Costco Capitalism | Hacker News Reader

Costco Capitalism

bryanlehrer.com

294 pointsexolymph288 comments

For those who aren't aware, not only does Costco pay well (I was earning $13/hour back around 2004), they also offer good benefits. I got healthcare, 401k, dental, vision, and time and a half on Sundays. And I was just a food court/service deli employee. Things got even better when I became a food court supervisor.

The mantra I heard, over and over, while I was there was "Hire good people, treat them well, and the rest takes care of itself."

That's a pretty good quote.

I'm always amazed by how many places cut corners on employee benefits and pay and then spend endless effort dealing with turnover and the results of poor employees.

My suspicion is, the people who make those decisions are themselves poor employees.

It starts at the top or at the very least is looked over by the top. Every miserable work experience I’ve ever had was due to the culture passed down from the top. Likewise with every great place. Insecure, jealous, vindictive, <other negative adjective> people should never be promoted to manage others but often are when that’s easier than firing. Those types tend to shuffle around and work up the hierarchy by being miserable rather than competent.

I find that if you treat an employee like a race horse they won't turn out to be an old nag. Obviously there are outliers but generally there is a positive feedback loop.

The CEO signs off on a decision to cut benefits or other employee incentives, often as a short-term measure to cut costs and improve margins. The negative effects of that will be borne by the store managers and ultimately the customers.

Excrement flows downhill.

The people I knew that worked there(in IT) said it was an absolute nightmare with low pay and poor management.

That said, they aren't a tech company so...

That I would believe. I worked in the warehouse, not in headquarters. But the systems we used to look up and track inventory were basically terminals. Old school green and black terminals with arcane commands.

I would absolutely believe that they don't want to try and compete with the tech sector for talent, and their management doesn't have the same understanding of tech that they do of running a warehouse business.

I bet those old school terminals are faster than what most corporate IT systems would deliver with an over the top modern framework. It's probably cheaper to train new employees than give away millions of dollars to an outside IT tech firm which may not result in an improvement.

Costco might be fantastic to work for when you're front of house staff, but IT staff in the retail sector are nothing short of expendable. I lasted 9 months in my first and only retail job and the shocking standards that the company enforced.

I've worked in IT for the retail sector and I'd never, ever do it again. I was a Dev/System Admin/System Engineer/DBA/Network Engineer & Help Desk person. I needed a job rather desperately and took the first one that was available to me which at initial view I thought was promising.

As an example, if you worked on call which was restored 1 in 3 weeks, you didn't earn anything extra in wages on the days you were on call. But instead I earned 0.5 hours of TOIL for every hour that I was restored on which was from memory. 07:00-20: 00 Saturday, Sunday and Public Holidays. And 07:00 -> 09:00 and 18:00 - 20:00 Monday to Friday.

I would get calls at all hours because we supported retail stores in New Zealand, Australia, US & Canada. We had local staff in those areas but for the gaps in follow the sun support we had the on call person fill that role.

This might have been a good deal if you didn't get many calls. But for the larger part it was a full time day of work on Saturda, Sunday and Public Holiday when _no one was working_ except the on call person. And on an evening and first thing in the morning for shop close and open you frequently got calls before and after your shift started. All for 0.5 hours for every hour worked!

This doesn't even begin to cover the problems we had with retaining staff (understandably) and an absolutely awful work environment. My manager did his best to foster a positive work environment but the C levels clearly had no desire to do anything but bleed their staff dry.

Wrapping up my tirade, it wouldn't surprise me if this was the standard across the retail industry for IT staff and developers. Based on those I've spoken to outside of my own personal experience, this seems to be close to true. For all the glory that Costco holds for paying higher than average wages, I'm certain their IT department fucks over it's staff in a way that closely resembles my own.

Can you explain what you mean by "restored 1 in 3 weeks" and "every hour that I was restored on"?

Also, to be clear, your experience was working in IT at another retail company, not Costco? I'm not sure why you would expect these to be the same: as the article explains in detail, Costco's model lets it do some things very differently from, say, Walmart.

Typo, was meant to say rostered but auto correct got the better of me.

I didn't work in either of those chains. I'm replying to a comment directly above mine where OP says, they knew some one who worked in IT for Costco and their conditions were terrible. As was mine for another large, multinational retail chain.

Costco are great in comparison to say, WalMart or Kmart/Target/BigW in Australia. But I assume they're under the same pressure to penny pinch as any other retail organisation because of their incredibly small margins for profits.

I'd expect that (similar to public sector jobs) Costco pays well at the low end, but salary for more skilled jobs isn't competitive. Their web site is atrocious though.

It also crashed during the last black Friday[0], so perhaps investing more in their IT would pay off.

[0] https://www.thestreet.com/technology/costco-thanksgiving-day...

I signed up for a Costco membership through Groupon (hey it came with a bunch of coupons). I bailed in large part because the in-store part of the sign up process included a bunch of upselling (upgrade to our more expensive membership please!). Apparently Groupon signed me up for a bunch of Costco email spam (as I didn't give the store my email address). By the time I got home after that trip I'd gotten a ton of spam from Costco.

Trying to opt out was futile. Each message had an unsubscribe link. The landing page worked, but whatever was supposed to handle the form time out or 500'd each time. Hold time at the Costco call center was 10+ minutes... to unsubscribe from opt-out garbage. Unsubscribing from the membership itself was a bit of a comedy routine where the manager kept suggesting I keep the membership and patronize their warehouse (instead of the one I signed up at).

It's fair to say I agree that Costco would reap benefits by investing in their IT infrastructure.

> but salary for more skilled jobs isn't competitive

That's an old myth.

Because of COLA (and on top of that, pensions), the public sector in California pays more than private jobs now, aside from FANG.

I once asked my dental billing technician (yeah that's really a thing in the USA), "Who got the best benefits?"

Answer: "Oh, public employees are royalty."

Because of COLA (and on top of that, pensions), the public sector in California pays more than private jobs now, aside from FANG.

As an example here's a senior (1043) network engineer position with the SF Dept of Technology:

https://www.jobapscloud.com/SF/sup/bulpreview.asp?R1=PEX&R2=...

Salary is listed as:

$59.49 - $74.83/hour; $10,311.00 - $12,970.00/month; $123,734.00 - $155,636.00/year

I can tell you that a few years ago at megacorp (not FANG) my base pay for principal ops monkey was more than the top end of the 1043 and 1044 scales. We were not known for above average compensation. In general while we hired into the principal role I think the city tends to aim more for senior (1043) than principal (1044).

Here's the SF pay scale database:

Principal programmers (1064) top out at $149k. Infosys managers (1071) top out at just under $200k. That's not particularly competitive.

Megacorp also provided me with the best 401k I've seen (Vanguard with access to institutional shares), 401k match, stock options, and decent insurance.

I once asked my dental billing technician (yeah that's really a thing in the USA), "Who got the best benefits?"

Answer: "Oh, public employees are royalty."

This still matters so much more for unskilled labor. Working in tech you're already going to have access to heavily subsidized health insurance. 401k vs pension is a matter of debate. I'd prefer a defined benefit situation like a pension, but a 401k with a decent match (we got up to $7k or so) isn't really a deal breaker

The city (due to some combination of local, state, and federal laws) will dock 2% for retiree health care, and 7.5% for your pension.

Well I forgot the link to the pay scale DB:

https://sfdhr.org/classification-compensation-database

Police positions are much higher compensated than engineering.

http://citidex.sfgov.org/cgi-bin/dhr/findClass.cgi?class=&ti...

What's the reference point? To other technology roles at other companies?

Interestingly I heard this from colleagues at another retail company where I was doing sysadminy stuff and was quite happy.

It's interesting to note that their website was down for hours last Thanksgiving sale. It is estimated they suffered 11M in losses during the outage.

This is obviously what any sensible and thoughtful manager aspires to, and yet it is still so rare. Are there tradeoffs we aren't considering? Why is this such a self-evident ideal, yet rarely achieved in practice? There must be good reasons..

There are only so many good people.

Someone has to hire the bad people.

Nar, bad people need to change their ways until they are good people and employable.

Unless they are _literately_ unemployable, in which case we should consider them disabled at look after them as if we would anybody else with metal or physical disabilities.

> Unless they are _literately_ unemployable, in which case we should consider them disabled at look after them as if we would anybody else with metal or physical disabilities.

Why? People shouldn’t be rewarded for being disagreeable, unwilling to get along with people, and unwilling to work. If they are literally disabled and can’t work at all, that’s one thing. But even people with mental disabilities can be great employees. Rewarding anti-social behavior with “looking after” incentivizes such behavior. Subsidize behavior and you get more of it. Case in point, all of the fake disability people who have unverifiable soft tissue “injuries” that collect disability as a life choice.

You would rather have to work with people who have an incentive to behave badly (in order to get fired from jobs they didn't want in the first place), than to just give them enough to live on until they decide how they're going to contribute? Between the disabled and underemployed, there must be more than enough people to seriously jeopardize overall economic stability should destitution force them to action.

And where is the role of the employer and the overall culture in fostering a work environment that isn't miserable?

> than to just give them enough to live on until they decide how they're going to contribute?

How many will decide not to contribute?

If status and social mobility are tied to contributing, I'd guess more than we'd otherwise expect.

Who cares? We can sustain all of the socially necessary industries of modern civilization with a fraction of the workforce.

I don't want to work with people who are working just because they are coerced to work. They get in my way and it debases all of us.

What an Orwellian use of the word "coerced". There is presently no coercion to work: only the necessity of survival (just as it always has). On the other hand, the future you envision would require the coercion of the productive minority.

