How does the queuing culture differ between countries?

Everything about business news

This doesn't seem intuitive, but it does reduce the waiting time.

Researchers found that it takes a certain amount of time to serve each customer: an average of 41 seconds to say hello, check out, say goodbye, and pick up purchases, and three seconds to break through each product. Hence, it turns out that the queue of multiple people with fewer goods actually moves more slowly.

Let's count It takes about six minutes to break through 100 products from a customer. If you queue up with four people with 20 items each, the service takes almost seven minutes.

If you add that time up, there is a lot of accumulation in a year. Richard Larson, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has calculated that all Americans spend 37 billion hours per year in queues.

Turn left

Most people are right-handed and usually turn right, so there may be fewer queues on the left.

Pay attention to the cash register

If you find that the cashier is particularly talkative, talking to customers, or commenting on products, avoid this line.

Study other buyers

It doesn't just depend on the number of people in front of you, but also on their age and purchases.

For example, elderly people take longer to serve. They don't always know how to handle a credit card and they generally slow down the queue.

Also, pay attention to the number of different items in the shopping cart of the people in front of you. Punching six identical goods is faster than six completely different ones.

Choose a queue that leads to multiple cashiers

Such lines are usually found at airports and banks, but also in supermarkets. They move the fastest because the person at the head of the line approaches the first employee who is free.

When we stand in such a queue, we also feel relieved because we no longer have to decide which cashier to turn to and doubt our decision.

Avoid lines with barriers

If the cashier cannot see the entire queue, e.g. For example, if a wall or shelf is blocking the view, customers have to wait longer Mascha Shunko, Julie Niederhoff, Jaroslaw Rosokha People are not machines: The behavioral influence of the queue design on the service time.

Speed ​​up the service

  • Put goods with a barcode at the checkout.
  • When buying clothes, immediately remove the hangers and take out the labels so the cashier can scan them faster.

Remember, the wait is only in your head

To some extent, expectation is just a psychological state. Most people tend to overdo their waiting time by 36%.

Additionally, shoppers pay more attention to the length of the queue than how fast it moves. When choosing between a slow moving short queue and a fast moving long queue, we usually prefer the first one, even if the waiting times are the same in both queues.

Also, remember that the waiting will be faster if you are distracted by talking to other customers or reading.

Well, as you know, all domestic business on duty orders are sent to online cash registers which transmit data on sales to the tax authorities in almost real time. This is a very important step for Russia. In short, for the first time in history, the state will be able to see clearly what is happening in our economy, and it will do so immediately, and not after a year, when all the crude reports finally reach the ministries. Read more about this here:

The problem, however, is that data from entrepreneurs' cash registers does not go directly to the tax office, but via the FDO, the tax data operator. One of these operators, the Element Group (the brand e-OFD, e-ofd.ru) wrote me a letter with a very alarming assessment of the situation.

While some operators, for example the same "e-OFD", base their business on collecting a subscription fee with entrepreneurs, others enter the market initially hoping to gain access to the information they have collected. The danger is obvious: few of us will willingly entrust letters to the postman who carries them for free, but at the same time read what we write to our relatives and friends.

Again, some operators are frankly saying they are interested in data that can be extracted from the endless stream of checks that go through other people's cash registers. You are ready to either sell this data or immediately use it to your advantage.

The main competitors of small businesses are large retail chains, if the soft word "rival" is appropriate here. In some cities, networkers have already threatened small businesses with extinction - it is very difficult to compete with the giants. If networkers get accurate sales data on certain streets, small businesses will have a hard time: they are actually in the position of guerrillas fighting special forces with night vision devices at night. By night vision devices, I mean, as you can imagine, information that seasoned analysts can extract from sales data.

Imagine: you are an individual entrepreneur, you keep a small café with a bakery in a not very trafficable street. You love what you do, you roast coffee beans yourself, knead the dough for fresh baked goods, and in the morning a number of local residents and workers from nearby organizations line up for you. With the business you can support yourself and your family with the income that suits you.

As of July 1, 2017, you have started to submit all data about checks via the operator (OFD) to the tax office, who kindly made this service available to you for free or almost free of charge: in exchange for permission to provide information about your checks catch up with sales.

Soon the OFD receives an inquiry from a chain of coffee shops: On which streets do coffee and related products sell particularly well? The street your business is on is highlighted in green on the report and the manager makes the obvious decision to open a chain cafe in the house next to you.

No matter how hard you try, a significant part of your customers will leave you because the networkers have a household name, beautiful branded mugs, an assortment and a lot of things that a small business normally doesn't have. And if the networker pays you a lot of attention, he may well decide to quit you by setting prices 100 rubles lower and keeping them at that level for six months or a year - as long as it takes until your profit no is longer enough to pay rent and salaries. It's nothing special for large retail chains to repay a point for a long time: they have orders of magnitude more money than a single entrepreneur.

