Population Growth

Just an observation; 

There are numerous YouTube clips that explain population growth. They factor in: medicine, wealth, education, contraception, movement to city dwelling as factors driving down population growth. These are all historical factors that are assed with hind sight.

None of these models mention the effect of new technology. e.g. Transport and the past restriction and current ability to travel (migrate) as a factor. The other big factor is the media. 

From TV to internet, media shows people in the developing countries how much easier/”better” life is in the developed world.  Programmes, adverts, films with people in nice cloths, house, and cars (Isn’t that part of what broke down the iron curtain?). 

The assumption is that the developing nations continue to develop and the population stays put while it happens. However, with the knowledge and ability that technology brings, why would they waiting for their nations to catch up with the developed nations (one or two generations)?

Would they not travel to where life was “better” now (for them and their children rather than just their grandchildren)? 

Assuming it is the educated and wealthy that migrate away, what drives development in the country they have left? Do these countries develop slower, or not at all? Does the birth rate remain high, so breaching the UN’s expected population plateau of 10-billion?

I don’t know the answers, but the models that exist (publicly) are based on historical data and take no account of “what if?” scenarios. Projecting the past forward unmodified is as a bit naïve. 

Anyway, global warming, a superbug, WWIII and the meteor of doom are other possibilities that will make this point mute. 

Refurbishing 1 - Lime & Cement Mortars

I recently moved into an old London house (built in 1864). It has not been refurbished, but had some work done on it in the 1970's when the outside toilet was modified to lead off the kitchen and become a bathroom. Central heating was installed in the 1980's

The old steel gas pipes are still in place and connected although the fittings have long gone and ends capped off.

Electricity has been added in stages. There is no "consumer unit" just a series of isolation switches and large bakelite fuses. I have some lead sheathed cable with cotton and rubber insulation still in use with 15Amp and 5Amp round pin sockets.

The mains water supply is lead pipes.

Windows are single glazed wooden sash, apart from two at the back which are draft louvre.

Much of the external concrete mouldings, window sills and brickwork is in poor condition and been badly repaired in the past.

Internally there is some damp that has rotted some joists and damaged plaster work.

The house is in a conservation area which limits what I can do. I'm retired and decided to undertake the refurbishment myself (slowly) This is a 1st of a series on my progress as I seek to find out what and how to do it.

The first job is to stop the damp. One area is under the front door step that has rotted the hall joists. This has happened before as I can see where the joists have been replaced, however little to nothing was done to prevent the water coming in and they have rotted again.

I need to take out the door step and investigate and prevent for the future.

Knocking out the doorstep is one thing but I need to replace it after and this lead me to investigate mortars. Here is the summary of my finding on mortars...  


Why Lime Mortars?
A1) You mustn’t have a mortar stronger then the masonry (because it damages the masonry).
A2) It’s better than cement only mortars 

Background
Cement was invented in 1824 and not perfected until 1860 dominating construction in the UK in the 1930’s. Lime mortars are the principle mortar used in construction until then. 
Pure lime mortars behave as if they are flexible and lime cement mortars are slower hardening and remain more flexible than cement sand mortars. Lime, therefore, enhances the ability of the brickwork to accommodate stresses caused by building movement and cyclical changes without excessive cracking.  A water saturated brick can be as much as 10% bigger then when full dry. These natural movements in a building cause stress. In cement only mortars the mortar can be stronger than the brick and can cause the brick to crack and/or spall (flakes off).

Mortar is an expendable part or the construction and is expected to last around 100-years before repair (e.g. re-pointing). It will turn to dust over time as part of its job of holding the brickwork together and allowing movement.

Benefits of Lime

Workability - Lime improves the plasticity and workability of mortar, while providing a high degree of cohesiveness it also spreads easily under the trowel.

Water retention - Lime mortars have higher water retention, creating an improved bond as there is more contact between masonry and mortar. Retention of water in mortar improves carbonation in pure lime mortars and results in best conditions for early hydration of cement lime mortars – thus reducing cracking and water penetration into hardened mortar joints. The closer bond also reduces water penetration after hardening and has a positive effect on thermal insulation.

Mortar strength - The use of lime in mortar reduces the compressive (load carrying) and flexural (bending) strength of the hardened mortar.

