I think the OP has got it completely wrong, the guy was most probably doing the correct thing in his situation.
The correct way to think about it is in terms of the cash/change ratio and maximising profit. The fact that the OP itself says that trying to pay with a $100 bill would be too much illustrates this fact, as a 13/100 cash change ratio is terrible. It is not a question of say $13 dollars now or maybe $13 dollars later. The real question is $13 now or maybe $x dollars later. The size of $x and the probability of achieving that number determines whether or not you accept the sale.
So consider the situation where he has a starting float of $20 all in ones. His first two customers buy $10 items with a $20 bill, and then his next 20 customers want to by $4 items with a $5 bill. If he takes the two first customers he has 2 $20 bills, which are effectively useless for giving change, and he has only gotten for his change an extra $20. He would then have to turn away his next 20 customers because he is unable to make change.
However if he turns away the first two customers and serves the next 20, he ends up making $800, plus also having his original $20 float. What’s more is that since all his notes are in $5 he is in a much better change situation, and could actually now serve the first two people if they were still hanging around. Since $800 is >> $20, economically he is far better off not serving the first two customers than serving them.
The problem is we don’t know what he started with, who sets what he started with, his typical customer frequency or the typical distribution of bills that people try to pay with. Without this data we simply cannot make any inference on his intelligence because he may well have been doing exactly what he should have done to maximise his sales. He may well be an idiot, but from the data given we can’t determine that. However since he has been there every weekday for the last 3 years selling stuff I would naturally assume he knows what he is doing.
Look, if I were you I would bow out of this thread gracefully, because you are not doing much to display your own intellectual prowess.
The point if the examples not to demonstrate what was happening. The point of the examples is to show that there ARE situations in which refusing a sale that has a low cash/change ratio is absolutely the correct thing to do to maximise profits. Are there situations in which he should have taken the sale? Absolutely, but the point is that from the data that you have we can’t tell whether or not taking the sale was the right thing to do.
And many of the “solutions” that you propose may not work for him. What if he can’t “just go next door” to get change. Who minds the truck while he is gone? What about the sales that he may loose not being there when someone comes? What if no-one will give him change? What if his change float is set by some idiotic beaurocrat?
You don’t know the frequency or typical cash distribution of his customers, so you are just going off half-cocked at some guy for something that you really don’t know much about. I certainly find it hard to believe that you know more about this guys business then him himself, since he is there every day. Cut the guy some slack and find some smaller bills.
>You don’t know the frequency or typical cash distribution of his customers, so
>you are just going off half-cocked at some guy for something that you really
>don’t know much about. I certainly find it hard to believe that you know more
>about this guys business then him himself, since he is there every day.
I feel pretty confident in assuming that a) the cash distribution is similiar to mine - in other words, a typical businessman working in the area, and b) having one customer pay with a $20 isn’t going to put him out of fucking business for the entire day. If so, then he is still a fucking retard, especially if he hasn’t figured out after three years that having the first customer pay with a $20 means he is suddenly low on change.
He might not be able to make change for someone down the line. Maybe. Maybe he can’t make change for two people down the line. Again, maybe. Far, far more likely, he’ll get people paying with big and small bills, and will never actually run out of change.
The point is that you don’t know the exact conditions that the guy was working under. Since he is a goverment employee then it is entirely possible that he is working under some stupid conditions imposed upon him by someone higher up. So for instance maybe he does start out with incredibly low amounts of change because someone higher up thinks that he generally picks up change during the day, so why give him any to start with?. You don’t know and as such it is entirely possible that his actions were reasonable. Cut the guy some slack.
But what’s sad is when people are unable to recognize they’re the one who’s acting like a stupidfuckingmoron. Even when several other posters point it out to them.
I think there’s some decent maths to govern behaviour in this situation, but as others have remarked, we’d need to know more about a typical day’s transactions to use it.
Here is a true story:
I’m at a international chess tournament in the Soviet Union (i.e. decades ago). A bunch of us foreigners arrive first thing in the morning and form an orderly queue. I’m right at the front.
The hotel receptionist tells me I have to pay in roubles (not dollars, pounds or by credit card). She points at a small cubicle in reception, entitled ‘Official Change Booth’.
The entire foreign queue moves to the booth.
I pay in UK pounds for one week’s stay, plus tournament registration. (This amount has been published weeks ago, so we all know how much money is involved. All the players have pre-registered as well, so the organisers know exactly how many to expect.)
The booth operator uses a computer to get the current exchange rate, gives me the roubles and a receipt and …
… (wait for it)…
…promptly puts up a printed sign saying ‘out of change’, shuts the booth and walks out! :eek: :o
I apologise to the queue (many of whom I know). They are most gracious and take their complaints to reception. They got their change two days later! :rolleyes:
I have to side with the OP if we just weigh the “fuck you” factor alone.