Significantly, the networkers themselves do not pass their data on to anyone. They have either created their own FDOs or distributed data across several independent FDOs and selected those that do not trade data.

At this point, a seasoned reader may have a logical question: where are regulators looking? I will let you down. It is perfectly legal to sell other people's data. The Cash Register Use Act directly provides that OFDs may use tax information to disclose to third parties in an impersonal form (Section 2, Section 9, Article 4.1 of the CCP Act). ::

The control data operator can process control data for statistical or other research purposes, subject to the mandatory anonymization of this control data.

In addition, some market participants are calling for the depersonalization condition to be lifted so that even more precise data can be traded: not “20 hectares of coffee were sold on Švejk Street”, but “Sidorov and Sons Coffee Shop, st. 13-year-old Švejka sold 17 hectares of coffee. “With large retail chains having the most powerful lobbying tools while small business owners have almost no such tools, I wouldn't be surprised if such an amendment is successfully adopted in six months or a year.

Incidentally, the tax data market is already entering an internet monster, owner of social networks and search engines. These tough guys understand perfectly what BigData is and how it can be analyzed with good use to yourself.

Unless the market changes, chains will continue to crowd out small businesses, with all the negative consequences of this in the form of deterioration in the quality of goods, higher prices and the destruction of jobs. Accordingly, FDOs will seek to profit from selling information, as trading information is more profitable than charging a modest monthly fee for technical services.

Let us return from the example to the café. Let's say retail chains didn't find your street promising and you worked 14 hours a day and managed to increase your profits significantly. What do you think will happen next month?

For the next month, the owner of the premises where your coffee shop is located will stop by and say that you will now have to pay them more for the rent as your profits have increased. Twenty percent of extra The landlord leaves the income to you, takes 80% for himself - because he knows the exact volume of your sales and can accurately calculate the amount you can pay him. In "e-OFD" I am told that real examples of such "entrepreneurship" by landlords have already surfaced.

Sum up

If you are a business owner, please remember that any data about your business may be used against you. Hiding from the state is stupid these days, you definitely have to connect cash registers to the internet. So make sure you connect to a non-data operator. For example on the "e-OFD" based on the information from which I am writing this article.

If you are a legislator, consider whether it is generally correct to allow anyone other than the government to access confidential information such as sales data in an anonymized form. Modern methods of working with BigData allow good analysts to easily compare information about the volume of sales on a given street to the stores on that street. This puts small businesses at a significant disadvantage.

At this point some may say they don't need a small business, they are pretty happy with networkers. I'll answer this briefly with two well-known arguments:

1. Good quality in the industries concerned can only be achieved in small and medium-sized enterprises, since large retailers are geared towards profit and the maximum profit is not incompatible with either quality or the interests of society in general.

2. Small businesses generate some taxes, but it creates a large number of good jobs. This is important: jobs in the next 10 to 20 years promise to become a very scarce commodity.

"Too many people" know "how to make a decision
urgent problems of society "(P. Heine).

"The most damaging thing is not ignorance at all, but knowing a hell of a lot
things that are actually wrong "(F. Knight, economist).

INTRODUCTION

I wrote this article because the concept of the "queue" became a weapon in the ideological struggle of the enemies of the "USSR" project.

In recent years, heated debates have flared up in Russia, and not just in Russia, over whether "the Russian people have done the right thing by renouncing socialism". Disregard the question of whether people really "turned it down" or whether that decision was made for them and let us, no doubt, consider this a bright bogey of "queues" that people swing victoriously and in the liberal market the queue as presenting a blatant example of the "ineffectiveness of the Soviet system". Under pressure from very obvious facts, they often admit that they say, yes, they lived well, but the queues have spoiled everything and therefore "such a land is not needed". At the same time, dishonest people are trying to give the layman a line of reasoning as primitive as a felt boot: queues are a consequence of a centralized economy, a market is required to eliminate them, and the market, in turn, is incompatible with socialism and the USSR. Next comes the conclusion about the rightness of the destruction of socialism and the destruction of a great power.

From this article, the reader will be convinced that the market people's "feminine logic" above is nothing more than a brazen and dishonorable manipulation that has nothing to do with economics or just common sense.

In reality, as a social, economic and organizational phenomenon, turn is much more complex than people can imagine.

What's the turning point?

It is interesting that not everyone realizes that the queue has always existed in all societies and far from just being in the USSR as they are trying to convince us. For example, it works perfectly now in the west. There it is referred to as the "peak load problem" and has long been solved through theoretical economics (see for example) and human practice.

The idea of ​​the market eliminating queues altogether is just a bold scam, not so much from smart people as from cunning and dishonest people pursuing their very selfish goals. Indeed, anytime, anywhere - the queue is evidence of the finite resource, nothing more, nothing less. Carts in the ferry, cars at traffic lights, people in a dentist's waiting room or a canteen are evidence of a limited resource.