Human society is not what it was 100, 500, 1000, 10000 years ago. Conjuring a farcical "necessity of survival" is disingenuous in a world where the average worker is hyper-specialized, such that they perform a fraction of the labor directly associated with surviving.

On the other hand, since failure to participate in this model - again, wherein a given individual hardly contributes directly to his own survival, but instead supports the society which provides the rest for him, usually far below the value of his work for it - is an existential danger, I think coercion is a fine word for the situation.

> I think coercion is a fine word for the situation.

Except the part where simply choosing not to subsidize someone that could contribute to society but does not involves no actual use of force.

On the other hand, using the state to force a productive minority to slave away for a willfully unproductive majority does actually involve the use of force.

You are literally inverting the meaning of "coercion". Hence the apt description "Orwellian".

War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.

>Except the part where simply choosing not to subsidize someone that could contribute to society but does not involves no actual use of force.

Of course it does. What are the various exigencies, used to secure hoarded property for an individual against a deprived public, but force? You're unable to see it as such, because it's the status quo, but it's not a necessity for a civilized society, even this civilized society.

You're right that I do not share your vision, but I disagree with your diagnosis as to why.

Given that I find what you propose to be so anathema, I feel compelled to clarify what your position is, in case our disagreement is resulting from a misunderstanding rather than a conflict of visions.

What I hear you as saying is that given the wealth available in our society, those who do not wish to work (even if they could) should not have to. The minority who do wish to continue working shall hopefully be productive enough to continue to provide this wealth (and indeed, increase the wealth available) and gladly share it with everyone. If the productive minority are less than willing to share the bulk of the fruits of their labor, It is acceptable to take it by force and without offering them something of value in exchange.

Such a system not merely immoral but nonsense. It assumes our great wealth as a given, when it should be obvious that such is not the case. History has shown many other times of great wealth and surplus, only to be followed by collapse. There is no magic line of societal wealth that, once surpassed, renders us immune from disaster. In such a case, those in who lived in a state of dependence will only hasten the collapse by trying ever harder to extract from those they depended on.

Now, if you were a Marxist concerned about workers not being compensated fairly for their labor, or a Christian concerned for those who could not care for themselves (the elderly, the infirm, orphans, etc.) then I would at least understand. But neither Marx nor the Apostles envisioned a society that supported people who were merely indolent.

Furthermore, that you would equate the use of force to steal another's property with the force used to defend said property is dishonest and abhorrent. And let's be clear: if you appropriate someone else's property when you have the choice not to (i.e. if you could work to provide it for yourself or offer something of value in exchange) then it is theft.

Does that really matter? Most people who consider themselves to be "contributing" aren't really accomplishing much in the grand scheme of things anyway.

You don't need to "accomplish much in the grand scheme of things" to provide value to others and feel appreciated.

But not to the point where you should guilt others for "not contributing".

I would rather them feel guilty than feel entitled to the fruits of others' labor.

What fruits? What labor? My point is that most people's labor bears no actual fruit.

Some people are certainly employed in pointless jobs, but the idea that this is true for the majority is doubtful.

And for those people who's labor is pointless, the solution is to have more meaningful work, not idleness.

I can think of no more pointless form of labor that to toil away for whatever bureaucracy that would be responsible for administering this harebrained scheme.

Traits like agreeableness, intelligence, and conscientiousness have some genetic components, and may also influenced by early childhood experiences. A severe deficiency in one or more of these traits may be largely outside an individual's control, but nonetheless prevent the individual from integrating into society and achieving stable employment.

That said, there is still an element of will there, and we should also still try align incentives to give these individuals the best chance of productive engagement with society. The disability scamming is real (though somewhat complicated by the fact that long term unemployment can result in chronic pain symptoms).

I don't think just cutting people a check is necessarily a good idea. I kind of wonder if the problem of unemployable people would be reduced if we removed minimum wage laws.

This kind of essentialized thinking is why the US is so poor at leveraging its labor force effectively, falls back on MBA sophistry, private equity grifting, and biz guru cultishness.

W. Edward Deming and the Toyota model he inspired demonstrate that it’s more about empowering workers, treating them with respect and autonomy, and respecting their contributions for what they really are, as opposed to ascribing them to management. Go read about what Toyota did at the NUMMI plant if you need further evidence of this.

Meanwhile...the floggings will continue..

lol talk to Toyota IT and contractors. It’s not all roses.

This feels a bit like the 10x developer discussion. There is a small percentage of the population who are 10x developers anyplace they go. There is another chunk that are 10x developers given a solid environment, who would otherwise be average or even poor developers in the wrong environment. There are average developers, and then there are a few that just aren't very good and should be in some other profession.

It seems almost obvious this holds true for any job, including Costco, where perhaps someone isn't fast or personable enough to be a checker, but they'd be great driving the forklift. Find the right environment and suddenly they shine. There will always be a percentage of the population that is unemployable for some reason, but my personal experience is that it isn't as large as is often believed.

To take it from another PoV: most businesses aren't 10x either, and aren't in a position to leverage a 10x worker. Commodity businesses don't need good employees, they need warm bodies that can do their checklists and smile from time to time, while not stealing money or equipment.

This is an important angle. "Good people" is, to a substantial extent, a relationship property, not an individual one. That is I am "good people" for one job, but "bad people" for many others.

That said, this is not a random distribution. Some people have serious character flaws (evil, lazy, angry), or are just not very competent at anything. If all organizations only hire "good people", these will be left unemployed.

And here's the thing:

Those unemployed underskilled "bad people" are then an underused resource, and a reasonably functioning labor market will find way to make use of them.

I think of things like fast-food restaurants as a real triumph in this area! That industry has found a way to run a well functioning business using barely competent people who often quit within months.

And that's pretty much what I had in mind when I wrote my tongue in cheek comment.

BTW, my apologies to current and former fast food workers. I know you're not bad people :) But when you argue about those left out "good people" policy, you kind of have to use that term...

I think the main reason is a failure to properly understand the employee.

Most employer-employee relationships [in the US, anyway] are akin to serfdom, or some other weird form of drastically-out-of-whack power structure. Employees often aren't treated as equals, they're not given agency or power, their needs and desires aren't understood, and they aren't inspired by a common cause. So unless an individual takes it upon themselves to suddenly do the best job they can possibly do, they will flounder in their own little world, being largely ignored by management (until they're not meeting some ridiculous arbitrary yearly goals that are mostly designed to cull the completely apathetic) and never having any interaction with executives other than the way a king would give proclamations to the townspeople.

To me, "treating people well" means treating them like people who have a say in what they do and how they do it, by helping them do the things they want to do, by connecting them to their work, giving them pride and purpose, feeling valued and compensated. After that, the rest takes care of itself. But getting to that point is impossible if management treats them like cattle.

Employee perks and salaries seem much easier to cut than to increase. Given enough time, especially if a business goes through struggles, things end up down hill. But also, I think your implied premise is flawed. The goal is to run a successful company, and unfortunately happy workers don't factor much into the success, not always. Mediocre, unhappy workers are much easier to come by. If you can structure your business to run well on those that might actually be optimal for the bottom line, and that's really all that matters on the stock market.

> If you can structure your business to run well on those that might actually be optimal for the bottom line, and that's really all that matters on the stock market.

That is, in my experience, how a lot of brick&mortar commodity stores - grocery stores, clothing stores, etc. - run in my home town (Kraków, Poland). The infinite source of disposable workers is the population of fresh undergrads that come to the city to study.

Culture. If the people up top Only care about numbers then eventually the people down below will only care about numbers. The people who don’t leave for places that are better.

Many American companies that are infamous for not being able to do it here manage it in their overseas locations. I pin it on the deficiencies of American culture and some combination of the failures in worker's rights, corporate priorities, and consumer habits that it influences. We know a good thing when we see it, but with our history and our ethos, we just can't seem to help ourselves. The "what" we do wrong is myriad, but I believe this is the why.

There are differences in how other countries operate. I've worked for foreign company that had offices in the US and they had lots of cultural differences in how they operate. So many people left in frustration including I.

One possible answer is that much of management is driven by irrational forces, to a much greater degree than is predicted by economic theory. Perhaps ego and selfishness are much bigger motivators than generally understood. Such is my take in "How To Destroy A Tech Startup In Three Easy Steps":

https://www.amazon.com/Destroy-Tech-Startup-Easy-Steps/dp/09...

Serious question: are they also diligent about firing people who don't pull their weight? The mantra is fantastic, but my experience has been it gets taken advantage of pretty quickly if you don't have a feedback loop to make sure you really did hire good people.

This is just my personal experience, in Canada, but I've never encountered rude and unhelpful employees at Costco like I have at many other stores.

In retail a store competes on price, selection, quality, service, and location. To me it’s astonishing that supermarkets have managed to yield the service advantage to Costco, a warehouse store. Half the staff is twice as helpful.

And the quality advantage, and even parity on selection. And the grocery chains don’t know why they keep losing money in their race to the bottom.

Yes, though people generally recognized the good thing they had and worked hard to maintain it.

Human diversity disallows even good-bad scale to align or converge well...there must be their secret sauce somewhere.

Standards for “good things” eventually branches into factions with conflicting axes or criteria.

Arbitrarily set and static point of reference can solve it e.g. a bible or a well though out system. I don’t think the former is the CostCo’s thing so I’m wondering what would be.

... How about we do the smart thing here and keep it simple. Notably better = good Better than what? Better than the competition in this sector in this general area. There. I don't think it requires an investigation into secret sauce.

> but my experience has been it gets taken advantage of pretty quickly if you don't ...

