Business culture, company culture, as in, "We don't bake our buns on site, we put our burgers under heat lamps, we don't think it's important to train our employees how to mop the floors, we don't think fresh unfrozen ingredients are important, we do franchises, etc."
And that's nice and all, but entirely irrelevant to the OP. I'm sure the strikers are demanding to be taught how to mop properly, and are just aching for fresh, unfrozen ingredients. It's entirely relevant to your last post. No, really? The point is that it's part of the same context that you've insisted on pushing that has turned this thread into something other than I had intended. I'm just trying not to be a total dick, and so I'm entertaining your ideas because you think they're so important that they're worth dismantling someone else's topic thread to talk about them. Make your own thread if you want to talk about employer business practices so much. I might even comment in it. I promise I'll stay on topic. Seriously, do you really think any of us are gonna argue against fresh ingredients? Obviously fresh ingredients are better in terms of both taste and nutritional value. I don't even think any of us would argue with you that's it's possible to still make a nice profit while serving a good product and satisfying both customers and employees. I think we all want clean, healthy, low-cost, fast food restaurants where employers, employees, and consumers are all happy. The problem is, that has nothing to do with the OP. You keep wanting to talk about employer business practices, and whether it's out of narcissism, reading comprehension problems, autism, or some form of undiagnosed mental retardation, you still haven't figured out that you are not in any way, shape, or form arguing against any point made in the OP other than that you might've said that you believe the strikers are allowed to strike. Yay. Me too. I just think it's dumb. |
|
|
|
Business culture, company culture, as in, "We don't bake our buns on site, we put our burgers under heat lamps, we don't think it's important to train our employees how to mop the floors, we don't think fresh unfrozen ingredients are important, we do franchises, etc."
And that's nice and all, but entirely irrelevant to the OP. I'm sure the strikers are demanding to be taught how to mop properly, and are just aching for fresh, unfrozen ingredients. |
|
|
|
It's a culture thing. McDonald's just can't visualize anything that isn't McDonald's like.
Also completely false. McDonald's has changed many times over the years, and experiments with new restaurants and culture constantly. You heard of Roy Rogers restaurants? Those are McDonald's owned. How about Chipotle, which started the awesome high quality burrito trend that was also copied by BajaFresh? Guess who you have to thank for Chipotles? Yep, McDonald'a. Ummm, no. I've seen McDonald's way of cooking and menu for over forty years. Not many changes there. Doesn't McDonald's serve stuff like fried insects in some Asian countries? I'm pretty sure they feature culture-specific food at many international locations. as in this case, doesn't refer to the community, but the way of thinking by the business. I think both cultural contexts are implicated in what I said. There's the community culture (i.e. insects are popular to eat in some areas), and there's also the way of thinking about business in terms of cultural trends (e.g. your 'burrito trend' example vs. my 'insect trend' example). |
|
|
|
It's a culture thing. McDonald's just can't visualize anything that isn't McDonald's like.
Also completely false. McDonald's has changed many times over the years, and experiments with new restaurants and culture constantly. You heard of Roy Rogers restaurants? Those are McDonald's owned. How about Chipotle, which started the awesome high quality burrito trend that was also copied by BajaFresh? Guess who you have to thank for Chipotles? Yep, McDonald'a. Ummm, no. I've seen McDonald's way of cooking and menu for over forty years. Not many changes there. Doesn't McDonald's serve stuff like fried insects in some Asian countries? I'm pretty sure they feature culture-specific food at many international locations. |
|
|
|
Entitlement mentality exists only when you have the means to live decently and you believe you deserve more. Ex: Any big business crying to mommy government to bail them out when things are going bad.
When you're poor, it's not entitlement, it's called "surviving".