A queue is a condition that occurs when a customer's servicing takes longer than the time it takes the next customer to get to a service center - a till, a point of sale, a parasol, a baggage check ... in other words : A queue is a situation where the service arrives earlier than the service of the previous visitor on the next order.

Everyone agrees. However, there are two types of queues: the first - when, simply put, what they are queuing for does not end and "this" is enough for everyone, even if not immediately, and the second - when "this" ends quickly and is not enough for everyone. The second is a case of the so-called "deficit". Let's emphasize this point - “deficit” is a fundamentally different type of queue. Although they look the same from the outside, there are a number of people in succession.
And now, as they say, take care of your hands. The fact is that "deficit" has been a noticeable social phenomenon in the USSR since the late 1970s, if one does not take the time of the wars into account. The queue of the first type has always existed - both in the USSR and in all other countries.

Ideological opponents usually argue that there were always queues in the USSR, this was an inevitable part of it, therefore ... there was always a deficit and an ineffective economy in the USSR. However, this is far from it. I'll repeat again: if you don't take into account the periods of wars, economic recovery, and the initial phase of industrialization, the situation with queues in general was pretty good somewhere before the 1980s. That said, over the decades the Soviet economy has functioned successfully and supplies by and large did not work badly, especially considering that all of this came after a series of destructive wars and in an extremely hostile environment.

We will not consider the phenomenon of "scarcity" in this article - as it is completely different in nature from a queue. "Deficit" (lack of something) may not be okay at all. Moreover, the presence of a "deficit" does not mean the weakness of the economy, but only incorrect distribution or other organizational and social phenomena. The second type of queue is a social barometer, nothing more, nothing less. It is an indicator of a very serious imbalance when one has a lot and the other has nothing.Not necessarily an economic imbalance, but possibly a social or criminal imbalance, an indicator that law enforcement agencies can no longer contain pressure from criminals who have partnered with the authorities.
As for the economy, in some cases the economy is effective and in some it is not. In general, the deficit is a very great evil for the public consciousness. It was not for nothing that it was used to manipulate society and destroy the country.

We're not going to take Stalinist time either - this is a completely different conversation when the Stalinist economy was functioning as planned - with no wars and forced development, there were practically no queues and a shortage of necessary goods. We will also not take the period of the last years of the USSR - the queues and deficits of this period should go not through the Department of Economics, but through the Department of Law Enforcement, since they had not an economic, but a clearly planned type of sabotage before the planned destruction of the country.

If you try to take into account the phenomenon of queues in the USSR for all periods of its existence, then you will get not an article, but a monograph of hundreds of pages, of little interest to the ordinary reader. In this article we will consider the period of the "mature" USSR to the beginning of the transition period in the mid-late 70s, when the administrative elite of the Brezhnev period began to move to another world, and the country increasingly began to find itself in the Hands of semi-mafia party clans, which ultimately led to perestroika. This happened because the Soviet system in the form in which it was designed and built was gradually being destroyed from the late 1970s to the early 1980s. And we are interested in what it was naturally and what advantages and disadvantages it had.

There were queues during the reporting period, but they were usually of the first type - due to the insufficient bandwidth of the mount points. From a layperson's point of view, everything doesn't seem easier anywhere - when customer service takes that long, all you need to do is increase the number of serving nodes or service points. But the simplicity of this solution is deceptive and the treatment can easily turn out to be much worse than the "disease" itself. The point is, queues are often very economical - they offer significant benefits, more profit, and better resource management than removal of queues.

In an ideal world and under ideal conditions, there should be no queue, but even then only if the flow of customers is strictly stable over time. In real life everything is different - the flow of customers is inconsistent, then twenty come at the same time (for example, a bus came), then no one at all for half a day. At the moment when the number of service orders exceeds the capacity of the serving node, a queue is displayed. Then, when fewer customers show up, the queue is resolved without a trace, as if it had never existed. This process is repeated cyclically. For example, on a working day, as was usually the case in the USSR, there was no one in the store, and immediately after work there was a line almost to the door.

The same thing happens in every country in the world, even in the West that is so loved by the "reformers" - half-hour and even hour-long queues in the supermarket on Friday and Saturday evenings are completely natural and, despite constant cartoons in newspapers, nothing changes there either. And it won't change. The queue is a signal of exceeding the full system load, lack of redundancy, but it is far from useful to increase this bandwidth.

Let's make a simple argument: if even in the supermarket economy the owner of the service outlet increases the number of employees, there are no queues during peak hours, but the hours when there are few customers and the employees are massively inactive "eat up" all profits.

In reality, labor costs for workers are far from anything. Here we need to add an additional number of service nodes, for example, cash registers, the cost of square meters not incurred for placing goods but for the cash register, as well as the cost of managers who manage additional staff ... as the number of Of course, the price for the service also rises for employees, since the buyer pays for everything. Even without mathematical calculations, it is clear that there is a certain optimum between the queue and the downtime of staff and equipment. It is the profit maximization requirement that drives the restaurant owner to keep their customers in line at least sometimes during the hot lunch break.