Not at costco corporate, apparently, from the way my mother has described her coworkers.

It helps that they have huge numbers of candidates for every opening, and can afford to be picky about who they hire.

On my second day at work they let go of the dozen people who had been our groups training “buddies” the night before. That sends a strong message. In the five subsequent years, I can’t recall anyone else getting let go. I later learned that my cohort was rare in that we were hired directly without doing seasonal employment. Every other group hired after me, they would select their top picks from the seasonal cohorts of 20-30 people. One year they hired no one, one year they hired more than 10.

There were some people I thought were lazy, but many people on my night shift were hard and proud worker.. not like that day shift though!

Costco and Trader Joes seem to consistently have the happiest employees, and it really makes a difference.

Maybe we should have them take a shot at running the DMV, who have the most miserable.

They are happy because the company treats them right. Give the DMV people the same rights and perks and you'd see them happy as well.

Data point: the DMV here in Montata is staffed by happy cheerful helpful employees.

Quality of interactions with basically all government seems to correlate inversely with local population density.

I had nothing but good experiences with the DMV when I lived in North Dakota. Walk in, no wait, cheerful employees, walk out ten minutes later with a renewed driver's license.

Minnesota is the complete opposite. Walk in, wait an hour, every employee hates their job, then wait a month for the new license to come in the mail.

Are they unionized?

Weird! I've found them to be completely opposite. Trader Joe's employees are extremely friendly and helpful.

Costco employees, honestly, not helpful at all and almost always disdainful of being asked any question. I guess that's not their model.

I suppose Costco employees can be happy with the company, but not happy and friendly to the customers, in which case, that holds up.

Absolutely. Same with chick fil a. They run a tight ship, but importantly, they are completely nice, much like Costco employees. And as long lines prove for both, there's an untapped market for this.

Unfortunately they do have some questionable morals on other fronts.

How so?

The company culture derives from the founder's Southern Baptist background so sometimes they take unpopular political stances like opposing same-sex marriage. Some consider this as a moral failing rather than the other side of diversity.

If it wasn't "tainted" by its religious inception, mandatory Sunday closures would make Chick-fil-A the most progressive large service industry company in the United States from a labor welfare perspective. From a utilitarian perspective the human benefit, not to mention the unique example it sets, is incomparable to the company's [largely historical] anti-marriage equality political lobbying, especially considering that the company does not discriminate in its operations or hiring practices. (And AFAIK no credible accusation has ever been made in contradiction of that crucial fact.) It's sadly typical for social issue advocates across the spectrum to cut off their nose to spite their face in this manner.

I mean you take the good with the bad, and it's on a chicken franchise to determine how interesting they think it is to have their progressive Sunday policy framed next to their stance that gay people shouldn't be able to marry.

Has CF ever directly prevented a gay couple from getting married? Has any organization they have donated to ever directly prevented a gay couple from getting married?

Just because an individual or a company is perceived as disagreeing with your personal beliefs doesn't make it 'bad'.

CF happily sells its delicious chicken to everyone irrespective of their sexual orientation.

I have no idea how mandatory Sunday closures are a progressive measure, guaranteed that employees have the same amount of free days.

A lot of (most?) hourly work has employees permanently on call for shifts the next day or even same day.

Knowing which day you’re off lets you plan.

If you have a significant other and/or kids, it significantly raises the chance that all have a free day at the same day.

A static day off in an otherwise rotating schedule increases the quality of life for a retail worker considerably. It also happens to be a day off that many of your friends and family are also likely to have off, rather than often having random days off during the work week. A retail worker might actually be able to maintain a normal social life with a recurring Sunday off.

I fail to see how Sunday closures are progressive at all. If the total amount of time off isn't greater then it doesn't benefit workers more to have Sunday off as opposed to Friday or any other day of the week. From a utilitarian perspective having a restaurant close on the one day that most of their customers have free time to visit is highly inefficient.

If you work shift work then having Tues & Weds off while technically the same as Sat & Sun off (2 days off in a row) it is a tangibly worse "weekend".

You may have 2 days off but your friends and family are likely working during the days and in "nothing too exciting" mode in the evenings.

The benefit of everyone having Sunday off means that (for the most part) the rest of the world also has Sunday off and you get to enjoy time off with your friends and family.

I've worked shift work with only Fridays off before. It was not tangibly worst than having only Sunday off. In fact I would say it was better because dealing with certain government bureaucracies that close down on Sundays was significantly easier. You can't expect the entirety of society to shut down on Sundays so there's always going to be somebody who has to work during that day.

Doing something that doesn't benefit the customers but does benefit your workers (because not all days off are equal) is pretty progressive. It's not necessarily their intent as an organization, but it is the effect.

"If it wasn't "tainted" by its religious inception, mandatory Sunday closures would make Chick-fil-A the most progressive large service industry company in the United States from a labor welfare perspective. "

To imply something is 'tainted' by its religious inception is a kind of bigotry, moreover, it misses the point entirely: it's the very reason the company is ethical, or communitarian in many ways. Of course, even the very nation, or more broadly 'The West' is fundamentally Christian (or better described as mostly 'secular Christian'). Everyone has healthcare in Canada due to the 'Agrarian Left' which is essentially a brand of Christian Democracy. The same goes for the vast majority of Western institutions that were created more than a generation ago, including most Universities etc.. Consider that there might be more complexity concerning social issues in this world such that anyone with a voice mightn't be always playing favour specifically to you or your version of the 'morality'.

I think the previous poster agrees with you, hence the quotes around the word tainted.

>other side of diversity

No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

And yet despite that, they still treat people with respect: https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_2564379

The last thing I'd expect a moral stand to be is popular.

You mean they're run by Christians? Is that now considered a moral failing?

That's an interesting straw man. No, I do not believe it is a moral failing to be Christian. Yes, I do believe it is a moral failing to be against gay rights.

You should also acknowledge it is just your belief, and that a person who does not advocate for gay rights, can be moral too.

Advocating for/against gay rights is a spectrum, and you need to see where they fall on it.

Tolerance is a 2-way street.

You're conflating two completely different things.

Not advocating FOR gay rights isn't a moral failing. But that's irrelevant for what Chick-Fil-A are accused of (and frankly a straw man).

Advocating AGAINST someone else's rights or freedoms, even when those rights have no impact on your beliefs, is a moral failing. That's what Chick-Fil-A is doing.

So, no, it isn't a "2-way street" when one side is just asking to be treated equally and the other is asking that OTHER PEOPLE are treated like a sub-class of people.

A person may be moral in one part of their life, and immoral in another. A person may be kind to the needy that they see while walking down the street, while being cruel to the needy out of their sight. A person may be kind to animals, yet cruel to their family, or vice versa. I do not believe it can be accurate to describe something as complicated as a person as moral or immoral, in the same way that there is no total ordering over the complex numbers.

When I say that being against gay rights is an immoral position, it does not mean that a person is immoral, because that is an ill-defined phrase. It means that in the context of their speech and actions on the topic of gay rights, they are behaving immorally.

I agree that there is a spectrum of beliefs, and that it is necessary to meet somebody where they are. Each step is an important one, and beliefs change slowly.

Where I grow angry is when it is implied that Christianity is inherently and irrevocably against gay rights. Where I grow angry is when it is implied that all Christians must be similarly against gay rights. Where I grow angry is when it is implied that my faith must be a tool for bigotry, rather than an instrument of community.

Christianity is inherently and irrevocably against gay rights. All three religions of the book are against gay rights. It is not possible to be a faithful Christian, Jew, or Muslim while also supporting gay rights.

There are many denominations that LARP as Christian, Jew, or Muslim while advocating for gay rights, but they accomplish this by discarding large parts of their holy texts.

I draw a distinction between supporting homosexuality and supporting gay rights. Someone can believe that homosexuality is wrong and harmful while still believing that people have a right to choose[1] to be homosexual.

[1] For purposes of this discussion when I say "choose to be homosexual" I mean to choose to perform homosexual acts, get married to someone of the same sex, etc. I don't mean it in the sense of whether or not feeling homosexual desire is a choice.

If one believes that an activity (be it homosexuality, eating pork, or using emacs) offends the Almighty, and one also believes that we all will have to answer to the Almighty eventually, it doesn't make sense to fight for the right of another to cause that offense.

I can think of a few reasons that it might make sense:

- One could believe that, by making man in his own image, God desired that men be able to make their own decisions even if those decisions sometimes displeases him and/or they will eventually answer for.

- One could believe that a free society ultimately allows one to better accomplish God's will even if it also means that people are free to do things that you don't agree with.

- One could feel that, since humans are imperfect, it is possible that they will misinterpret scripture or apply it unjustly. Therefore, it may not be safe to force people to follow a given way of life.

- One could feel that judgement is the sole domain of God and therefore human law should not seek to enforce purely moral issues.

Tolerance of the intolerant is in itself intolerant.

Additionally, it's not that they don't advocate for gay rights, it's the they actively fight against them. I think this changed very recently, but it has been the case most of their history.

That said, I'm of the mind that most large corps do stuff that is against human rights in one way or another - sweat shop abuse, crushing of labor unions, among many others - and purchasing from Chickfila isn't much different from drinking Coke or buying Nestle. It's part of society. If you avoid corps with rights abuses you must avoid nearly everything.

“Gay people shouldn’t have the same legal rights as straight people” is a moral position? Which commandment is that one?

It’s a wedge issue used to whip conservative voters, not a moral issue. Nowhere in the Bible does it say you must fight to prevent heathens from filing taxes jointly.

