefully cheaper) weed later. That is, unless you think it is going to go up in price, which I find unlikely. You could also sell weed futures I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
I'm standing in line right now for a dispensary's hiring fair. This is the second one I've been to and people show up in huge numbers. Good thing I'm badged. And I have been hired as a trimmer. Wheeeeeee Star Man fucked around with this message at 23:13 on May 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:well you'd have to be able to sell weed short, ie find someone who will loan you weed that you sell now, and pay them back in (hopefully cheaper) weed later. That is, unless you think it is going to go up in price, which I find unlikely. You could also sell weed futures I guess. That would be hilarious, but I wouldn't count on CME group listing any marijuana derivatives any time soon. Without any big institutional consumers, the market would just be suppliers and speculators. Nobody wants to take delivery of a rail car full of weed.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:That would be hilarious, but I wouldn't count on CME group listing any marijuana derivatives any time soon. Without any big institutional consumers, the market would just be suppliers and speculators. Nobody wants to take delivery of a rail car full of weed. Just tell me where to sign.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
Star Man posted:I'm standing in line right now for a dispensary's hiring fair. This is the second one I've been to and people show up in huge numbers. Good thing I'm badged. I think that the tour i did a while back said that exactly everyone starts as a trimmer (off flowers that are then sent tothe drying racks). Doing solid, precise work there will take you to more interesting jobs down the line. Great news!
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
Star Man posted:I'm standing in line right now for a dispensary's hiring fair. This is the second one I've been to and people show up in huge numbers. Good thing I'm badged. Congratulations! I must have been at the same one--I made a beeline for the gardener/farmer table and got hired after a short interview. My interviewer mentioned that they were hiring more people at that fair than most dispensaries have on staff period; there's a real demand for people in all sectors to keep up with how much ganja this state smokes. Definitely going to be nice to take a break from customer service for a while. Interesting note, the term "MIPS" confused pretty much everyone I was in line with.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 08:23
|
|
|
Inspector Hound posted:Congratulations! I must have been at the same one--I made a beeline for the gardener/farmer table and got hired after a short interview. My interviewer mentioned that they were hiring more people at that fair than most dispensaries have on staff period; there's a real demand for people in all sectors to keep up with how much ganja this state smokes. Definitely going to be nice to take a break from customer service for a while. Same. I went to retail first because I assumed that was what I was the most qualified for. You have no idea how strange it is to hear that you won't be considered for a job because you don't smoke weed. But I'll trim their plants for the wage they're offering if it means not delivering pizzas anymore.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 11:30
|
|
|
Now, this is what I'm talking about.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 12:57
|
|
|
So is there a running tracker on what states are going to have 2014 referenda? I've heard Alaska and Oregon, is that accurate?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:So is there a running tracker on what states are going to have 2014 referenda? I've heard Alaska and Oregon, is that accurate? Don't forget Washington DC: 
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
The FBI is having trouble finding smart employees who don't smoke cannabis:quote:The FBI has admitted that it is considering relaxing its strict rules against drug taking, in a bid to try to encourage more hackers to work for them in the ongoing war against cybercrime.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 07:11
|
|
KingEup posted:The FBI is having trouble finding smart employees who don't smoke cannabis: "Yeah dude, I'd love to help you dudes with those hackers and stuff but, ya know, WEED.  "Not one of the reasons I expected for weed legalization, especially from the FBI, but hey, whatever works. 
|
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
"those kids want to smoke weed on the way to the interview,” Oh go gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
Parlett316 posted:"those kids want to smoke weed on the way to the interview,” He's using a bit of hyperbole there, but it's basically true. Weed is a stupid reason not to hire someone whose skills are in demand, he just has to couch it like Joe Arpaio because he's in the FBI.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
If you are worried about testing positive for weed you either work for the government in which case suck it up or do the morally correct thing and quit, or your skills aren't in demand. Not to say I support drug testing in any capacity, let alone as a condition for employment, but that's the reality we live in today, right now.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
have the government fly you out for an interview and then drop the weed bomb on em when you get there, free trip to wherever you interviw
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
Inspector Hound posted:He's using a bit of hyperbole there, but it's basically true. Weed is a stupid reason not to hire someone whose skills are in demand, he just has to couch it like Joe Arpaio because he's in the FBI. Well, he has to keep up appearances. There's a lot of smart people in the FBI and certainly most of them get it. It's just that in an organization like that you have to be of a lawful alignment. It's wrong to do weed, because it's illegal to do weed. Whether the law is stupid or not is kind of beside the point.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Well, he has to keep up appearances. There's a lot of smart people in the FBI and certainly most of them get it. It's just that in an organization like that you have to be of a lawful alignment. It's wrong to do weed, because it's illegal to do weed. Whether the law is stupid or not is kind of beside the point. You're right, he should... keep not hiring people because of it? The fact that the law is stupid is exactly the point. It's an impossible law to enforce. The law isn't going to change all at once, it changes when it becomes clear it doesn't work, and part of that is when places like the the FBI admit that not hiring people over marijuana is silly.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:If you are worried about testing positive for weed you either work for the government in which case suck it up or do the morally correct thing and quit, or your skills aren't in demand. Nearly everything that isn't a McJob in OK requires drug testing including a Marijuana panel. I've been under the impression that this was the case in nearly every fully illegal state?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