Practice has shown that in reality it is technically impossible to organize work without queues in such a way that the required number of employees appear at their work exactly at rush hour, although attempts have been made to solve this problem.

Let us now look at the situation through the eyes of the customer. After all, he is constantly choosing where to go - where there is a line but the price of a service or product is lower, or a place where there is no line but the price is more expensive. The customer knows that in one place he can get a service (for example a haircut) for 10 coins, but without the queue, and in another for 5 coins, but after being in a queue or on a third the price becomes Be 3 coins at all but have a crush. Where the customer goes depends on how and how much the customer appreciates their free time.

You can argue that this can only be so if all customers have the same income then it will really be a matter of free time. It is true, the number one reason when other things are the same and determine the customer's behavior will be his income. For example, a managing director of a company or an expensive lawyer does not stand in line at a cheap hairdresser, but pays three times the price even for the same haircut. However, this requires serious social stratification with all the disadvantages associated with it, such as crime. For example, in the mature USSR, everyone's incomes were relatively equal - the official decile coefficient (excluding subsidies) did not exceed 4.4, and when recalculated, taking into account subsidies for the poor, it was 2.2. Now it is 15. By the way, under Stalin the decile coefficient was around 6 and there were significantly fewer queues, if of course we don't take the war years.

The queues in the USSR were created by balancing principles, i.e. concern for poorly paid citizens and a much fewer number of shops and retail outlets than in the west. The second aspect “for some reason” is not considered at all. Only the physical redundancy of goods and places of their distribution can objectively contribute to the spread of the first type of queue. However, this is not our Russian case. The USSR is not a rich West that finds itself in a much more optimal climate. She also plunders the whole world, which means that she has many hands free from production and can afford such waste. Obviously, it has nothing to do with optimal economic management.

Look, now, by objective Russian standards, trade in Russia is so hypertrophied that it absorbs most of the profits of real production, undoubtedly adding to the further deterioration of the manufacturing sector. The only way out is to come back to the situation with queues and at the same time transfer two thirds of the people currently employed in commerce, mediation and finance to the real economic sector. When production works and is optimized, the queues disappear, for example after the war and at the end of industrialization. Is the queue bad? Yes, of course bad. But unfortunately in this case the alternative is even worse.

In fact, many patriotic citizens claim that any government that does not combat excessive trade will not be a government of national redemption. That is, the queue is not an overwhelming factor within reasonable limits, but a factor that stimulates production.

From the above, an obvious conclusion is that queues generally increase the welfare of society as they provide a more efficient use of resources than compensate for the loss of time caused by queuing. Of course, unless the situation is brought to the point of absurdity, as was done on purpose during the destruction of the USSR. But then the massive queues arose for a completely different reason - as a result of the economic sabotage, "redeemed" rubles flowed from the manufacturing industry into the trade, whereby the money supply rose sharply, but the prices remained the same, so people with "hot" money have swept everything away.
It's strange to blame the Soviet system - it was already paralyzed by a series of blows.

Marketers say standing in line is a waste of valuable time. In their opinion, a limited resource - and this is the "deficit" - should not be allocated to those who previously joined the queue, but to those who "work harder" (the word for those with more money is sent manipulated - these concepts are far from identical) and need more support. Well, of course, who else should the "free market" ideologues support, not the poor?

In the USSR, the idea was exactly the opposite: the system was not only designed to optimize the workload of labor and distributional resources, but above all to ensure the same availability of basic goods with little dependence on personal income. For the “market” the task is simply not set like that, the main thing for them is to ensure the decisive advantage of people with money over everyone else. And at what price it will cost all society, how much it correlates with human concepts of morality and justice - they care the least about it.

To illustrate the essence of the Soviet Union's approach and the usefulness of a certain number of queues for society as a whole under socialism, I will give an example of an economic experiment quoted by P. Heine in his classic work. For the sake of simplicity, I am not presenting his economic calculations.

In experiments to optimize ticket prices in a 700-seat cinema at a student college, the revenues cover the costs for a ticket price of $ 3.15. At a price of USD 2.50 a queue appears and the hall is of course 100% full. This is exactly the situation in the USSR, when the prices of many products and tickets to cultural institutions (theaters, cinemas, museums ...) were subsidized.

However, everything changes when the goal is to get as much net profit as possible from the showing of the film. So what is the price? Answer: $ 5 If the price is set to $ 5, 500 tickets will be sold. Total sales are $ 2,500 and net sales are $ 300. There is no better way ...
Please note the crucial point: With a maximum turnover of 200 (almost a third!) The cinema seats are empty. These are people who are cut off from culture in order to maximize their profits, but more on that later. The most important thing for efficiency, however, is completely different: the market model is fundamentally unable to ensure an optimal allocation of resources. 1/10 to 1/3 of the resource simply disappears.