I disagree. I think that it's the antithesis of "surviving." It's only "surviving" if it works (i.e. strikes lead to wage increases which allow significant improvements in ones quality of life). As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the last time McDonald's workers went on strike in Chicago, they received a 10 cent raise. This means that if they went on strike for even a single day, it would take nearly 3 months of full-time work for that 10 cent wage increase to earn them back their lost wages from that one day. I wouldn't call that "surviving." I'd call it horrible risk analysis. You seem to be stuck on this. Are you opposed to strikes simply because they are ineffective? In that case, the title of this thread should be changed to "poor risk analysis" from "entitled mentality." If you feel that striking is not the ideal approach to securing higher wages, share your wisdom with the strikers, not this Libertarian-leaning forum. Coals to Newcastle. Sorry for being "stuck" on topic in a thread that I created. Nine pages of clarification and you're still asking why I'm against the strikes? I'm not "sharing wisdom," I shared an opinion and asked that others do the same. It's called conversation, and it happens when people share ideas. Answer the question in red boldface plz. Not entirely, but that has a lot to do with it. |
|
|
|
Entitlement mentality exists only when you have the means to live decently and you believe you deserve more. Ex: Any big business crying to mommy government to bail them out when things are going bad.
When you're poor, it's not entitlement, it's called "surviving".
I disagree. I think that it's the antithesis of "surviving." It's only "surviving" if it works (i.e. strikes lead to wage increases which allow significant improvements in ones quality of life). As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the last time McDonald's workers went on strike in Chicago, they received a 10 cent raise. This means that if they went on strike for even a single day, it would take nearly 3 months of full-time work for that 10 cent wage increase to earn them back their lost wages from that one day. I wouldn't call that "surviving." I'd call it horrible risk analysis. You seem to be stuck on this. Are you opposed to strikes simply because they are ineffective? In that case, the title of this thread should be changed to "poor risk analysis" from "entitled mentality." If you feel that striking is not the ideal approach to securing higher wages, share your wisdom with the strikers, not this Libertarian-leaning forum. Coals to Newcastle. Sorry for being "stuck" on topic in a thread that I created. Nine pages of clarification and you're still asking why I'm against the strikes? I'm not "sharing wisdom," I shared an opinion and asked that others do the same. It's called conversation, and it happens when people share ideas. |
|
|
|
Entitlement mentality exists only when you have the means to live decently and you believe you deserve more. Ex: Any big business crying to mommy government to bail them out when things are going bad.
When you're poor, it's not entitlement, it's called "surviving".
I disagree. I think that it's the antithesis of "surviving." It's only "surviving" if it works (i.e. strikes lead to wage increases which allow significant improvements in ones quality of life). As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the last time McDonald's workers went on strike in Chicago, they received a 10 cent raise. This means that if they went on strike for even a single day, it would take nearly 3 months of full-time work for that 10 cent wage increase to earn them back their lost wages from that one day. I wouldn't call that "surviving." I'd call it horrible risk analysis. |
|
|
|
|
To me, it not even an issue of trolling (I despise the word, actually). Matthew contributes to the community not only through speech, but through action. Whose vision was it that helped Bitcoin Mag launch? Matthew's, of course. Even his ill-advised community bet was made in an attempt to show the community how foolish it can be by carelessly handing out BTC to total strangers (e.g Pirate). Unfortunately for Matthew, the mere existence of the bet caused some people to act in ways which cost them money. But it takes a stand-up guy to acknowledge his responsibility to pay back debts he was never prepared to pay back, and as far as I'm aware, Matthew has paid, and is continuing to pay, the debts he owes.
In my opinion, not only shouldn't Matthew be banned, he has downright admirable qualities, and it's a disservice to the community to ban him.
|
|
|
|
P.s. because theymos doesn't appreciate freedom of speech, I'm technically banned and can't respond to any threads (including this one) until dear leader decides I am now "safe" to let back in (safe meaning I won't bring up the hypocrisy of letting Garr225 scam because they are friends and give me a tag, all while saying he doesn't give tags anymore as an excuse for not giving one to avalon, BFL, Garr255, etc. Hahahaha. Wow.)
Is that true? Is he really banned from this forum? He was banned for a little while, but if he's able to post here now I guess not? I'm interested in this snippet... "letting Garr225 scam because they are friends..." Did I miss this somewhere on the forum? Does this have truth to it? |
|
|
|
|
On an interesting side note, FirstAscent, it is your exact line of thinking and reasoning which I believe exemplifies the reason why I created this thread in the first place!