“I can’t sell this to you because I have change but I might need it later.”
Sorry. That rates pretty high on my fuck you factor. He is saying another customer is more important than you.
I wouldn’t be pissed if this happened to me, but I wouldn’t think very highly of the guy.
“I can’t sell this to you because I can’t break your 20 at the moment. I’ve not enough change.”
That’s pretty low on the fuck you scale. He’s treating you like everyone else, he wants to provide the service for you however he doesn’t have the resources to complete the transaction. No harm, no foul.
I’ve been at small coffee or food carts where the single person working was cleaned out of change. I’ve gone and broken a couple bills in my wallet and returned with a handful of ones and fives for them. They’re stuck minding the store alone hoping they get a bunch of small sales in a row. Why not help out if you can?
Apparently, you can’t imagine that anybody would be given a starting fund of fewer than $100, you can’t imagine why anybody would think beyond the customer right in front of them, you can’t imagine that the day will start with a stream of people direct from the ATM, and you can’t consistently subtract seven from twenty. Yet, you can envision a world in which you are not the one being pigshit thick. Overall, I’d say you have a rich and probably quite fulfilling fantasy life.
I’m still not buying it; I’m the customer that is right in front of him, trying to give him my money. I consider myself, as a REAL customer, more important to the business than any number of other hypothetical customers. I think Seven has it right.
You keep saying this as if it lends your argument credibility. You seem to forget that almost everyone arguing against you has worked retail as well.
I keep seeing 2 assumptions being made in this thread:
One, that he has any control over his starting drawer. This is a goverment operation. There are probably strict guidelines about how much he can take, and those guidelines are probably out of whack with reality.
Two, that he can simply run across the street to the deli to get change. This is a goverment operation. I’d be willing to bet that there are extremely strict guidelines about taking federal funds off of the premises. I’d be willing to bet that by doing so, he’d not only face dismissal, but possibly prison time as well.
Imagine that I ran a lawnmowing business and I said I would mow any lawn for fifty dollars. My theory would be that I could average one lawn every two hours and make good money. I run my business for awhile and make a good living. Then one day, the first guy who calls me in the morning says he wants to hire me. But his lawn is forty acres and will take me twelve hours to mow. So I tell him sorry but I’m going to turn down the job.
Now one theory is that I was stupid to turn him down. He’s a customer and was going to pay me fifty dollars. What if I don’t get another customer that day?
Another theory is that if I got one customer, I’ll get others (and I have been doing this for awhile and know how many customers I usually get in a day). But if I had been working on that first guy’s lawn, I’d have to turn them all down. Instead, if I turn down the first guy, I can take on other customers. If I get six customers, I’ll earn $300 for doing twelve hours of work as opposed to earning $50 for twelve hours of work. Even if I only get two customers, I’ll still make more money by turning the first guy down.
Ok, this is so far out of the realm of any reality I’m aware of that I don’t even know how to respond. First of all, offering any service for a flat fee when the time involved can change significantly is just…horrible business sense.
Bu why are you going to take the job that takes 2 hours? You should turn down those six guys, because you might get 12 guys who want you to mow their one-hour lawns! Then you’d make $600! Hell, maybe you should turn down those guys as well, since you might get half-hour lawns, why, you could make $1,200!
Your analogy of a 12-hour lawn is equivalent to trying to me only having a $100 bill and trying to pay with that. I got no problem with a retailer refusing to make change for $100, because it’s a little easier to understand that a) it could make them significantly low on change on just one customer,and b) they would have an equally hard time breaking the $100 from any future customer.
I was attempting to help you realize the point people have been trying to make by moving it to a situation where you had less emotional investment in.
Time is a resource. Change is a resource. So time=change.
Sales are the profit. In both your OP and my example, most sales generate an approximately equal amount of profit. So the amount of sales = the amount of profit.
So the amount of resources used divided by the amount of sales equals the amount of profit. If you use up all your resources on one sale then you get a minimal amount of profit. If you divide that same amount of resources between multiple sales, you get more profit.
So spending all your time mowing one lawn when you could spend the same time on several lawns is a bad business decision. And using all your change on one sale when you could use the same amount of change on multiple sales is also a bad business decision.
Now you have repeatedly demonstrated the ability to invent hypothetical scenarios where this wouldn’t be a bad decision. But you haven’t given us any reason to believe that any of your hypothetical scenarios have any connection to the reality of what happened. So we’re going to assume that the guy have a reasonable knowledge of how many customers he gets in an average day, how big an average sale is, and how much change he needs to get through the day. And knowing all these things (none of which you’re in a position to know) he made a rational decision on what he should do to maximize his profits.
I hope you understand it this time because I really can’t make it any simpler. Except to say that even if you don’t understand it, you’d be better off keeping quiet because you’re just embarassing yourself by continously denouncing the ignorance of others when it’s you who’s in the wrong.
:o