Vapour permeability and Freeze-thaw - Vapour permeability of mortar improves with increasing lime content. A high lime mortar can act as a 'wick', to allow water vapour to pass out from the building enabling the structure to effectively 'breathe'. Vapour permeability allows any moisture to evaporate, thus reducing the risk of freeze thaw deterioration.

Autogenous (self) healing - Should hairline cracks develop in the mortar, the combination of lime, moisture and carbon dioxide from the air can help to seal the crack by the formation of calcium carbonate (limestone). The crystals that are subsequently formed by this process help to plug the cracks.  Repeating the process turns the lime based mortar to dust over a period of around 100 years. Cement based mortars crack and need replacing earlier.  Most commonly affects the exposed surface (pointing).

Types of Lime

Air Lime – non-Hydraulic/Quicklime/Putty Lime - Uses atmospheric carbon dioxide to form calcium carbonate.

Hydrated Lime – Will not set while in contact with water and is added to cement mixes to give the benefits of lime.

Hydraulic Lime  - Fat lime -  Uses the process of Hydrolysis to set, so will set while in contact with water. Used in Lime+Sand only mixes. Setting time for lime only mixes is much slower. 

Motars
Usually consist of 3 or 4 parts, but other additives may be used.

1. Aggregate – e.g. sand, provides the bulk of the mortar
2. Binder – e.g. Lime and/or cement, binds the aggregate together and the mortar to the masonry
3. Water – Catalyst for binder and bonds the mortar parts together as a cohesive substance.
4. Filler – materials which are added to a mortar to bulk up the mix and fill voids

Mix

Hydrated Lime Mix – by volume
                   Use                                 Sand Lime       Cement
General Building above ground       5   1           1
General Building below ground             6   1           1
Internal Walls                                       9   2           1

1. Dry mix until very even mix
2. Add water slowly and stop when the mix looks slightly too dry
3. Mix the wet mortar for a good 10 minutes and the mix will eventually become more workable 

Why do we blame the poor?

My only qualification for my opinion is I've lived 60 years. Through observation it seems obvious to me, yet many my peers who worship the gods of football, beer, money and possession they seem not to have noticed.

My surname is Condon and you can probably guess at how much other kids liked to laugh at how close it is to condom. Even before kids discovered condoms I was a shy and introverted kid with a mother that doted on me. She protected me too much, and spoiled me too much for my own good. This made me ripe for the local bully (Mark Slaughter) to make my life a misery from about 4 years old until 11 years old. I can remember thinking at the time "what does he get out of this?"  I wasn't his only victim and he was shunned by most of the other kids down my street (this is in the 1950's/60's when you could play in the streets).

I can't say a I worked out why he did it then and have no Freudian insight to his home life that might explain it. However, I noticed at secondary school the tendency for the bully to pick on the weakest and most vulnerable. It seemed  as if they liked an easy target. Someone easy to intimidate and/or unlikely to fight back.These bullies would normally have a gang of three or four others that followed them around. 

What was curious to me was that no one apparently taught them to do this. Maybe they had an older sibling that dominated them at home and seemed to have get away with it.  They simply copied what appeared to be a successful tactic when they got the opportunity. Who knows?. They did however, learn from the "success" of their bullying that not only did they get to the front of the queue, get the sweats/toy, but they also got adoration from their followers (some followed for the protection they got). I also noticed that one bully would sometimes bully another bully and the latter would immediately (or as soon as they had licked their wounds) find someone to bully, as if they needed to re-establish their position in a hierarchy that they had created.

What was obvious was that their status was artificial. They never picked on those that would fight back (as if they were outside the self constructed hierarchical structure). They preferred to bully with others present to magnify any humiliation and their status. Bullies often had nothing and simply picked on those with even less as if to show "well at least I'm better then you". As school progressed bullies seemed to change, a few were motivated by something to study, but most didn't see education as a way to improve themselves (after all they had got to there current lofty heights trampling on others), but as a weakness to pick on even more. I should say this is within a boy/male paradigm. I have know idea what girls went through. 

When I first left school at 16 I became an apprentice. The selection process meant that bullies with their lack of education simply were not qualified to apply and so as a "working class" boy I suddenly left the working class bullies behind.