I think some people naturally look outward to blame. There is a huge difference between accepting a given state of events and then doing what you can to maximize your success in those events vs. refusing to accept a set of circumstances (commonly known as denial) and then blaming who you find to be responsible for those circumstances. It is clear from our exchanges both privately and in this thread that you refuse to even accept that this thread is not about the topic you think it's about...and then you blame me for misunderstanding!
I actually wasn't able to put an exact word to the root of the emotional process behind the entitled attitude, but I think "denial" might work well enough. How is a striker in denial? Well, assuming they aren't also working a second job, or working on the skills needed to find a better job or create another means of income, I think they are unable to accept that they ended up in a shitty financial situation and simply refuse to accept that they had anything to do with getting there. Or in some interesting cases, maybe they're in denial of their potential.
|
|
|
|
We've already established that you have no experience with In-n-Out. Why are you even contributing on this subject?
The topic is wages. Quality of food is subjective, and a straw man you added to the discussion. We have also already established that you don't understand business or economics, so why are you contributing to that subject? I've weighed my statement against yours, and I found more truth in mine. See here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=268056.msg2893060#msg2893060Define livable? I don't mean feel-good buzzwords. How do you actually figure out what to put down on paper? You have mentioned something about time being important, something about hard work needing to be rewarded, and some other feely subjective things. How about you bring it all together and tell us what a livable wage is, how it might be different in different economic environments around the country, or why someone who wants or needs the job, and is willing to earn less for it,should be prevented from doing so?
I suggest you seek studies on the cost of living for various geographical regions instead of asking me. I submit that it is greater than minimum wage. I made no claim as to what the exact amount is. Likewise, I suggest you defer to consumer reports or other journalistic reports regarding the appeal of In-n-Out burgers over your own misguided conclusion based on zero experience. The problem is that for 9 pages in this thread you've consistently tried to interject, as both Rassah and myself have dutifully pointed out, strawman arguments that are OFF-TOPIC. As I have clarified and now so has Rassah, the topic is about wages. More specifically, it's about whether workers' are entitled to wages they are demanding in the CHICAGO strikes. Ever seen an In 'N Out in Chicago? No? Then STFU. This thread wasn't even about employers at all. It is about the attitude of a person given a set of circumstances. It's not a thread about whether employers should change their practices, it's a "what the fuck should a person do to survive?" thread, and also a "is it reasonable for strikers to demand the changes they are asking for?" thread. The difference is that I'm asserting a given state of events (i.e there ARE low wages that people aren't happy with), and you're too focused on trying to change the given state of events...which is off-topic. |
|
|
|
|
Yes, and it's better tasting than McDonald's, too. You have a serious problem with inference. I want a McD's burger because it's cheaper and more nostalgic, and all I have to tell them is "no pickles."
You read way, way, way too much into stuff, find things that aren't there, then turn those imaginary things into the context of your argument (you are the straw GOD!).
|
|
|
|
So In-N-Out may be higher quality but it's certainly no cheaper. McDonald's is 3.00 plus tax for the stuff you mentioned. The McDonald's I live near gives out the small cups for free, so I pay $2.00 for a McDouble and fries. I think that all McDonald's are obligated to give you a cup of "water" (which you can fill with anything) for free. Besides, I think that I said in my original post, that if such a company existed they were not nearly as efficient. McDonald's, BK, and Wendy's are all much more popular than In-N-Out, so arguably In-N-Out is not nearly as efficient. A McDouble doesn't compare. Stop pulling from Rassah's uninformed playbook. I'd take a $1 McD's burger over a $2 In 'n Out burger any day. I always have to remove tons of crap I don't like from In'n Out burgers. |
|
|
|
Your efficiency argument is inefficient.
Ridiculous. In the real world, my argument demonstrated the invalidity of J603's claim. I suggest you get back to what you're good at: whining about people making claims about you that you don't agree with. Your argument is flawed because it implies a limit to efficiency as a result of merely having human employees that need to be paid. Why aren't you condemning fast food restaurants for not automating everything? Better food, served faster, with fewer mistakes. And best of all, super low labor costs! Then you can lower the food prices to beat all competitors, including In 'N Out. Sounds like a better restaurant to me. We'll know it's a better restaurant when we see it, experience their service and atmosphere, and taste their food. Until then... Hey, now you're getting it! Now just apply that same statement to McDonald's... |
|
|
|
If you start tripping then you were not smoking weed.