Another very important point: in the experiment under consideration, the cinema maximized its profit by significantly restricting access to the resources due to the high price. Yes, he won, but this means that in the entire social organism, where no resources are taken from anywhere, someone else has lost significantly.

The bottom line is that there are multiple levels of optimization in any large system and the "market people" who are silent about the rest artificially isolate only one level - the enterprise-level optimization that dominates the market economy, usually at the disadvantage of higher-level optimization . At the same time, local systems conflict with each other, spend enormous resources taking a piece from someone else, as shown in the experiment above, and do not match at the level of the whole society.

As a result, the USSR "traveled", this explains its high efficiency - it was built as a single integral system in which the optimization was at the highest level. In addition, the victim was aware of profits at the local level, as optimizing the allocation of resources at the level of the whole society brought greater profits.

In the USSR, the ticket distribution model (and trade is just distribution and nothing else) would be solved as follows. The price of some tickets will be slightly below demand and ensure that the tickets are available to everyone. Then the vast majority will queue for cheap tickets. The rest of the tickets will be more expensive, but they will be sold for free. After all, the third part of the tickets is expensive but always available and sells dearly until the last minute, and then the price can go down. We will have a typical socialist trade model. In this case the second part symbolizes the Soviet co-trade and the third part the market. If you don't want to stand behind cheap tickets, buy them a little more expensive. If we make the cooperative system more convenient - closer outlets, better opening times, etc. - a significant proportion of goods will pass through the cooperative system. Such a system was extremely developed in the USSR in Stalin's time and was introduced on its insistence. Unsurprisingly, the queues were few. Incidentally, the idea of ​​cooperative trade at the state level and with the support of the state does not belong to Stalin, but to Lenin. Stalin simply implemented it very successfully, despite the fierce resistance of the "revolutionary Leninists".

The cost of pacifying society in the event of ideological incidents that would many times exceed the losses of the state, which sells tickets at its expense. The current history of Russia has perfectly proven this.

And who loses due to incorrect optimization? The whole of society is losing and is very big. The inevitable social stratification and isolation of a significant number of people from the benefits that are fundamentally inaccessible to them has to be paid for with severe social tensions, leading to an epidemic of suicide, drug addiction, an epidemic of unmotivated cruelty and the reluctance of the population to give birth to children.

The cinema here is just an example, by the way, pretty good. The fact is, the choice in this case was made by students, not the wealthiest segment of the population - if a ticket is $ 3, a student can eat something for $ 2 and see a movie, then for $ 5 the choice is yours - go to the cinema or have dinner ... In general, 200 out of 700 people under the market system cannot have dinner and have fun. And such a significant layer of people, who in principle have no access to social benefits above the minimum in a market economy, will always be. Of course, the ratio will vary from 30% in the US to 90% in Paraguay, but it will always be. Do you think this is normal and natural? Well then you will get wild street gangs, lots of suicides, unthinkable for a "damn bullet", a sadistic boss, a close relative who became a drug addict, and other "free market" joys.

Liberals point out that students and teachers paid with money, while in the USSR people "paid" with their time, which was all the more wasted. Yes, time is money when it comes to production. However, the vast majority of the population queues outside of working hours.

Another thing is that when people are living right and all is well with public morals and health, queues generally worsen the situation in society as a person generally has less time to spend with family and take care of their health, for example about sports and so on. ... The person in line is under unnecessary stress.

Remember that in a "market economy" a person spends even more time chasing money, and it is better not to mention the stress that this happens - stress in a moderate queue seems a breeze. They just need to be clear about what society pays when it chooses a social model - what is it "connected" to, what is its downside, the payment of benefits?

What if you raise the price but don't add the amount of money as the Liberals suggest? A price increase in itself means that for the same content, the consumption of the product decreases because one person can buy less of this product. With the money supply stable, the prices of other goods should fall. If no new money is printed, a price increase with the same consumption and the same production leads immediately to a decrease in consumption, ie there is at least a slight overproduction, as is the case with the cinema. In other words, the efficiency of the economy will decrease as some of the resources in the form of other overproduced goods are thrown in a landfill or no service facilities are used.

But what about the Liberals' argument that the excess profit from selling milk at an increased price is being used to expand their production? Not everything is that simple - the profit from the sale of milk can help expand production if it is guaranteed that it will result in a further increase in profits. Why should they be? If the milk price does not go up, no one will invest in additional production. You can certainly invest, but the profit was very small. In reality, this money cannot increase milk production much because it was too small compared to the losses from overproduction. And to really increase milk production, huge investments were required at the state level. This has shown the experience of today's Russia and all former socialist countries, where much less meat and milk were produced.

By the way, the main increase in labor productivity in the USSR was associated not with investments by the producer of raw materials, but with state investments in science and technology.

Queues of the first type in the USSR were economically viable, as they made it possible to save resources in the face of uncertainty about future demand. By the way, they are also an advantage in the West.