Well, many conservative christians would say that gay people already had the same legal rights as straight people - that being the right to marry (+have sex with, etc) another person of the opposite sex. To them, conflating "the right to marry other men" with that would be like conflating it with "the right to marry children".

Is "should pedophiles be legally allowed to have sex with and marry the people they are attracted to" a moral issue to you? I mean, the kid consented!

Yes, most of us would say that's different. But why it's different is a moral position - and so to some people, it's really not different.

(Also, "the correct answer isn't a moral position, while the incorrect answer is an immoral position" is a bit of a contradiction. If "gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry" is an immoral thing to believe or act on, then you're acknowledging the choice of positions as being a moral one. "I should be able to kill all the people I see" is also a moral position, of course)

No, you’re completely wrong here.

The reason men must be able to marry men is not a moral rationale, it’s a legal one. There is a well established legal doctrine that says you can’t make laws that discriminate on the basis of sex without some sex-based reason.

There’s no sex-based reason for why I should be able to have a woman at my side in the hospital but not a man. You don’t need a womb or breasts to to speak to the doctor on my behalf. That’s ridiculous. If my sister can choose to have a man by her bedside, so should I be allowed to. That’s equal protection.

There is no similar protection for children. Literally no one is able to choose a random 12 year old boy to make decisions for them in the hospital. And that’s fine because there is no equal protection for kids. Nor should there be. They are legally wards of their parents, not adults. They very intentionally do not have the same protection under the law that their parents do.

None of this has anything to do with morality, it has to do with equal protection under the law.

That's a very good argument for why gay marriage should be allowed, and IIRC the one that the supreme court followed. That doesn't mean that there aren't still people who would challenge the morality of such.

Morals and legality are different. Marijuana is federally illegal - does that make it immoral to produce/distribute/possess/consume? I would say no, and a large part of the country would say the same. Similarly, I think a ton of people would freak the fuck out if the supreme court legalized marrying prepubescent children - it might now be legal, but that doesn't make it moral.

The moral position that people fighting gay marriage have is that the current caselaw is wrong, and that equal protection shouldn't be interpreted that way.

You keep indicating at some hypothetical argument from morality. Can you just lay it out? First you claimed both sides were relying on a purely moral argument, but you seem to have moved on from that after I gave the constitutional argument for gay marriage. Now you’re arguing there’s a moral argument against gay marriage, but I can’t fathom it. Can you be more specific?

> “Gay people shouldn’t have the same legal rights as straight people” is a moral position? Which commandment is that one?

I've been trying to explain how it's a moral position for some people, in response to this statement of yours. I'm not sure how to make that argument in a way that would be convincing to you, in large part because it's not convincing to me.

And I suppose we may be getting some wires crossed - for a lot of people in the world, there doesn't have to be a justification for a moral belief - or at least not one you would accept. "My religious authority told me" or "my parents told me" might not be as acceptable in the society we live in today, but they've all been extremely successful throughout history.

Everyone is against something. There's no group that agrees with everything you do, so why only pick on this single group?

As long as they keep donating money to hate groups, yes.

Might wanna check your facts: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/18/chick-fil-a-drops-donations-...

There was a similar statement in 2012, followed by continued donations to anti-LGBTQ groups. My trust in their public statements is not high.

There are a group of people that if I name I will get downvoted that kills gay people. But LGBTQ groups support them.

There is a bizarre social situation going on where it seem Christians who only _morally_ oppose LGBTQ are being targetted uniquely.

Stop spreading FUD. The narrative that Christians are somehow targeted is misleading at best, false in reality. In the west white Christians have a huge amount of power and influence and giving any of it up feels like persecution to a group that doesn’t know what that means. It also really benefits certain media organizations to perpetuate this narrative. Ted Cruise the other day said that he is a Christian first, American second. Think for a second what would have happened if a Muslim or Jewish Senator said the equivalent thing. In the US we sort of accept that we live in a Christian nation because so many justify their politics by claiming to be “good Christians”. I have yet to meet someone with any amount of social or political influence who truly could be described with that label. It’s justification for claiming moral superiority while working to undermine social minorities. No wonder fewer and fewer people identify as Christians with every generation.

And the argument that you have some exception that proves the rule but you can’t name it is bogus. Either you know deep down that it is false and/or propaganda and nobody will buy it or you are making it up and there is no such example.

Christians being targetted is no longer the exception, it's the rule. The fact that they are wack-job Christians out there is the excuse to attack all Christians.

Google for group, country or religion that kills homosexuals today. Now compare those groups to who you criticize.

If all of them are Christian groups, I stand corrected.

If any of them are non-Christian, will you openly name condemn that group/religion/country/race? I doubt it, you will be voted down to oblivion here.

Edit: Just _mentioning_ that someone else besides Christians are attacking homosexuals gets you a downvote.

This is a topic worthy of open discussion, so why can't it?

LGBTQ are being _killed_ in many places around the world, and will continue until the focus is properly adjusted to the real culprits.

It’s no secret that there are groups that follow any given religion that have committed violence against the LGBTQ community. That does not in any way imply that Christians are being targeted. The former is a known and widely accepted fact. The latter is a fiction perpetuated by Fox News to get uneducated conservative voters to fear the Democratic party. The problem with your argument is also that saying “Muslims are killing gays” is not correct, same as saying “white people are committing mass shootings”. Specific sub-sections of those groups are and you can name them specifically. But the idea that all Muslims or all Christian are ready to kill at a moment’s notice is absurd and you know it.

Personally I believe Christianity is an oppressive religion that needs to go away. It does more evil than good in the world, especially in the US and Easter Europe. That does not preclude me from condemning groups like ISIS or Saudi Arabia’s government for their actions.

> Personally I believe Christianity is an oppressive religion that needs to go away.

Every religion is oppressive if you don't agree with the tenents of the religion.

The fact that you aren't against all religions reveals your true motives.

Yeah, they lied. Again. The moment they start undoing the damage they’ve done by donating at least as much money to pro-LGBTQ groups as they have donated to the hate groups is the moment I will guy their sandwiches. Not sooner.

No, they support a subset of Christianity that uses their faith as an excuse to hate others. No one cares about your faith, until you start wielding it as a club to beat others.

Any kind of absolute moral law is antithetical to the kind of (John Locke) liberalism that guides Western politics.

Even something as seemingly universal as the Golden Rule is incompatible.

* Unless you’re a professional working at the pharmacy or hearing center. I’ve heard some pretty bad stories about those positions.

If you go on reddit pharmacy, you see people say Costco is by far the best retail pharmacy and almost impossible to get a full-time gig with.

This feels very similar yo Chick-Fil-A and In-N-Out and, well, the results are what they are.

I heard from an In-N-Out employee that store managers make 6 figure salaries and there are two of them in each store.

In-N-Out, Costco, and Chick-fil-a employees all seem to work really hard and are unfailingly good with customers. I had a problem in a Target once, talked to an employee about it and he went to 'check on it' and never came back. Just left me standing there.

A better example than Costco would be WinCo, which is employee-owned. It doesn't have the same Paradox of Choice exploitation of one item like a Soviet supermarket, it has several choices. And bulk bins. And they don't accept any credit cards to save on processing fees, whereas Costco was AmEx only and now has Visa only.

More generally, workers take care of something as if it were their own when they have an equity stake in it because it is (partly) their own. Just being treated well isn't enough of an incentive to go the extra mile when they have no connection to the profits, only laid-off when the business declines. It seems foolish to be content to accept benefits that most every other industrialized country on the planet already guarantees as a basic right. I think an uncomfortable truth is Americans don't know how bad they have it, and shouldn't sit back while corporate investors amass trillions on their backs, no matter how well or badly they are treated. They are being cheated only because of their failure to get organized and push-back together in some fashion and failure to demand UBI by taxing corporate profits made off automation, longer hours and productivity increases. At some point, if reasonable assistance isn't offered to those who's survival seems threatened (marginal propensity consume is 1.0) and have nothing left to lose, there will be more mass shootings, homeless encampments will expand, more internal migration, less average purchasing power, and more people flamewar-ing in Youtube comments.

I've only shopped at WinCo once, in Utah. It was a sad affair. The store was messy. Employees didn't look happy. Many shelves were empty. Forklifts were left in the middle of the aisle, with goods partially unloaded. The lack of credit card payment reduced the peace of mind of a safe transaction. Just no.

My WinCo in Southern California is impeccable. I think how well kept the store is has a lot to do with who the people running the store are - especially management, I would imagine.

I think there's a handful of WinCo locations in Utah, so I don't know if the one I've been to many times is indicative, but it's been decent, maybe not quite as good as some California locations (best: Folsom), but maybe not quite as bad as some California locations (Pomona, lookin' at you, but I still love you).

> The lack of credit card payment reduced the peace of mind of a safe transaction.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Credit card transactions are safer than debit card transactions because if something goes wrong, banks are more likely to investigate and reverse the transaction. You are technically spending their money, not your own. I thought it's common knowledge.

Are there places where you can use a debit card but not a credit card (or vice versa)? I've been to places that may only accept a particular card vendor (e.g. AmEx or VISA only), and places that are cash only, but never to one that disallowed only one type of card.

My local ARCO gas station and Winco only accept debit.

I shop at both, and I think what you're observing is primarily that WinCo has much leaner margins. It's a place where the poor and stingiest shop, whereas Costco is really aimed at the upper-middle class. If you're market is the wealthy, then yes, you can afford to make your store a much nicer place.

> It doesn't have the same Paradox of Choice exploitation of one item like a Soviet supermarket

Honestly I love this about Costco (and especially Trader Joe’s).

