Ibechillin I have no intention to argue. You sound like you have experience. My point, however philosophical or economic or 'could not be more wrong' it may sound to you is that it is all connected.
I'm trying to keep this short, but in your same line of thinking (as in your position isn't likely to change) with the cost and quantity and quality argument, what you are assuming simply is not true. The massive scale product is not on par with or superior to small batch craft cannabis. You are wrong and spreading misinformation if you think that grodan + salt ferts in a dep house every 60 days creates the same product as small farmed organic living soil. It's a joke to assume that you are correct for wanting to pinch every penny. Your argument only works if you don't admit the garbage in = garbage out.
I'll cut to the chase. It becomes awkward at a certain point when you are facing your employee/customer/competition. In a retail job, like if you were to hire me, I might at some point decide to inform you that I can run the entire operation myself. Instead of me that 'could not be more wrong,' I say the same thing to you. Since I was not born a millionaire, and I do not like sales or pressure from salespeople in general, you might imagine this has given me some difficulty in hiring and the workplace in the past. You said no philanthropy. I am saying you have gone way too far in the other direction, so I guess what that means is yes philanthropy. I think that mostly means wealthy people patting themselves on the back for a tax break.
One person owns the land or the title or the business agreement. "Where are you going to work? What are you going to do for money?" Speaking to a retail manager sounding person who is fluent in maximizing profit. There is no winning here. I can't argue or reason with someone who wants to produce acres of greenhouse weed using inexpensive labor. One option is to more or less boycott everything, decide to grow my own food and cannabis and not accept your job because it sucks for human civil rights. Now what is the next step - eviction because I can't produce as many pounds of weed on my land as your greenhouse operation? I'm trying to connect the dots here. It kind of just sounds bitter or arrogant as though I'm an odd ball, but I don't really feel that way.
Your very definition of "profit," or "success," or "production," goes against what I want to see happen in my area. By emphasizing lowest pay for human labor and mixing it with cannabis you are ruining everything. You are trying to turn everything into money, currency for yourself. If I prioritize the plant, or medicine for patients, truly, that would mean in theory there is no profit for any investor ever. I feel like I'm usually ranting about one issue or another but I've had this same kind of clash or frustration in other jobs/industries. If I show a doctor or group of doctors that I can replace them entirely by myself (I said show rather than tell because it isn't really my intention to do so, or to sound arrogant), now I don't have a very good chance of being accepted or promoted by those doctors if they feel threatened or don't like me. If I start telling your greenhouse employees and customers that the quality, attention, and care of my product simply does not compare to what they see as currently available then you also probably aren't going to want me around. I would likely be telling you that your methods are inferior specifically that you are spending too little money/effort on inputs and human labor and expecting too much profit. If quality is my number one concern, and you are operating at an industrial scale to minimize cost, then in this real world (or theoretically I'm not sure which is more accurate) the quality of my product approaches one, or the cost approaches infinity relative to yours.
An ironic thing about the 'economy of scale' is that you will be dealing with much larger more impactful budgets and affecting employees' lives significantly. Meaning million dollar loans or bills or accounts and payroll, all while stating that your "costs" are lower than anyone else. You might be employing people who have families so they can put food on the table but you are also separating them from their families for at least 40 hours each week and asking them to do that for the least amount of money possible before they quit. Meanwhile I can operate as one person for like $5-10k a year as a total budget, no matter how much I produce, and that is considered "high cost." I don't want to buy as many trays and rockwool cubes and clones as I can possibly fit, I reject that idea. I'd rather grow tropical fruit and give some away. It is false and unrealistic to argue that you are producing high quality anything when your goal is to minimize employee pay and maximize profit. They are diametrically opposed and any attempt to convince people otherwise is purely a sales tactic. If you are allowed to say your pot costs $0.50/pound (meaning that one investor is telling another this is $999.50/$1000 profit margin) then I am allowed to say mine costs an infinite amount, both are equally reasonable or make just about as much sense in this looney tunes market.