We have an excellent historical and economic experiment to test the null hypothesis with a huge statistical data set. In place of the former socialist countries, more than 24 states emerged, ALL of which eliminated socialism and the Soviet queues. They acted in different ways. Some like Poland used shock therapy, others like the Czech Republic and Ukraine acted very gradually. Hence there is no reason to believe that it is a matter of manager mistakes, “distortions of the right market idea”, and so on.

An analysis of the situation in all (!) Post-socialist countries showed that less meat and milk were produced if the queues were eliminated. All over. Awesome, isn't it? For that it fought and ran. This is about the efficiency of the economic system.

Wait, the market economists' original hypothesis was that after the queues were eliminated, meat production and consumption should have increased? It turns out that's not the case at all. It seems that one could conclude that the queue stimulated production.

In fact, however, everything is noticeably more complicated - there wasn't a queue that stimulated, it would be ideal if it didn't exist at all. It was stimulated by the Soviet economy, with a slight imbalance that resulted in queues. This is the price paid for its beneficial properties. There are crises in socialism no matter what the Marxists claim, and the indicator of socialist crises is a queue. With a slight offset, this is a queue of the first type. In severe crises, queues of the second type appear - this is the weak side of the Soviet system, although production will not be disrupted if it is not artificially disrupted. This is the strength of the planned Soviet system.

Likewise, social tension, crime, moral decline, mass ruin with a corresponding wave of social collision are payment for the pleasure of having a "free" market.

I can be accused of idealizing the queue. It's not like this. I've seen all of the joys of standing in line the hard way. During the Soviet era, have you ever stood in line and asked me more than once? Yes, personally I stood there many times - I had to transport sausages and other products from Moscow to Ivanovo. The impressions are unforgettable, but by no means terrible as you want to imagine now. The queue is a whole layer of culture.

But why it was impossible to organize the Swedish system with numbers - it was elementary to do it, I didn't understand. At one time it struck me as strange why it was so difficult to develop a system of paper numbers. Although, if by and large, why is this numbers and digital display system fundamentally better than the Soviet one? A little more expensive, that's all. And its "advantages" are only visible in small queues. If there are many people, where will they sit and walk? - There will still be a lot. In the Soviet line it was also not necessary to be buried in the back of the front man. If there were benches you could sit. You could take the line and go for a walk.

All of this could most likely have been organized in the USSR, but hands were not reached. The queuing culture had to be developed. Trading in orders could be of great help here and has developed strongly. The packaging industry also developed ... But then there was an urgent need for the ruling elite not to solve problems but to make money from the "runoff" of their own country.

Now to the question that the necessary products were supposedly impossible "to get" in the USSR. This is an absolute lie - there was an alternative: the meat was in the store for 2 rubles, in the Coptorg for 3.5 rubles and in the market, for example, in Ivanovo for 4 rubles. There were shops to be ordered. There you could buy to order, but pay an additional 30%. Shop without queuing - no problem! After all, meat like milk could be out of order in any Soviet canteen. Although it was more expensive there than in the store - from 25 to 50%. Special funds for schools for meat and milk were made available for children, and they received a substantial portion of it. For infants, milk was distributed through milk kitchens. Milk and meat were always given to nursing mothers ... Of course there was always the option of buying them in a co-shop or at the market. I emphasize: always.

So the argument “hungry children without food” is just a dirty lie. 100%. Given the fact that in the current "Russia", according to official data from the Defense Ministry, every third of the conscripts (yesterday's schoolchildren) "suffer from serious weight loss", this is particularly disgusting, to put it simply, dystrophic. I certify as a doctor who worked in the USSR - there was no dystrophy there. Generally.

It may appear that the author thinks the Soviet distribution system is ideal. No, that is not so. I consider the Soviet economic system to be far more efficient and fairer than any other, including the Western model. It's just that we need to get the best out of the Soviet system, take into account its shortcomings and flaws, and move forward. It is possible that the distribution system will function differently in general in the future. If the new Russia manages to enter a new post-industrial age, large cities will appear to be disbanded and relocated, and a significant portion of primary production will be produced locally, and there will be little need for distribution channels we are used to. In addition, nobody is going to kindle consumer desires with advertising and the like.

The planned economy also destroys the queue and is often more efficient than the market economy. Under Soviet rule, the queue was an operational regulatory mechanism. The market economy has an advantage in terms of the speed of reaction, but is incomparably more expensive than the planned one.

There were many ways to neutralize the negative effects of queuing, but the worst route was deliberately chosen - this is the transition to a much less economically efficient and immoral capitalist market implemented in today's Russia and the former socialist countries.