I want them to do a little research and taste testing and stock the item that they think is the best quality and value. I don’t want to crapshoot between 6 different brands of spaghetti.

Trader Joe’s also does a great job at this. It may not always be objectively the “best” item, but it’s usually good and they’ve built up trust with me that gets me to try new and potentially expensive food items.

Costco's largest value add is their curated selection. They never stock the best nor the worst. Shopping is relaxing because you know you won't be screwed, and you only have to answer one question: "Do I want this type of product?", you don't have to answer "Yes, which one of the 5 or 10 available?"

Pointing out the obvious on Hacker News isn't going to change America. Go ahead and put your energies into organizing. Convince people with skills you don't have to follow your lead on this amazing, incredible opportunity you envision. If only we just knew what you do, and how bad we have it, it would surely succeed.

Costco == Trust.

Trust in quality, Trust is service, Trust in prices.

To the point that when I need to buy quality stuff at good prices and avoid doing lenghty research to filter out scam, fakes and crap (aka: Amazon, Ebay and their little siblings) - Cosco wins.

There is no other business where people come in with an intention to buy $50 worth of stuff and then consistently spending 5-10 times more each and every time.

Fun fact: It took me 10 years to stop calling it "Price club"

This really. I hate searching for a product on Amazon. I usually get like 3-5 of the exact same item from different sellers under different names and it just feels scummy. I'll go to Amazon if there's a specific product I already have in mind, but otherwise I'll shop on Target's website.

Recently bought a high end TV from Costco even though it was 100 dollars more. I just trust that Costco will do right by me if anything goes south.

I don't know about televisions, but on many items they negotiate longer warranties with the manufacturer. That itself can be worth a lot. For instance I know if you buy a refrigerator on their branded credit card from them you get something like 3 years parts and labor, which is often 3 times longer than the warranty from other places.

That said - it's hard to beat BHPhoto - another trusted brand for electronics and photography specifically.

Costco has 90 day returns, hard to beat.

BH doesn't charge sales tax (via Payboo card) and has 30 days returns. On $2K TV it is ~$200 savings.

If my OLED TV stops working randomly after a year it's going to be a lot more for the repair.

Even better when you have their card. I bought my TV through them and using their card. The additional warranty gives me a total of 5 years.

I think there is a lot of room in ecommerce for a "trusted brand" like costco where you can just thoughtlessly buy from because I trust they did the research.

Amazon used to be that around 2013/14, but now I prefer to spend more and buy things elsewhere because I don't have to do so much research to make sure the product doesn't suck.

I wouldn't even mind an affiliate-funded intermediary that just listed the top #5 things from WireCutter for a given category, + some picks from Consumer Reports.

(As long as they didn't link to Amazon, it's not safe to buy there.)

Ironically, brandless tried to be this for lower dollar items. But there is another story on HN right this second about brandless failing and shutting down.

> There is no other business where people come in with an intention to buy $50 worth of stuff and then consistently spending 5-10 times more each and every time.

IKEA

The real nice thing about Costco is that when I see something I like, I know that it is of decent quality at a decent price. This saves me from having to do research on my own.

The downside if there's something you're not sure you're going to like. You risk committing to buying a large amount of something and not liking it.

Costco does have a pretty generous return policy for those cases.

Costco will shut you down if you start playing the 'buy it -return it' game too much. They monitor that. Stand around the front desk a bit and watch the used up crap people return.

You can't return food but everything else is just a matter of waiting in line. IMO the only better return policy is Nordstrom.

You can return food. They don’t like it and if you do it too much they’ll stop allowing you to return food.

But I’ve definitely returned food that I didn’t like.

Once they even let the guy in front of me return an empty container. He said he had to eat the whole thing to decide he didn’t like it.

You can 100% return food. I've returned fruit before that was spoiled and some Kirkland brand k-cups which were the worst thing I've ever bought from there.

We have returned food. Sometimes it has been stuff which we didn't like the taste of or produce which has gone bad very quickly. We don't do it often but it happens. Never had any issues in returning it.

I returned a fruitcake to Costco.

I was so disappointed that Costco had sold me something so subpar I returned it. I don’t know what they were thinking.

You know what was nice? They have my phone number and called me when they announced a peanut butter recall. Well it wasn't that nice to find out I'd been eating potentially poison peanut butter, but it's better than other retailers.

Every time I walk into my local Costco I whisper to myself "Welcome to Costco, I love you."

When I walk in I usually say something like, “You get started, I’m gonna grab a ‘before’ dog then catch up...”

I’ll admit to having gone in for just a hot dog before.

I like the chicken bake.

My wife and I, along with our toddler, absolutely LOVE going on "Costco dates" (ahhh the romance). Two slices of pizza, a hot dog and a drink, and if we're feeling spicy, one of their acai bowls, all for 11 dollars.

Doesn't get better than that.

The absolute key is to eat BEFORE you shop, because otherwise you end up with at least 30% more food that you probably wouldn't get if you weren't hungry.

We have two toddlers (1.5 and 3) and we LOVE Costco. Besides the food (which everybody loves) they have huge isles. Big carts. Lots of stuff for the kids to look at. If we’re overwhelmed we seriously just toss our kids into the back of the van and roll in there. They love being there and it’s a simple way to spend an evening together.

Nothing wrong with that - $1.50 for a hot dog with a la carte garnishes and a large drink? The value is nearly unbeatable.

In Poland, when I lived closer to IKEA, I used to go there just for the hot dogs. The IKEA hot dogs are the pinnacle of perfection: a bun, a sausage, ketchup and mustard. Tasty, cheap, and without all the bullshit ingredients everyone else adds just to justify jacking up the price or to pretend to offer a healthy snack.

I’m going to go against the grain here and say I absolutely dread going to Costco but tolerate it because of the prices and bulk availability of certain produce.

A quick ranty list of complaints:

The store is too small for the amount of people and the enormous carts. It is a game of bumper cars every time.

Similarly, more than once I had to give up since the parking lot was completely full and I could only take so circling the lot. The gas lines are reminiscent of the pictures from the ‘73 oil embargo.

The location of items and item selection changes constantly.

There is few staff available to help you find anything.

The free samples attract hangers on like moths to a flame, blocking traffic. People treat the samples as a free lunch for their kids, and let kids ride unsafely ride inside the cart and not in the cart seats — no one stops this.

I have more, but writing this is already getting to me.

I'm curious why it bothers you where in the cart the parents allow their kids to sit? I can see how all of the other things you list affect you, but not that one.

Sounds like the Costco in Sunnyvale, I absolutely loathed going there. I'm not sure what the other Costcos in Silicon Valley look like, but Sunnyvale is a terrible experience.

Every where else I have been, Costco is great. The store is never packed, even if busy at times. Checkout lines never exceed 5-10 minutes. Gas lines rarely exceed 10 minutes at the busiest of times.

Its far but the business center in South SF is wonderful in the mornings. They open at 7 and its basically a ghost town.

Go to Sam's Club. No lines. Empty parking lot. Just don't think about why that is.

Yeah, no one goes to Costco anymore; it's too crowded.

All of this just sounds like you're going at peak times. My parents tend to go on weekdays in the last half an hour before closing - Thursday is good to have fresh stuff for the weekend. I tend to go Saturday morning at opening - sample stations aren't set up, food court isn't a mess, everything is fast.

Yeah I am in the same boat, I dread going to Costco on weekends or before any major holiday. And yes I hate free samples, people horde around free sample stations blocking traffic.

I prefer to go during lunch hour or after work.

I believe that most of your complaints about the experience could be mitigated by timing. My local Costco"Opens" at 9am but the doors are usually open by 8:30. My trick is to make a very fast run on a weekday morning before work (luckily there's one on the way) - have a list, grab what I need, pay and go - and I've found this works wonders for maximizing my time.

I like to think that we all do. Bless up

I got my mba at Costco!

As others mention, I also have the trust that I can pick anything and it will have decent quality, even on certain items that are cheaper on different stores, it's simpler to get them at costco because I know I can return them very easily if I need to (even without purchase ticket or without box).

Besides that, I like what I have heard from employees, they are very happy, the salary is far higher for the same role than on different stores, and I have heard that jobs are costco are very useful for students because they help you to find an schedule that doesn't conflict with your school.

While people claim that costco has cheaper prices that other stores, that's not 100% true on Mexico, I can get several items for a smaller price (most of them aren't that cheaper) but costco gives me confidence on the details I posted above.

I would love to see more stores following its good practices.

I recall an NPR story that touched on costco (I think it was a how I built this episode on trampolines, but I'm not certain). When they pick a company to work with, they apparently send people in not just to inspect them for quality, but to help them be more efficient. They apparently do this not to make more money, but just so they can pass the savings on to the consumer.

> they apparently do this not to make more money, but just so they can pass the savings on to the consumer

...so that consumers buy more/are more likely to buy, making them more money. Which is kind of the point of the article.

As pointed out elsewhere on this page, Costco doesn't even make their profit on volume. Costco's annual profit is approximately equal to their membership fees and always has been.

The relentless focus is on customer satisfaction, nothing more. They want you to come back next year. That's it.

> Costco doesn't even make their profit on volume.

Volume is essential to their profitability, and not just because it's what justifies membership for customers; they are unit profitable on sales, but without sufficient volume that wouldn't offset fixed costs.

I worked next to a Costco while going through school. That place was awesome for a poor college student, even with the membership price. Weekend/summer lunch was a $1.50 hotdog, soda, and one of every free sample. More than enough. The liquor was/is top notch and at a bargain too. Great company.