I'm trying to keep this short, but in your same line of thinking (as in your position isn't likely to change) with the cost and quantity and quality argument, what you are assuming simply is not true. The massive scale product is not on par with or superior to small batch craft cannabis. You are wrong and spreading misinformation if you think that grodan + salt ferts in a dep house every 60 days creates the same product as small farmed organic living soil. It's a joke to assume that you are correct for wanting to pinch every penny. Your argument only works if you don't admit the garbage in = garbage out.
I'll cut to the chase. It becomes awkward at a certain point when you are facing your employee/customer/competition. In a retail job, like if you were to hire me, I might at some point decide to inform you that I can run the entire operation myself. Instead of me that 'could not be more wrong,' I say the same thing to you. Since I was not born a millionaire, and I do not like sales or pressure from salespeople in general, you might imagine this has given me some difficulty in hiring and the workplace in the past. You said no philanthropy. I am saying you have gone way too far in the other direction, so I guess what that means is yes philanthropy. I think that mostly means wealthy people patting themselves on the back for a tax break.
One person owns the land or the title or the business agreement. "Where are you going to work? What are you going to do for money?" Speaking to a retail manager sounding person who is fluent in maximizing profit. There is no winning here. I can't argue or reason with someone who wants to produce acres of greenhouse weed using inexpensive labor. One option is to more or less boycott everything, decide to grow my own food and cannabis and not accept your job because it sucks for human civil rights. Now what is the next step - eviction because I can't produce as many pounds of weed on my land as your greenhouse operation? I'm trying to connect the dots here. It kind of just sounds bitter or arrogant as though I'm an odd ball, but I don't really feel that way.
Your very definition of "profit," or "success," or "production," goes against what I want to see happen in my area. By emphasizing lowest pay for human labor and mixing it with cannabis you are ruining everything. You are trying to turn everything into money, currency for yourself. If I prioritize the plant, or medicine for patients, truly, that would mean in theory there is no profit for any investor ever. I feel like I'm usually ranting about one issue or another but I've had this same kind of clash or frustration in other jobs/industries. If I show a doctor or group of doctors that I can replace them entirely by myself (I said show rather than tell because it isn't really my intention to do so, or to sound arrogant), now I don't have a very good chance of being accepted or promoted by those doctors if they feel threatened or don't like me. If I start telling your greenhouse employees and customers that the quality, attention, and care of my product simply does not compare to what they see as currently available then you also probably aren't going to want me around. I would likely be telling you that your methods are inferior specifically that you are spending too little money/effort on inputs and human labor and expecting too much profit. If quality is my number one concern, and you are operating at an industrial scale to minimize cost, then in this real world (or theoretically I'm not sure which is more accurate) the quality of my product approaches one, or the cost approaches infinity relative to yours.
An ironic thing about the 'economy of scale' is that you will be dealing with much larger more impactful budgets and affecting employees' lives significantly. Meaning million dollar loans or bills or accounts and payroll, all while stating that your "costs" are lower than anyone else. You might be employing people who have families so they can put food on the table but you are also separating them from their families for at least 40 hours each week and asking them to do that for the least amount of money possible before they quit. Meanwhile I can operate as one person for like $5-10k a year as a total budget, no matter how much I produce, and that is considered "high cost." I don't want to buy as many trays and rockwool cubes and clones as I can possibly fit, I reject that idea. I'd rather grow tropical fruit and give some away. It is false and unrealistic to argue that you are producing high quality anything when your goal is to minimize employee pay and maximize profit. They are diametrically opposed and any attempt to convince people otherwise is purely a sales tactic. If you are allowed to say your pot costs $0.50/pound (meaning that one investor is telling another this is $999.50/$1000 profit margin) then I am allowed to say mine costs an infinite amount, both are equally reasonable or make just about as much sense in this looney tunes market.
Last edited:
.