S. Mironin

REFERENCES

1. (see first option) http://vif2ne.ru/nvz/forum/0/co/217465.htm
2. Heine P. Economic thinking. www.libertarium.ru/libertarium/lib_thinking
3.http: //adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978STIN...8016549A
4.http: //www.contr-tv.ru/common/1872/
5.http: //www.contr-tv.ru/common/2337/
6. McConnell C.P. and Brue S.L. 2007. Economy. M. Infra-M.
7.http: //www.rusproject.org/pages/history/history_9/russianmiracle_base.html
http://www.rusproject.org/pages/history/history_9/russianmiracle.html
http://www.rusproject.org/pages/history/history_9/integratedsystemstalin.html
8. Glazyev S.Yu., Kara-Murza S.G. and Batchikov S.A. 2003. White Paper. Economic reforms in Russia 1991-2001 M. Algorithm. Pp. 62-63.
9. Mironin S. 2005. The naked market king. Internet site versus TV screen. http://www.contr-tv.ru/common/1461/
10. Glazyev S.Yu. et al., 2003. pp. 62-63.
11. Mironin S. 2005.http: //www.contr-tv.ru/common/1461/

A familiar picture: in a large fashion store, there are many cash registers, but only one works and there is a long line nearby. How can you minimize situations that have a negative impact on customer loyalty and save money at the same time?

Clothing and shoe stores usually have significant areas, large numbers of cash registers, and staff who are responsible for their jobs and helping customers make choices and make a purchase. Despite all this, we regularly run into queues there. Although several stationary money islands are organized in the store, usually only two or three POS terminals work. As a result, the retailer is losing revenue out of the blue as a large percentage of shoppers who spend time waiting in line immediately go to competitors.

There are several reasons for this problem:

  • the staff is not always motivated to serve the buyer immediately.
  • there are often more cash registers than salespeople.
  • selling clothing itself takes longer than, say, completing a purchase at a grocery store. Therefore, the average customer waiting time at the checkout is quite high, even with a small number of items.

Technology introduction as a solution to saving problems

Is it possible to fight this phenomenon? As our practice shows, yes, quite. For this purpose, it is enough to revise the company guidelines in terms of personal motivation of staff and introduce special technologies that will allow better and faster service to customers. Modern automation devices for retail, for example, make it possible to abandon the classic stationary till island, on which customers gather in the store, in favor of payment acceptance points that are spread over the entire retail space and are possibly more than normal cash registers.

It's really nice that you don't have to pay extra for this upgrade. In addition, it is very likely that the retailer will also save on equipment.

Today, almost every clothing store is equipped with mobile devices, such as data entry terminals (DCTs) or tablet computers, that you can use to scan goods and receive information from a database. They become the main tool in the converted business.

Using a mobile device, the seller can complete the customer's purchase by scanning the barcodes of the selected items and inviting them to accept payment.

How does it look like?

From a technical point of view, everything looks like this: tax registers (FR) or cash registers (KKM) are installed on the payment islands, and receipt printers are simply connected to the local network of the business. After the consultant creates a check on a mobile device, they send it to any FR for printing. He brings the customer to this island, who can pay for the purchase there. In addition, the consultant advises the anti-theft labels on the goods and packs them.

It is important to note that when using this solution you need to ensure that the selected cash register software works identically on both a regular POS terminal and a mobile device.

Of course, even if the modernization of the store is introduced, it will not be possible to completely remove stationary cash registers. In an emergency, you have to leave at least one, e.g. B. due to a technical defect. The local network of the store no longer works.

Benefits of the solution for a retailer

What are the advantages of modernizing with express checkouts for a fashion store:

  • The retailer dispenses with conventional POS terminals and thus saves money on purchase and space, as he does not have to think about where to place large system blocks. Instead, there is only a tax register and a bank terminal at the time of payment - both devices are very small and therefore take up very little space. This means that the island itself can be tiny.
  • In business, you can organize the right motivation of employees: if the number of sales affects salaries, then it is beneficial for consultants to serve as many customers as possible. This means that they will endeavor to both provide advice that will lead to the purchase, as well as making the payment and registering the goods. Incidentally, the responsibility of the sales staff increases, which is also an advantage for the retailer.
  • Business modernization does not require lengthy and complicated training of business staff. Accordingly, you do not have to incur any additional costs.

Starting July 1, 2017, all cash registers must send electronic versions of checks to the tax office. Banki.ru has decided to confirm or reject numerous predictions about the impending death of retail trade in Russia due to the mandatory transition to online cash registers.

Drive instead of tape

On February 1, 2017, an amendment to Act 54-FZ "On the Use of Cash Registers" came into force. Now, small and medium-sized businesses are having to get used to working with online cash registers or face fines equal to 8ph5% of total profit. It takes six months to one and a half years to get used to and buy new equipment - for different categories of retailers.

The retail and service industries are facing dramatic changes. From February 1, 2017, the traditional receipt will be officially converted into mandatory electronic data. They are kept by the tax data operator and the tax office. What difference does this make for buyers and sellers?