FYI: Most of the Costco hit dog stands don't require membership. In at least California, you don't need a membership for liquor either, and if you say you're going in for booze, you can get the samples while you're in there.

If you aren't buying anything else, you might not need a membership.

If you do Costco, and you surf, then you have inevitably come across the "Wavestorm" surfboard.

The original article brings up the trust consumers place in the products Costco decides to sell, and the Wavestorm is a fun example of one such Costco cult.

https://www.newyorker.com/sports/sporting-scene/the-cult-of-...

I hear their Vodka is really great too.

I'm in NH and I'm pissed my Costco can't carry liquor. Otherwise they're great.

That wavestorm pearl clutching is hilarious. How dare people do things "for fun" and without getting approval first!

I looked at Costco's financials a few years ago and their total annual profit is (was?) approximately equal to their total annual income from membership fees.

I believe that's on purpose... they charge like 3% more than cost, which covers all their operating expenses, and then the membership fees are their annual profit.

That is their whole business model. Their growth is entirely predicated on more members joining/renewing this year than they had in total in previous year.

And frankly, it's absolutely worth it. You pay for something like Prime, and before they expanded it to include Video and Music, you were essentially paying for slightly faster delivery and less things to purchase upfront.

Costco's model is all about giving you access to the best VALUE. They do really sell very very close to wholesale prices and many things are sold at cost.

Will they ever be the size of Amazon or Walmart in revenues? Probably not. That's not their goal. By having a membership, they are mostly targeting a demographic with something above $0 spending money.

Costco is all about slow and sustainable growth, although who knows. Their target market is quickly dwindling so they will eventually need tor raise membership fees to increase revenue and profit.

Related tweetstorm I came across: https://twitter.com/investing_city/status/117997425777998233...

Hit the nail on the head.

1. Low variety of items

2. Quality items

3. Low price items

4. Extremely beneficial return policy

I tried em all, Costco, BJ's, Sam's Club, Aldi, Walmart, Target. Nobody can tell me how it is, I've actually tried it and Costco is by far the best place for my family to shop. Want a raincoat? Oh yeah rainy season they had a North Face beautiful blue jacket for $80.

I will say their bedroom sets are shit. Buy their cheap sets if you must, their premiums are terrible.

Interesting. Could you expand on how they compare to Aldi?

With Aldi, you buy less so you end up throwing out less food. If you're few people, buy from Aldi. However, the quality in their randoms or out-of-the-box foods are noticeably worse.

Bought some Aldi sushi and got sick to my stomach, just nasty cheap salmon cuts, with nasty cheap rice. Mealy and tasteless.

With Costco it's quality all the way, 4 years literally never bought something of poor quality there.

Aldi has dirt-cheap grain products and soy. Everything else is gross.

The quality of fresh produce tends to vary a lot by country and even location with Aldi.

I'm mostly asking because I grew up with the German grocery landscape which has been shaped by cutthroat competition from Aldi and Lidl for decades.

Walmart famously couldn't hack it in Germany.

It’s interesting that the Costco model doesn’t seem to work in the UK. Here the competition amongst the supermarkets is so intense that Costco can’t sell stuff cheap enough.

The UK Costco’s are a poor imitation of the ones I enjoyed in Canada. Even thought the layout and the idea are the same.

Not sure why tbh.

Can you explain what you mean by "doesn't seem to work"?

I regularly go to Costco here in the UK. It's almost always busy, checkout queues are long (but move quickly).

I assume it's just that you often can find stuff cheaper - if you happen to find a good half price/2-for-3/etc. deal on branded stuff at a supermarket then Costco will be more expensive. The quality of their own brand stuff is good, though, and the prices are reliably at least fair and usually better.

Their petrol station used to be reliably cheaper than everywhere else near me, but they changed supplier and now it's the same price as Tesco. So I go to Tesco, as it's 99 RON and I get clubcard points.

Aldi has a somewhat similar model in the UK, no subscription but it has a reduced range compared to traditional supermarkets, high quality goods and well paid staff.

That's pretty typical of Aldi worldwide, as they operate in the US in the same manner (US Aldi stores are Aldi Süd, Trader Joe's is Aldi Nord).

For me (single) Aldi is a better deal. Costco-sized packages of food are just too much when you aren't raising a family, and I can't justify the membership fee.

I kind of want to shop at Costco now.

Yet another example of how just being a good company gets you free advertising.

I basically just consumed a 10 minute ad, and enjoyed it, and now want to go buy a pallet of something from people who I now assume will cheerfully applaud my gluttonous purchase.

It’s not all positive

>>>"While some of my city dwelling friends in their twenties might find it amusing to shop at Costco"

I live out on the rural outskirts of a central European city, into which I regularly commute for work and life.

I'm often very amused at the city-dweller point of view. These are people who live surrounded, in geographically aligned order, by about 1,000 other people, on average, within a block. They're stacked on top of each other, a literal hive. Public transportation is superlative, but the city was made for horses, something that hasn't changed much.

The effort required to walk down the block to a Billa or Aldi is often far, far too great for these denizens. Actually, as a whole, city-slickers require far too much motivation to escape the zone of their immediate comfort level. It gets so cozy.

Out in the sticks, nothing at all is thought of a 20 minute walk to pick up a jar of honey, a bottle of milk or a bale of apples. Alas, city-slickers take so much prodding to get out of their city these days.

But, in the sticks, we do have a Costco equivalent. I can honestly say that I use it quite a bit to keep the house stocked with necessities. I often see business-owners from the city shopping there, though .. ;)

I know it's against the guidelines, but has no one here read the article? Everyone's talking about what they like/dislike about Costco but nothing about 'Costco Capitalism' as described. It's almost a confirmation of what the author was saying--"consumers only are pressured to act as ethical as their value-maximizing formulas allow them to be."

Yeah, the most interesting part of the article for me was the end: the discussion on the best strategy for increasing the amount of ethical consumption that is going on. It took a while to get to that point, but I'm sure there's lots of interesting things Hacker News could say about that.

My personal strategy so far has been to encourage some ethical consumerism by example, not because that directly increases the share of ethical consumption significantly, but because I think that attaching ethical considerations to an action as common as consumption will, down the line, also encourage people to vote in line with that. In the end, it currently seems to me like regulation is a required part of upping our collective standards and impact.

I question the placement of Whole Foods as more ethical. I don’t see shelves of high priced homeopathic “cures” and pseudoscience literature at Costco. Whole Foods is all too eager to prey on ignorance and fear.

It's interesting how few people understand (this author included) about Costco is how its huge quantities of consumer consumables (eg toilet paper etc) allows Costco to avoid channel conflict in this segment, which in turn drives traffic into their stores. To my mind this is the key retail innovation that separates Costco from the rest.

Can you explain this concept more? Sounds interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_conflict

It sounds like Costco's larger toilet paper packages make the toilet paper manufacturer feel less of a conflict of interest? That Costco isn't undercutting the manufacturer's other channels such as online sales?

What exactly am I missing here? The Channel conflict model seems to be about maximizing revenue by not selling the product to the customer and ignoring new channels.

Not selling can boost short term revenue but it's a risky move when your competitor is Amazon.

Back in Summer of 2009, I planned a camping trip for Yosemite. I flew into San Francisco, bought supplies at Costco, and drove east until Yosemite. I won't forget the SF Costco. Adults were riding the back of their carts as children do in grocery stores. They were happy. Very happy. I just assumed that this was SF behavior and didn't think much more about it. Yet, in hindsight, the cost of living is the highest in the country. People are struggling. Costco offers refuge from that struggle. Ride on, costcoers!

Costco Sunday with the family. The lines are a bit long but the samples are fantastic the deals are good and nearly all the staff a friendly and helpful. This is a well run operation.

Costco came to the UK in the 90's, I remember when it opened in Glasgow in 1994. My parents were some of the first members there and I was so proud when I got my own membership at 18.

Their Kirkland brand is always good quality and has never let me down unlike other homestore brands.

As a Brit another thing that makes it appealing, is for us, it seems like the "American" shopping experience.

Going to Costco is like an adventure trip/excursion. Compared to ASDA, Waitrose or going into the city to shop.

The day I learn Costco treats its employees the way Amazon does, I will find an alternatives just like I did with Amazon.

While I grew up going to Costco many weekends and still go on monthly trips as an adult, I actually think its business faces a lot of risks over the coming decades.

The entire concept is optimized for upper middle class suburban families with cars. Once millennials age into middle age over the coming decades, will they have kids in the same numbers as their parents (data says no) and thus need or want to buy in bulk? Will they live in the suburbs where warehouses are primarily located? Will they have cars to even get there? Will they want to pay for a membership when they already have Amazon or wide availability of other stores that deliver for free?

I'd predict not in the same rate or numbers as boomers or Gen X, and imagine Costco would need to transform several aspects of their current business model if they wanted to stay relevant 10-20 years from now.

"Will they live primarily in the suburbs where warehouses are primarily located?"

Where are they going to live?

The city?

Everyone?

Most people, yes.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-33....

I believe what that link calls cities, most suburbs would qualify.

Millennials are increasingly staying in urban areas, not having as many kids (or kids at all), and not moving to the suburbs in the same rate as Boomers did. This is a well documented phenomenon.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ok-boomer-whos-going-to-buy-you...

I find it unlikely that everyone will fit / stick to their initial choices.

even if you didn’t believe the existing data that showed this to be the case, millennials aren’t having many kids. Birth rates are at historic lows. a single adult or childless couple has fewer reasons to shop in bulk than a large family

The oldest millenials are just shy of their forties so biology is about to close some doors on them kids wise, so there goes a reason to move to the suburbs and live in a big house. Not to mention many that do have kids raise them in inner city areas.