In the states I live in, it's pretty much only the McJobs (and government jobs) that bother to drug test. Professionals in competitive you almost certainly don't get drug tested unless the owner/hiring manager is a staunch anti-drug warrior, and even then its uncommon because it's just not good business.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:Nearly everything that isn't a McJob in OK requires drug testing including a Marijuana panel. I've been under the impression that this was the case in nearly every fully illegal state? Nah, I think it's mostly companies that have contractual obligations to drug test in a lot of places. By fully illegal do you mean no medical? I think the attitudes of companies and the full-illegality share a common cause, rather than the companies doing it because it's illegal. It's also going to depend on the company, I guarantee that Google doesn't drug test its employees in Oklahoma
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:In the states I live in, it's pretty much only the McJobs (and government jobs) that bother to drug test. I've heard often there's a drug test on hiring but none afterwards, whereas in the government/low paying job they have random drug tests whenever along with at hiring. So basically don't smoke weed for the 2-3 weeks you're interviewing and you're golden if you're after a middle class job.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:Nearly everything that isn't a McJob in OK requires drug testing including a Marijuana panel. I've been under the impression that this was the case in nearly every fully illegal state? If you work in Finance you are federally required to submit to a drug test on hiring, however the results of that test don't matter. The company can also test randomly anytime they want to (they never do) and in theory you can be fired for violating the company policy on illegal drugs. In practice, if they are going to fire you, they don't need a drug test to do it, if they want to hire you, the results of a drug test are irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:If you work in Finance you are federally required to submit to a drug test on hiring, however the results of that test don't matter. The company can also test randomly anytime they want to (they never do) and in theory you can be fired for violating the company policy on illegal drugs. This is not universally true - not all financial companies do this. I think it is generally because they have agreements with clients to do so. It may depend on what sort of financial services they provide, if any.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:This is not universally true - not all financial companies do this. I think it is generally because they have agreements with clients to do so. It may depend on what sort of financial services they provide, if any. It may just be SEC regulated companies then, Banks, Exchanges, etc. Unlisted Trading Firms (OTC) or hedge funds probably do their own thing as dictated by their insurance company/clients. In any case, drug testing is bunk.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:It may just be SEC regulated companies then, Banks, Exchanges, etc. Unlisted Trading Firms (OTC) or hedge funds probably do their own thing as dictated by their insurance company/clients. In any case, drug testing is bunk. Most do but it's not an SEC regulation, just a standard that usually happens in finance. The best is when one company gets bought out by another and a bunch of employees fail a drug test at the new employer and have to be let go, I've experienced that firsthand three times now. The more experienced M&A folks have finally figured out to make it really clear when the drug testing is going to happen like a month in advance at an all hands meeting so they don't lose 20% of the acquisition workforce overnight. At least that's what Goldman and JP Morgan always did.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
Eh, I oppose the drug test obviously, but if it was a choice between having a job and not having a job I'd go with quitting weed. It's probably not going to be federally illegal for more than a decade, anyways.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
Inspector Hound posted:You're right, he should... keep not hiring people because of it? The fact that the law is stupid is exactly the point. It's an impossible law to enforce. The law isn't going to change all at once, it changes when it becomes clear it doesn't work, and part of that is when places like the the FBI admit that not hiring people over marijuana is silly. Right, but that's why he's got to shrug and say, "Can you believe these people? Me either, but we need to be able to hire them anyway."
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
AYC posted:Eh, I oppose the drug test obviously, but if it was a choice between having a job and not having a job I'd go with quitting weed. It's probably not going to be federally illegal for more than a decade, anyways.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
Parlett316 posted:"those kids want to smoke weed on the way to the interview,” Dude how many people can say they smoked weed on the way to get interviewed by the FBI and still got the job though. I actually hit my one hitter on the way to the interview for the job I have now. He's really not even exaggerating at all, I bet. E: judge me all you want, I got the job and I kick rear end at it 
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
Pryor on Fire posted:The more experienced M&A folks have finally figured out to make it really clear when the drug testing is going to happen like a month in advance at an all hands meeting so they don't lose 20% of the acquisition workforce overnight. At least that's what Goldman and JP Morgan always did. Exactly - the drug test on hiring (with no follow-up testing ever) most companies seem to do isn't to check whether prospective employees use drugs, but whether they can stop using them long enough to pass the screen.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
My place of employment drug tests on hire (except when they don't, I didn't get drug tested for stupid office politics reasons) but after that it's pretty much just a tool to fire someone with cause so they don't have to pay for unemployment. Management knows if they actually tested anyone they'd have to fire well over half their employees. Even in conservative as hell Kansas the attitude is really pretty blase, as long as you're white.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 14:26 |
|
|
Chiming in to say I've worked for some large tech companies, and also start ups. Never been drug tested except for my first lovely McJob. God bless the northwest, I guess. e: Anyone know if Google stopped drug testing after Marissa left? It seems like her kind of thing. I think they eased up on some of their degree requirements.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:06
|
|