I TOTALLY disagree. Cannabis is a narcotic that has hallucinogenic properties. (Kind of like Opium). Well I TOTALLY x2 disagree. Marijuana is not hallucinogenic. If you've taken acid, salvia, any of the "c"'s, or even shrooms you would know this to be true. And Opium is nothing like weed. You must get some very powerful stuff. Maybe OP should go to you? FYI, tobacco is a hallucinogen too. I googled it and Nicotine is a stimulant according to every source. THC seems to have no classification, and is called a stimulant, depressant, hallucinogen, and psychadelic. Tobacco is a hallucinogen. Guess you've never tried Rustica. It'd take you about 3-4 packs of American cigarettes (all chain smoked) to feel any kind of hallucinogenic effects. |
|
|
|
Your efficiency argument is inefficient.
Ridiculous. In the real world, my argument demonstrated the invalidity of J603's claim. I suggest you get back to what you're good at: whining about people making claims about you that you don't agree with. Your argument is flawed because it implies a limit to efficiency as a result of merely having human employees that need to be paid. Why aren't you condemning fast food restaurants for not automating everything? Better food, served faster, with fewer mistakes. And best of all, super low labor costs! Then you can lower the food prices to beat all competitors, including In 'N Out. Sounds like a better restaurant to me. |
|
|
|
Once again, the poster boy for those who don't listen speaks.
1. If you're just plain bad and slow at your job, nobody is advocating any type of wage. But if you do your job well at, say fast food, for 40 hours a week, you deserve a decent wage. Such a job may not require a degree, but that doesn't mean it isn't work.
2. As for your arguments about raising the cost of burgers, that's dependent on how the business is structured, and there are businesses which pay a decent wage, make better burgers than the competition, and charge less. If you can't compete with those businesses, maybe you shouldn't be in business.
1. Why does working 40 hours a week mean you get a good wage? McDonald's work is easy. It doesn't require a degree because a monkey could do most fast food jobs. Apparently monkeys can even work in higher class restaurants. Because 40 hours a week (plus getting ready for work and commuting to work) consumes most of your time. Pretty simple. 2. What fast food place is cheaper than McDonald's but higher quality, while paying more than any other place? Obviously no place exists, or McDonald's would not be such a dominant force in fast food. Even if this place did exist, they have a very inefficient business model.
Glad you asked. http://blogs.wsj.com/independentstreet/2009/01/28/in-n-out-burger-vs-mcdonalds-guess-who-won/https://www.google.com/search?q=in-n-out&safe=off&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=hF0KUuHbI-G2igK6wYCQDg&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1144&bih=1006A cheeseburger, fries and soda costs just over $5. Starting pay is $11. They're serving more customers at 3:30 in the afternoon than most fast food restaurants are serving at 12:20 in the afternoon. At lunchtime, I will count about fourteen employees working in an In-n-Out. They never freeze any ingredients. They have no microwaves or freezers or heatlamps. Potatoes are sliced from whole potatoes at each store. They have the freshest fast food you'll ever eat. Why not just make everything automated? Wouldn't that be the most efficient? You know, if a business really wanted to be as efficient as possible they'd just have machines serving the food faster, fresher, and better than the employees ever could. Oh, but wait, then you wouldn't really need the employees... So maybe we should just set limits on how efficient a company can be to ensure that there will always be employees around to be paid and to take away from company efficiency. Your efficiency argument is inefficient. |
|
|
|
If you start tripping then you were not smoking weed.
I TOTALLY disagree. Cannabis is a narcotic that has hallucinogenic properties. (Kind of like Opium). Well I TOTALLY x2 disagree. Marijuana is not hallucinogenic. If you've taken acid, salvia, any of the "c"'s, or even shrooms you would know this to be true. And Opium is nothing like weed. You must get some very powerful stuff. Maybe OP should go to you? FYI, tobacco is a hallucinogen too. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