I can't say I came across bullying to any great extent again until after I got an attack of career, achieved an MBA and moved into management. I was shocked when some graduates that came straight into management turned up with superior attitudes. Not only did they not value the work of the people they managed, but they were more intent on their own careers than doing a good job. They seemed to perceive that they had arrived at the bottom of management and they needed to move up. Amongst those that had worked their way up the ranks this was rarer, although not entirely absent. Like those that switch who they vote for just because they own their house, there were those that had personality changes once they moved into management. 

These ambitious bullies would make almost incredible promises, or accept impossible targets. Like stock brokers and accountants they looked at past performance and predicted the future without reference to a changing environment. To reach their goal they would bully those below to go faster, work harder and became less and less rational as their target became obviously unachievable. In this case these bullies are not peers but leaders with power. When they said do X most feel they need to do it. When it didn't work you got a bollocking, so you stayed late and got in early to get the work done. Just like the bully waiting behind the bike shed to give you a thrashing if you don't hand over your dinner money. If you achieved the target this would inspire the next target to be even harder and reinforce the bullies paradigm that pushing and threatening people worked.

As I moved up the management structure many of these people fell by the wayside. This was because those that could moved on, leaving the unit to decline and fail totally. I'd say that I found most director level people that had worked their way up (not necessarily from the bottom) had a pragmatic approach. However, accountants seem to run (if indirectly) most companies and their lack of commercial knowledge and most others people's lack of numeric knowledge means unrealistic and/or unsustainable targets are set. 

Back to the bullies at the top. The bullies at the top have a great survival technique. They take on an unrealistic target. e.g. I will open 4 new branches, as each current branch generates £1m of revenue our revenue will grow by £4m. Sometimes the not all the branches don't get opened. Then that is the fault of Strategy, Marketing, Operations or other department for failing to identify the right locations/build the branches. Or the branches get opened but some or all achieve less then £1m revenue. Then that is the fault of Sales, Marketing or other department for failing to bring in customers. Regardless the fault lies elsewhere and the fault was the original target. This bullying of peers forces them (and the company) into directing resources to a flawed plan in order to avoid blame. It's another bizarre behaviour and can lead these management peers to start to bully their own teams to get results.

The original bully survives as the misdirection of blame distracts from the route cause, at least for a year or two. By which time the whole division or company is in terminal decline. But don't worry, they did an excellent PowerPont presentation. Style over substance, another of my pet hates.

So to get back to the title, "Why do we blame the poor?". It's because it distracts us from the route cause of the problem and solving it. The Nazis did it with the Jews and is one of the most extreme examples, but there are may examples where one part of society blames another for its woes. 

Society is broken in as much as the rich have become the super rich and the poor are poorer than ever and using food banks. Do we blame those in charge, the Government? Do we blame those with power, the Banks, the International and Multinational business that sway government policy? No! for some bizarre reason we blame those without power, the poor and the immigrants. Yep, it must be their fault.  

Why do the general public not see this lie for what it is? Maybe its because we are all a little bit of a bully and when we are all under pressure its easier to pick on the defenceless and hope we escape, than those that might fight back.

For most of recorded history (since the Egyptians at least) there have been the "haves" and the "have nots". The difference between the top and the bottom has been huge. Slaves at one end and rich dead people being buried with gold. In Victorian times slavery may have been abolished in that one person could not legally own another, but freedom is the ability to make choices. Without money there are few choices to be made. The poverty of the Victorian era saw the poor being blamed too. Statistics was a civil services invention to prove that the poor were inferior to the rest of society and deserved less. It actually proved that they were the same...Back to the point.. for most of the last 2000 years the difference between the poor and the rich has been enormous. In Europe the two world wars levelled people as class was set aside to win the war. People fought and died side by side regardless of class. After the war there was a greater voice from the workers and their unions. Sadly some union leaders went too far and enabled Thatcher to eroded their power. Greed became good and every man for himself replaced the comradeship of the war and post-war years. Slowly and surely we appear to be returning to what has been the normal state that has endured for 2000 years with the super rich and powerful and the super poor and powerless.