This is also the continuation of a trend started by gen-x, so they aren't going to "grow out of it".

Alas, American cities aren't really building that much.

So for people to move to the cities, it's either stack up and share a flat, or other city dwellers move out.

Both things are happening. (And a bit of growth in residential space as well, but not nearly as much as there's demand.)

This is indeed true on a statistical basis, but as someone who is technically at the very upper limits of being a millennial I think there is a tendency to exaggerate this trend. Most of the people I grew up with live in the suburbs and have kids. It's delayed compared to older generations, but most of them have ended up there eventually. I'd also say that a huge portion of my (Seattle area) Costco's shoppers are immigrants who likely work in tech and from what I can tell they seem to be making similar choices to what older american generations have with regards to children and where they choose to live.

> The entire concept is optimized for upper middle class suburban families with cars. Once millennials age into middle age over the coming decades, will they have kids in the same numbers as their parents (data says no) and thus need or want to buy in bulk? Will they live primarily in the suburbs where warehouses are primarily located? Will they have cars to even get there? Will they want to pay for a membership when they already have Amazon or wide availability of other stores that deliver for free?

My girlfriend and I are millenials with no children. We still have a Costco membership. Hell, I had a Costco membership before I met her, when I lived alone. I buy all my gas at Costco, and the savings alone from that usually equal or exceed the $60 membership dues by the end of the year, so everything else is pretty much gravy.

yes, same. That doesn’t refute anything though when it comes to looking at how a massive generational shift will impact their business. It’s not incorrect to say this is a business that whose main target is upper middle class suburban families with cars and that in 10-20 years middle aged millennials will in aggregate likely have fewer reasons to go to Costco in the same rate as our parents for all the reasons mentioned above.

going to Costco as a single millennial is basically a hack, not the target customer at all

I guess I disagree with your premise that childless millenials are going to be so radically different from their parents.

Like, why would I not have a car at middle age? I'm still working for another 30 years, at least. If I didn't waste my twenties moving to a big city, living in a studio apartment, and ditching my car to ride the metro, why would I start now?

> going to Costco as a single millennial is basically a hack, not the target customer at all

So, admittedly my understanding of Costco might be out-of-date, but once upon a time the Wholesale Retailer's job was to sell you stuff at basically the same price they get it from the vendor, such that their margins are low or nonexistent--their revenue comes from the membership dues. They might have their own in-house brand so that they can get even better margins, but we'll ignore that for a sec.

So let's say I'm not the target audience, as a single millenial who only goes to Costco on average to buy about five things. If Costco gets the same membership dues from me despite my using less of the store than full families, isn't that good for Costco?

I buy all my gas at Costco, and the savings alone from that usually equal or exceed the $60 membership dues by the end of the year, so everything else is pretty much gravy.

That seems like an optimization for folks with cars…

The United States is massive. Expecting that public transportation will replace cars to any significant scale is to reveal a lack of exposure to the vast majority of the country. Las Cruces, NM for instance — they aren’t going to build a subway and suddenly replace cars. Midland, Texas, Imperial, California — most people don’t live in a tight urban core. In France, outside of Paris — most people have, and need cars. The idea that millennials are all just dying to live in Manhattan is an out of touch myth. Cars as we know them will certainly change, but personal transportation will always be important — as will suburbs where your kid can grow up with an actual yard. Not everyone wants to live in a Hong Kong-style beehive.

There are tons of things at Costco you can buy for daily consumption that don't come in a 10-pack (bulk), even for millennials with no kids. Ultimately, everyone looks for value and Costco is very good at providing value.

For about six months I lived in Japan in an apartment in the suburbs. I was a homemaker while my partner worked in the city. I would frequently take the train with large bags to Costco and stock up on bulk purchases such as rice, oatmeal, and other items.[1] We live in Vancouver now, and we usually rent a carshare to make a 2-hour trip or carpool with others on our membership.

I don’t think this situation is entirely representative of most other millennials in North America. As a cohort though, we’re likely to be less well-off than boomers, so I think Costco has economic appeal still.

[1] The canteen area had decent North American-style pizza so I could be tempted to make the trip.

Hypermarts are a thing in (just outside usually) the dense cities with good public transportation, so Costco is almost (may be need to supersize its stores just a bit more) ready for the future.

Great car ownership point. I love Costco and I grew up going there, but I don't own a car so going is infeasible. Instead I end up using a mix of local grocery stores and Amazon delivery. OTOH I'm certainly not noticing any widespread trends towards reduced car ownership around me unfortunately, but nevertheless I feel like the landscape will be pretty different in the near future.

Why do all the top comments in this thread read like Costco adverts with no discussion of the actual article content?

Satisfied customers spread their good tales. Who would have thought?

Because even on HN, no one reads the articles.

I’ve read through 200 comments and yet I’m not sure if anyone actually read the piece

I read it but didn't read it extremely thoroughly (it is long and feels like it kinda sits too long on points).

Do you think Costco will rise in popularity any further? It looks like it's at a maximum of ethicalness to profitability in terms of food goods. (It offers bottom barrel ethics on clothes as far as I've seen) Do you think if the economy tanks then costco will just immediately switch to less ethical options because consumers will not be able to afford all their more ethical options? Did anyone study what they did during the recession?

I feel like a lot of their more ethical food options are more recent in invention... Mainly following upper class trends. A lot of the things there seem like they're trying their best to imitate what the upper class has. It's rare to see a high end good by itself at a good price. They offer thermoflasks instead of hydroflasks. Only one or two Le Creuset pots but they're really high priced still. Kirkland versions of kitchenware instead of the cuisinart ones that are just knockoffs of the all-clads everyone wants.

Personally - Costco feels like a slight improvement over Walmart but only at certain goods. It feels far lower than Whole Foods when it comes to ethical choices. I think that ethical gap is far greater than the image you posted gives off.

As far as price goes - I think Costco only feels like a good value to consumers who aren't savvy at shopping. For me - an overly savvy shopper - I feel like I'm getting ripped off when I go there as I buy most goods for less or equal to what they offer.

Costco capitalism can be summarized as hire top 5% of the population and the rest can take care of itself. However, not all worker are in the top 5% and they need jobs as well. Hence Walmart capitalism

the concept is simple, really. make sure incentives are aligned at every step of the business model and for all stakeholders. that's really the spirit of capitalism anyhow.

So they simply found a way to operate more efficiently, allowing them to pay their workers more (as they earn more per worker). Why does that need to be framed as "fair"? According to the article, they can afford to pay their warehouse workers more, because they need fewer of them. is that "fair" or "unfair"? How do the people who need a job but don't get a job at Costco because they are not needed anymore feel about it?

Also, shoppers beware. I don't know Costco, but here in Germany there is also a company that is famous for its good prices, Aldi.

Legend has it that they deliberately used wooden shelves in their stores because they looked cheaper, even though actually metal shelves would have been cheaper. Was reminded of that story when I read in the article that at Costco you shop off shipping pallets.

Also Aldi is being criticized for using its market power to demand low prices from suppliers. How does Costco fare in that regard? (I personally don't share the criticism, but I suspect people who are in the business of worrying about "fairness" would).

I am not a Costco member for a few reasons.

The biggest one is that the parking lots at the nearby ones are CRAZY. Always packed, and even worse on weekends. They are so bad, in fact, that I even avoid the streets NEAR the Costco, because they back up. And I live in Los Angeles, where I expect bad parking and traffic... this is another level.

Also, I am just getting so used to ordering everything online. We get all our household items via amazon subscriptions (toilet paper, paper towels, dish detergent, etc)... so nice not having to ever think about those things and they just show up when we need them. I can't see myself going back to shopping at stores myself for those things.

that's cool and all. but you don't understand how much the membership pays for itself with just gas alone

Right now my Costco has gas 50c less than any place around me

How does that work? From what I’ve heard, gas stations don’t get anywhere near 50 cents of profit per gallon. Even with massive scale and logistics I would be surprised that they can pull that off.

In my area Costco gas is usually the cheapest, but it's not always the cheapest by amounts like 50 cents. Its usually more on the order of 20 cents cheaper. The next cheapest stations share some similarities with Costco though -- they all tend to be unbranded gas stations. These don't usually have the agreements that branded stations have, where they have to buy a certain % of their supply from the brands refineries. So Costco tends to be buying the cheapest gas available at the time, has no brand-name overhead, and on top of that, purposely keeps their profit low to get more people joining. Another thing that Costco does, not just with gas but with everything, is they only accept their partnered credit cards. Their merchant fees are likely much lower, and as Costco does, they just pass that onto you.

So Costco is paying less, and keeping less (if any) profit. The net result is that their gas is appreciably cheaper.

I don’t know where they get it from, but Costco gas is supposedly same quality as other branded gas stations:

https://toptiergas.com/licensed-brands/

Oh man, I would pay more than that to avoid the parking lot. It would take an extra 30 minutes to get gas there.

And in our case, we already have electric cars anyway.

Like Yogi Berra said, no one goes to Costco anymore. It’s too crowded.

I think my comment is being misinterpreted to be reasons why I don't think costco will succeed... I was just commenting the reasons I personally don't shop at Costco, as a counter to the glowing review in the article. There are reasons not mentioned in the article as to why it isn't for everyone.

A word of warning, I've frequently found Costco meats are far more expensive than at my local grocer, often on the order of 50-100% on sale items.

The design of the stores is also horrific, designed to make you maximize browsing time. Availability of products is piss poor too - one week you might find something you love, the next week you can't get it at all. I cancelled my membership after the first year because the main product I bought it for was no longer readily available.