As early as July 1, 2017, all cash registers must connect to the Internet and send electronic versions of checks to the tax office. For this purpose, instead of the well-known electronic control tape (EKLZ) instead of the well-known electronic control tape (EKLZ), the cash register should have a control drive - a device for encrypting and protecting control data. The information from the tax accumulator is transmitted to the tax authorities by an intermediary - the operator of tax data (OFD). In addition to the paper receipt, the owner of the cash register equipment (CCP) is required to send it at the buyer's request electronic versioncheck to this adress e-mail or participant number.

The new CCP legislation only recognizes devices that not only print a receipt but also transmit information about each transaction as cash registers to the tax authority (via the OFD). These devices are known as online cash registers.

All legal entities and sole traders who re-register the CCP only need to submit new devices for registration. This rule applies from February 1, 2017 . Those who had old-style devices will have to replace them with new ones shortly before July 1st . From this date, the data transfer to the financial companies begins.

To whom the law is not written

Evgeny Luchin, a senior lawyer in the European Legal Service, notes that strict reporting forms actually equate to bank checks. The automated system for creating strict reporting forms is, in turn, an essential part of cash registers: that is, the obligation to transmit information to operators of tax data also applies to those who use SRF.

54-FZ gives some companies the right not to apply CCP until July 1, 2018. Such an option is available to organizations that are involved in, for example, the sale of securities and tradable trading. The full list is described in Article 2 (2) of the Law "On the Use of Cash Registers". Individual entrepreneurs who are involved in activities and issue strict report forms to customers can also orientate themselves on this date.

Today there are a number of categories of sole proprietorships and legal entities that don't need to use CCP at all. Who are these lucky ones?

These are entrepreneurs and organizations that carry out the following activities:

  • sale of newspapers and magazines, provided that newspapers and magazines make up at least 50% of sales;
  • trade in retail markets, trade fairs, exhibition complexes and other areas intended for trade;
  • distribution of food and non-food products;
  • Sale of ice cream, soft drinks in bulk in kiosks;
  • trade in kvass, milk, vegetable oil, live fish, kerosene from tank trucks; he promoted the seasonal trade in vegetables, including potatoes, fruits and melons;
  • absorption of glassware and waste materials from the population with the exception of scrap metal;
  • realization of folk handicraft products.
There is one more exception to the general rule - people who work in remote areas. You are not obliged to transmit tax data to the operator. At the same time, the main criterion for seclusion established by the Ministry of Communications and Mass Media of the Russian Federation is the number of inhabitants, which should not exceed 10,000 people. Each Russian region will independently determine the list of remote areas.

How much?

According to the innovations, even entrepreneurs who are not yet using cash registers must buy online cash registers by July 1, 2018 and send information to the tax service in the manner established by law. There is a transition period until July 1, 2017: You can use old devices, but only upgraded CCPs are allowed until registration. As of July 1, 2017, two categories of entrepreneurs will completely switch to a new procedure for working with CCPs - the general and simplified tax system.

“In order to carry out the registration process for the cash register, it is sufficient to go to a special internet resource, create a personal account and carry out the online registration process. The innovation significantly reduces the time required and also greatly simplifies the registration process itself - there is no need to contact the tax office in person. All you need to do for this process is create an EDS - an electronic digital signature, ”says Konstantin Khanin, attorney in the legal department of HEADS Consulting.

Accordingly, in connection with Act 54-FZ, every sales point must be equipped with the Internet. The advantage is that the drive stores receipts and sends them to the Federal Tax Service immediately after the connection is restored if the internet stops working. The expert believes that changes in controls and forms of strict accountability are causing difficulties for trading companies. It lies in the fact that now the amount of data that must necessarily be present in a tax document is increasing.

Comparative analysis of the expenditure for electronic control tape (EKLZ) and tax accumulator (FN) according to data from UniCredit Bank

* For entrepreneurs with UTII, Article 4.1 of 54-FZ provides for a period of 36 months. However, such tax accumulators will no longer be manufactured from 04/21/2017 (according to experts, they cannot be manufactured in 2017).

** The average market costs of the "CCP maintenance per year" service are given.

The cost of switching to online checkouts varies from 30,000 to 60,000 rubles per checkout. In connection with the innovations, there is no need to use the services of technical service centers, and the price of the necessary contract with the tax data operator will not exceed 3-4,000 rubles.

Konstantin Khanin believes that the new trade rules are more detrimental than positive for small businesses. Since the changes are related to remodeling old equipment or purchasing an online cash register, such entrepreneurs incur significant costs and their profits can barely cover those costs.

Even so, Khanin is sure that it still makes sense to run a small trading company according to the new rules. “The main thing is to do everything in good faith and to comply with legal norms, as fines for not complying with legal requirements can turn into significant business costs,” recalls the lawyer.

Average acquisition and maintenance costs for KKT according to data from UniCredit Bank

(Points 2, 3, 6 and 7 are optional costs, the rest are mandatory costs.)

The matter will not be limited to cash register expenses. One of the main goals of the law is to improve tax collection, which increases business costs. This is particularly true for small businesses, which first have to bear the cost of reforming the whole payment system and then have to pay more taxes.