2015 UK Election Results - My View

Why did the votes get cast/not cast in the way they did/didn't

So lets get passed the votes not cast. Why would you not vote?
a) no one worth voting for
b) nothing worth voting for
c) cant make a decision (all the same or like part of one and part of another manifesto)
d) practical problem (working, on holiday, ill, emergency)
e) something better to do (watching tell, playing games)
f) too much effort

with d) and  e) there is little that can be done. Some may say make politics more exciting... good luck with that.  maybe make it part of the Lotto draw with £1m to one lucky voter... "in it to win it"

with f) the Lotto may help here too but also online/text/telephone voting would directly reduce the effort needed.

with c) it's things like the Tories saying "We now have a clear mandate to negotiate with Europe" when the campaign focused on the Economy and that is (probably) the main issue that people voted for. Their attention was not drawn to the Tory desire to scrap the Human Rights bill. Labour's campaign focused on their desire to save the NHS, but not to do anything about immigration. If you want something done about both issues where do you go? You may believe that the NHS will not change regardless so you vote for immigration controls, or don't vote at all.

with b) "I'm all right Jack" or "nothing to lose" means that those at both ends of the social spectrum are ignored (largely) by all political parties for all practical purposes. Also those that believe that regardless of who gets in little will change, as businesses and banks run the world.

with c) a big part is the result of the celebrity culture that places style above substance. Not what you will do (or say you will do) but the way you smile and  dress. how fluent and confident you are. Ultimately that comes down to upbringing and education which instilled confidence (but not necessarily ideas or morals)

So why did Labour not do better? According to the media they were too left for middle England and too right for Scotland. Taking the media at face value (dangerous and stupid). 
Labour (like the Greens) has failed to address the real concern of immigration. People who everyday meet foreigners working in shops, transport, health, agriculture and builders. Immigrants often have less than the poorest already in the country so jump the queue for housing, education, health. Eaton may have its rich overseas students that have pushed up fees but they speak English and have a good primary education, so they do not adversely affect the education of the others. Not so in state schools.

Side thought: - the immigrants trying to cross the Mediterranean and enter Europe through Italy. These are not the poor and destitute of their country but relatively wealthy (paying trafficers) buying their way out. They are not coming to adopt a culture that has give us the wealth they desire. Enterprising they maybe, but put that into changing your own country and for those that can't afford to pay the trafficers.   

I find it incredible that we know we live on a finite planet and we (developed and developing countries) use "economics" as our guiding principle to our actions. Yet economics demands growth and if the planet is finite then growth has to be too, therefore economics will eventually fail. In the UK immigrants contribute more to the economy than they take out and hence few politicians want to do anything about it. They will not be around when the real problems start.

The god "economy" is so persuasive (yet few understand it) that the Tories kept banging on about it and all the right wing press did too. This put fear in people so the reaction was "I don't understand it but it seems important and it looks like the Tories are the ones to make it work" vote.

LibDems didn't really make their mark during the coalition. What did they do/achieve? Banged on about it after, but not at the time. Would it have been any different without them? So the traditional LibDems shifted to where they thought their vote would have more value.

The Greens (despite their open door immigration policy) and the SDP were the only two to paint a vision of the country and what they wanted for people living here. The others all had point solutions, immigration, economy, NHS, education, Europe. but with no coordinated view about what the country would be like if they were all solved. The SDP had a more personable leader and a lot of momentum from the referendum. They were able to present a well rehearsed, coherent and plausible vision. The Greens by comparison looked like radical left idealist. I suspect that many were put off by the Australian as much as what and how she said it. Regardless the fumbling and brain freeze put them closer to UKIP in terms of credibility.

Finally UKIP. Thank god that's over...Farage can go back to guest appearances on "Have I got news for you"

Economy in 2015 Election

In the UK as the election approaches the main thing the most political parties agree on is that the economy needs to grow and grow fast to give us all a “better” standard of living and to pay for the social services (including the NHS).

What is the economy? I’m sure to many it is something they’ve hear of, but have paid very little attention. They may think they even know what it means. However, in a straw poll amongst some friends the most consistent view was its about how much money the country makes selling it goods and services to other countries.

Surely that is international trade? Part the economy but not the whole. The dictionary defines economy as “the state of a country or region in terms of the production and consumption of goods and services and the supply of money.”

There would appear to be three elements then: Production, Consumption and The Supply Of Money.

Money Supply first

(this basically shows that the government has almost no control over the money supply, so if you can’t be bother skip to the next section)

In the UK (and most other countries) you may think the government controls the supply of money. Well you are wrong. The Government controls how much money is printed/minted but most money exists as numbers in the computers of commercial banks.

The reality of how money is created today differs from the description found in some economics textbooks:

• Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits.