Don't waste your money. Check your local flyers and cancel the expensive yearly memebership, it's just another way for big businesses to scam you.

I find them to be comparable if not slightly better than other grocery store non-sale prices. Those places have good weekly deals, but their everyday prices are meh, and why visit multiple stores when you can get it all done at once?

For me I find the average quality of stuff they sell at Costco is higher than other places. A nice warm weather resistant jacket was $35 this winter, I would have gotten something similar for $80 at a mall. The food is all good. I can pick something randomly I haven't tried before and I know it will be quality food. Compare this something like Walmart or Amazon where trying something new is like russian roulette.

I bought a high sierra "camelbak" type water pack for $25. I actually told someone I got it for a steal at $30 because I forgot what it cost. By the time my girlfriend went back they were gone - same thing at Amazon was over $40.

While I hate that you basically have to make an on-the-spot decision, they absolutely crush it on quality and price 9 times out of 10.

https://www.amazon.com/High-Sierra-Visalia-Hydration-Backpac...

http://www.costcoweekender.com/2016/03/high-sierra-visalia-9...

Or you can buy it from costco.com and have it delivered to your local store for free.

I tried out a Costco membership for a few weeks and finally got around to cancelling it last month. In general when I went looking for stuff I'd either find good prices on things I didn't want or average prices on things I did.

For example, coffee. The vast majority of what I saw on the shelf was ground coffee – for personal use bulk whole beans are a better value because they stay fresher longer. Most of it was also Seattle's Best / Starbucks / Peets, not terrible but particularly good either. Kitchen equipment – Costco has great prices on Le Creuset, but only has two sizes listed online (both oval). Laundry detergent, mostly heavily scented stuff, pass.

IMO discoverability is on par with Amazon (not a good thing) which discouraged me from spending more time than necessary in the warehouse.

They sell a ton of whole bean coffee. To the point that they have coffee grinders at the front of the store for people who want ground coffee. Not sure where you were looking.

They sell a ton of whole bean coffee. To the point that they have coffee grinders at the front of the store for people who want ground coffee. Not sure where you were looking.

I was looking on the shelves that were stocked with (ground) coffee. If there is a separate aisle for whole bean coffee I didn't bother looking for it -- I dislike the unlabeled aisles and don't want to wander through a huge warehouse looking for a needle in a haystack.

Granted I only skimmed the brands I knew I wasn't interested in (e.g. Starbucks) so there may have been some whole bean coffee on the shelves that I wouldn't have bought in the first place. I definitely haven't seen customer use coffee grinders though. It could also come down to differences in what the warehouses stock, but I'm not going to drive all over the Bay Area to find a Costco with whole bean coffee.

At my local Costco there is like an entire aisle dedicated to coffee/tea. Not sure what other stores are like. At least at my store, things are pretty logically laid out, usually doesn't feel like searching for a needle.

At least the two Costco’s I’ve shopped at recently sell massive bags of Kirkland brand whole bean coffee, usually with some sort of rainforest animal on the bag label.

Yeah coffee is one of the rare items I'd be a stickler for buying a specific brand name. I do remember seeing a bunch of K-cup inventory as well. Looking at Costco.com, they want around $15 for a two pound bag of Peets whatever. I can go to any of the grocery stores around here and pick up the same thing for the same price (or around $12 when they rotate it through a sale price which Safeway seems to do regularly). Looking at Costco.com the Kirkland stuff is cheaper (no way to filter by whole bean / ground though).

I just though of something else about the dutch ovens. Costo.com also lists a Lodge enameled dutch oven for $58. It's the shape (round) I was looking for and about the right size. I passed because I was looking for a made in not-PRC one. Amazon carries the same Lodge one for only wants $60 though. I ended up with the Williams-Sonoma house brand one (made in France by Staub) for less than Costco wanted for their similarly sized Le Creuset one.

I've heard good things about the print lab, pharmacy, and optometrists but have never used them. The Costco prices on vaccines compare favorably to the normal prices of the city/county run SF clinic, but not by a whole lot. The state of California subsidizes some vaccines for low income folks though. At $26 those are cheaper than what Costco charges (except for the flu vaccine).

https://www.sfcdcp.org/aitc/aitc-regular-prices-low-cost-or-...

https://www.costco.com/Pharmacy/adult-immunization-program.h...

The price/value proposition just wasn't there for me.

> Yeah coffee is one of the rare items I'd be a stickler for buying a specific brand name.

And that’s not really how Costco works. I don’t buy coffee there either, to be fair.

And that’s not really how Costco works. I don’t buy coffee there either, to be fair.

Yep. However I went in looking for coffee that Costco does stock (Peet's Holiday Blend) and only saw it pre-ground. I looked around for other roasts that grocery stores sell as whole bean in 2 lb packages (e.g. french, espresso, or italian) and only saw pre-ground on the shelf. The prices were on par with what Safeway charges off-sale.

Even for other items where I largely don't care about a specific brand the quality or price wasn't worth maintaining a membership.

FWIW, Costco only sells high quality meat. Most of their beef is USDA Choice or Prime.

Costco sells USDA Prime? That’s worth the trip alone. Most grocery stores never have Prime.

Yes but stick to the larger sized vacuum sealed packs (10-15 lbs). The pre cut steaks are all blade tenderized so you need to cook them to ground beef temperatures.

The large packs are also $1-2 cheaper and you can split and freeze them yourself if you’re not a total carnivore.

>The pre cut steaks are all blade tenderized

I'm not sure that's accurate. Some of them definitely are but I believe the filet's (for instance) are not. I guess I'll have to double check next time I'm there.

> The pre cut steaks are all blade tenderized so you need to cook them to ground beef temperatures.

Eh, all those recommendations are very conservative. I've been eating undercooked ground beef my entire life (it tastes better.) If it's ever made me sick, it wasn't sick enough to notice.

Ya that’s very annoying. But if you have a sous vide you can pasteurize it at > 130F for 2.5-3 hours.

Blade tenderizing Prime beef is terrible and I hate that Costco does it (check the label before you buy), but my understanding is that if you cook via Sous Vide you don't need to take it to 160 degrees. You can cook it at a lower temperature (135/140) for a longer time and still kill harmful bacteria.

https://www.amazingfoodmadeeasy.com/info/modernist-cooking-b...

If I'm wrong, please correct me!

Whenever I read threads like this, I wonder if there's more of an issue with bacteria in food in North America, or if people are just more fastidious about it?

The other option of course would be that it's just HN-style 'nerding out' on any topic, (which is great) but I see it on Reddit and cooking blogs/recipe sites too.

I think most people conceive of Costco as a place where you save by buying low quality groceries in bulk. But they really only sell high quality groceries. If you’re poor, you probably can’t afford to shop at Costco for anything other than non-food items.

This couldn't be more wrong. Costco sells excellent quality meat at great prices.

e.g. Costco sells prime-grade brisket for ~$4/lb. where I live. You generally can't even find prime brisket at an average grocery store, and the choice-grade will routinely run $7/lb or more.

I do compare for the same grades of meat, perhaps it's a US vs Canada difference, but I've found this to consistently be the case.

With beef, it is more expensive. But that's because the quality is so much better. Get a steak from Costco and one from a chain supermarket, grill them and compare the taste. No comparison, Costco wins.

>designed to make you maximize browsing time

Have you never been to an IKEA? If you want to see what maximizing browsing time looks like IRL, you should visit one some time.

For Ikea, simply open website, find product, look at aisle number, walk to aisle in warehouse. Done. They also have a consistent selection of products available. If you've done the tour in the past year, chances are you already know the product you're looking for and chances are they'll have it in stock.

Ikea actually minimizes it if you know what you're looking for. Try doing that at Costco where they re-arrange the store just to make you have to look at things you didn't intend on buying. This practice has been the subject of many articles even:

https://www.businessinsider.com/costco-store-layout-how-to-g...

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/09/25/443519599/epis...

Surely, you're joking?! What if you want to actually see the Flugelfluffer assembled before you purchase it in a flatpack? (maybe you want the white one? no, wait, the natural one) That entails going upstairs and walking around the whole circuitous path through every staged bedroom, dining room, kitchen, living room and bathroom just to find the damn Fluggelfluffer. Which is downstairs. In aisle 47C.

If Costco has the piece of furniture, its either in the middle display area or on the furniture aisle. That's it.

Ok,

1) Are you comparing equivalent quality meats? It's easy to find crap quality meat near its expiration date for cheaper than Costco deli price. It's pretty hard to find equivalent high quality fresh meat at the same price point without a bunch of coupons or random sales.

2) I'm not sure why you think the store design is horrific. Maybe it's particular to your local Costco, but I've been to at least 15 locations and they're all laid out pretty neutrally with logical aisles and departments. If you know what you want, you can go straight to it as quickly as you can navigate oblivious people pushing their carts at grandma-with-a-walker pace.

3) You're right - items do go in and out of stock because of the whole Costco business model. They arrange for preferential pricing on a contractual basis to get members deals they won't find elsewhere. Sometimes the supplier decides not to renew the contract or Costco decides the shelf space is better used for something else. That's just how it works. If you find a product you like, you can always order it in bulk online when Costco doesn't have it anymore. If you're only going to Costco for one or two items you like, the membership isn't for you.

I own a BBQ business and CostCo in my area often has meat less than my wholesale cost from various restaurant suppliers. I can often get Prime briskets from costco for less than Choice from other suppliers. The same is true for some other items as well (foil pans are cheaper at Costco than restaurant supply store for example)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com