• In normal times, the central bank does not fix the amount of money in circulation, nor is central bank money ‘multiplied up’ into more loans and deposits

Source: Bank Of England, Money creation in the modern economy

So the government (via the Bank of England) can at best influence the supply of money through interest rates and quantitative easing (QE).

Interest rate theory

By lowering interest rates people and businesses can borrow more as their income enables them to afford the repayments. These borrowings enable them to buy more or invest more. Well what if you don’t want to buy more? Your job security maybe uncertain, or perhaps you have most of what you need (I have one suit why do I need another?). As a business it’s about what I can sell. If my market does not offer me growth (saturated or competition) why am I going to invest? More efficient machinery maybe. That machinery needs to earn its keep and has to be paid for even if I can’t sell more or if the market shrinks. People are on a salary and can be “let go” if the market shrinks keeping cost in line with revenue. 

The upside of lower interest rates, buying more or investing more, would grow the economy, but that is not what is happening. It affects savings, my bank pays 1% on savings. It’s not hard to find share dividends that pay 4% (and that’s without growth in the share value). So what is happening people are investing in shares and the stock market is rising. 
It is mainly the young that are trying to accumulate “assets” house, washing machine, car etc and they have the least savings and least job security to borrow against.

Quantitative Easing Theory

QE is about putting more money in the economy. This too (like low interest) is intended to encourage spending and investment. However, unlike interest this is not given to everyone but given to large financial companies. These companies suddenly have a lot of cash. They could lend it but those that could afford to pay it back don’t want it and those that need it are too risky to lend to so … they put it in the stock market, for the same reasons as all savers (those with more money than they need to spend). This is not even close to rocket science!

Production

Production in the UK has (since Thatcher’s time) been switched from Goods (physical products) to Services. There are some manufacturing businesses, but these (with some exceptions) rely on brand reputation rather than innovative. Many of the larger brands are owned or have major share holdings by overseas companies or investors that take the profit out of the UK. Our water industry, telecommunication, energy, rail and lately NHS are all leaching money out of the UK economy.

There is a scheme to sell your property and still live there. It’s called “equity release”. Now the companies that give the money need to make a profit so they give you less than the house is worth (even if you only have 24 hours to live). They reduce that amount depending on how long you have to live and may take into account that prices will go up. Whichever way you look at it you get back less than if you kept it and passed it on to your descendants. Why would you do it unless you had no choice! Yet the government has sold of tax payer assets to companies that gave a windfall to the exchequer (that has long been spent) and the tax payer now has to buy the services form private companies. These may have been poorly run nationalised business but they now produce huge profits which leave the country. What was needed was better management not sell them off. With improved management these profits would be surpluses that would feed into the exchequer year after year. Whether the costs of these services was reduced or the tax burden was reduced it would put more money in the economy, just like low interest rates and QE.

Consumption 

Several things have depressed consumption. Uncertainty about the future for people and businesses as well as the insecurity of jobs and low pay. On the individual basis this has affect the young and the poor far more than the rest. The young have usually been the ones aspiring to own their own car and house. The ones that buy transient fashions to look good. The old (over 45) buy functional and probably already have it. They have a mortgage that they can see the end of, if not already paid off. They have a house that may need decorating every 4-7 years, but they also have DIY skills. They have saving and investments. They don’t need to borrow even if something major happens. What they do consume more of is health and care services. So on the one hand you have a group that can’t spend and a group that won’t spend. When it comes to businesses these people are their market. With the exception of HDTV and smartphones little new “must have” new technology has evolved in the last 10 years. Cars, white goods, brown goods etc have all become more reliable. I’m using a word processing software that is not the latest but does more than I will ever need. Why change it? The main growth area for the old and rich is entertainment, leisure, pleasure and experience. Sadly that doesn’t equate to buying UK “production”

In conclusion

The economy may be hugely important to getting richer (that doesn’t mean happier). The current theory (shared by all the major parties) is flawed. Even if it wasn’t flawed there seems little that they can do. As they cut back spending they increase uncertainty and risk. As they deprive the poor and the young they starve the very people that will buy the economic growth. Personally I think a sustainable, cooperative and more equal society would correct the economy as a by-product.  

Supermarkets - Which is cheaper?

The simple answer is none. They've all moved. It's what you buy where. Even found Waitrose has some bargains, though nothing at M&S.

I've been using a free web site called mysupermarket.co.uk to put together my shopping list. I put together the list based on Asda, but you can choose most of the major supermarkets.

You can compare the cost of getting your shopping from one or other shop as a whole, but comparing item by item is time consuming.

The system keeps a list of all the items you've bought before as a "favourites" list plus you can create list for making cakes or other recipes. The system will also highlight offers and discounts.

The prices are not always the same as in-store as home delivery has a few discounts are not available in-store.

My nearest supermarket is Asda but next door is a Lidl. Lidl are not on mysupermarket.co.uk so I take my list in there first and anything that is cheaper in Lidl I buy there and what is left I buy in Asda.

Observations:-

• Lidl is not always cheaper, buy a long way.
• The most consistently cheaper range is their vegetables. They also have a much longer life (so less waste).
• Some meats are cheaper but most are more expensive
• Some of the unknown brands are cheaper, but of these some are obvious lower quality, while others taste no different (and actually prefer)

A £43.62 shop list (April 2015) at Asda ended up costing me £38.89 after splitting my shopping between the two. That £4 saving means that every 10 weeks I get a free shop or every year I don't pay for 4 weeks (1 months) shopping. If someone offered you a guaranteed free months shopping you'd take it wouldn't you?

Cabbiges and Petrol

Sainsburys, Tesco's and Morrison's have had their market share reduced by low cost supermarkets, specifically Aldi and Lidl. Adversely affecting their share price. Here is a personal observation of what is wrong and what they need to do to put it right.

Before the recession and wage freeze Sainsbury's lost its market leadership to Tesco's. At the time, if you were shopping in both you would have noticed that Sainsbury's ran out of certain goods. There were empty sections of shelf's and occasionally some common vegetables were missing. They also decided to reduce availability of some items and move them to the top shelf, further reducing the sales. At some point they convinced themselves that customers didn't want them rather than the reality that customers couldn't find them and were making do with substitutes. On the other hand Tesco's had not only got the basic logistics right of keeping the shelf's full, but had also moved into clothing and electrical at the same time. It was around this time I changed from shopping at Sainsburys to Tesco's. However, about 18 months ago I stopped shopping at Tesco's and switched to Asda and Lidl. 

Tesco had started off as a "stack 'em high, sell 'em cheap no frills" supermarket but had gradually transformed into selling a huge range. You have to ask yourself how many makes of baked beans do you need to carry for your average shopper to be happy? And that is just one product! All those minority products that only a few want is money sitting on a shelf gathering dust. More importantly, in business terms, it is not making more money (profit). The upshot is you have to put up the prices of the goods that are selling to cover the cost of the goods that aren't.

So why have I moved to Asda and Lidl?  Well, they are close together, shopping is not my idea of fun use of my time. If Lidl was close to Tesco's or Sainsburys I may well substitut one of them for Asda. But, Tesco's and Sainsburys had bought the "prime" locations and forced the two to the other end of town. What was intended to be a sterile circle without competition, is now a moat that customers don't want/need to cross. If Asda and Lidil weren't close together I'm not sure I'd use both, but as luck, fait or design would have it! Also, Lidl has all the basic food at a good price and their fruit and veg seem to have a better life in my larder and fridge, probably because it turns over quicker and spends less time on the shelf. However, Lidl has two failings that force me do a part of my shopping in Asda. 1) Lidl is not always the cheapest. Some items (mainly meat) can be surprisingly more expensive.  2) Lidl doesn't have the range. Two makes of baked beans is enough for me but it is things like, Spices, herbs, sauces, ginger, chillies, pulses, etc are missing.

So what do I think Sainsburys and Tesco need to do? 1) Reduce the duplication of products. One own brand and one named brand of baked beans, done! 2) Click and collect. Or at least partly. Reduce the speciality products, but allow customers to order on line or in shop for collection, free. Learn from Amazon have everything available and cheap, but you have to wait. I don't see this as a problem as I'm normally making a list the day before and especially if I'm going to follow a recipe. This would use their existing warehouse and transport infrastructure for fulfilment. 3) Improve the quality of the fruit and veg. I don't want a lettuce that goes off before most of the week has gone, but I also don't want a melon that is still rock hard two weeks after I bought it.

Doing this will reduce the amount of money tied up in stock enabling price cutting without adversely affecting profits too much. It also uses the assets in infrastructure to differentiate them from Aldi and Lidl. 

The massive stores seem to have had their time.