Because In-n-Out focuses on profitability, excellent food, and excellent service, within a framework that pays reasonable wages. Maybe if McDonalds focused on being profitable while paying better wages and offering better food, they too would have a more sophisticated and thoughtful expansion plan.
Regarding trying recipes: they're clueless.
Regarding locations: ask yourself why In-n-Out's very crowded restaurants do not drive away customers.
Also, as I've said, they're employing more employees per store, so it's not as if In-n-Out is employing less employees per region.
McDonald's is a franchise. How many employees per store there are is not the McDonald's company's choice. Even if an individual McDonald's makes no money, the company still profits in the end off of that establishment. And all businesses focus on profits, but some (like McD's) make more than others. So? |
|
|
|
Who would say no to better working conditions and better wages? Is that fair or is it also entitlement mentality to think like that?
Of course that's fair. But since In-n-Out is focusing of quality instead of cheap jobs, they may not have jobs available for you, meaning you'd have no option but McDonald's. Would it be fair for you to make an offer to In-n-Out to work for less than what they currently pay their employees, in the hopes of getting one of their employees jobs, which you said is better? McDonald's had (and has) an opportunity to create a business model like that of In-n-Out. The result would be no price change for customers buying lunch, no fewer employees (due to reasons outlined in my last post), and very possibly increased profitability as well. It's a culture thing. McDonald's just can't visualize anything that isn't McDonald's like. |
|
|
|
The first thing they need to do is get better recipes and cooking methods.
They did/do, all the time, by trying new recipe. Recently they had Angus Deluxe burgers, but those were dropped. All that does though is raise costs, not cut them, and likely for a lower marginal profit increase. For example, apparently adding superior Angus Deluxe burgers didn't increase their profits, so your idea of superior recipes and cooking methods didn't work. Then cut stores, which cuts real estate costs.
Cut wages from minimum to zero? Tell franchise investors who sunk millions into their own restaurant that they should accept their losses, pack up, and leave? With better recipes and and less stores, they'll attract the customers from the removed stores to the remaining stores, bringing in more revenue per store.
Maybe. They tried recipes, but those don't always work. And they do close unprofitable locations sometimes, but if one restaurant even make $1 in profit, why close it? You're thinking that if A gets X customers, and B gets Y customers, then if you close A, then B will get X + Y customers. But that's simply not true. B may not have the capacity to handle all new customers, and long lines will drive them away, and customers who bought from A location may find B's location inconvenient. And, of course, less jobs for locals. This is exactly what In-n-Out does: half the stores as McDonalds per area, yet more customers per store, because their food is so good.
If it's so great, how come McDonald's is all over the world, and In-n-Out is only in your area? Because In-n-Out focuses on profitability, excellent food, and excellent service, within a framework that pays reasonable wages. Maybe if McDonalds focused on being profitable while paying better wages and offering better food, they too would have a more sophisticated and thoughtful expansion plan. Regarding trying recipes: they're clueless. Regarding locations: ask yourself why In-n-Out's very crowded restaurants do not drive away customers. Also, as I've said, they're employing more employees per store, so it's not as if In-n-Out is employing less employees per region. |
|
|
|
Someone across the globe could do the same work for pennies and make a living. Maybe instead of forcing wages to go up, government should force the price of food and housing to go down. Then we'll all be rich living on $1 a day  Another post that doesn't demonstrate thinking outside the box. Because, what is more "outside the box" than the tried and true "Minimum Wage" Getting businesses to look elsewhere to cut costs besides the labor force. I've already explained how In-n-Out does it. You said McDonald's has shit restaurants with shit food and shit service. What more can they cut? I already explained that to you. The first thing they need to do is get better recipes and cooking methods. Then cut stores, which cuts real estate costs. With better recipes and and less stores, they'll attract the customers from the removed stores to the remaining stores, bringing in more revenue per store. This is exactly what In-n-Out does: half the stores as McDonalds per area, yet more customers per store, because their food is so good. Result: costs are cut. Did you know that at lunchtime, you can count about fourteen employees in an In-n-Out? |
|
|
|
You're right, doesn't mean it's not hard to moderate. Sick people are sick with or without drugs
Watch the trailer to this wonderful film, and read the subtitles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOOr4nuWFqUWatch the movie too. |
|
|
|
Moderation is not that hard, unless you have personal issues. What's wrong with this?
I'm sure every drug addict never decided to be an addict to begin with. These people were messed up to begin with. Or uneducated (ie taking too much) That sounds like an uneducated comment. It's not hard to moderate dosage and frequency when it comes to drugs. With all the info of the internet I'm sure addicts had similar thoughts. |
|
|
|
Moderation is not that hard, unless you have personal issues. What's wrong with this?
I'm sure every drug addict never decided to be an addict to begin with. |
|
|
|
I've seen Chunking Express after staying at the Chunking Mansions years ago. I thought it was a bit slow, but my tastes have changed since then, so I might try it again.
It's Chungking - not Chunking. I wouldn't call it slow. A better way to look at most of my recommendations might be some combination of the following: - Meditative - Hidden meanings - Parallel stories - Alternative film grammars - Significant - Critically acclaimed Most of my recommendations aren't what the average joe is looking for on Saturday night. I've added Late Spring and Sansho, both look really good and definitely a films I feel I should see. I'll check the others out after I've seen these but it may be some time.
Please approach both of these films with the proper context to derive maximum pleasure. Google the two directors and read some blogs, critical studies, etc. The directors are, respectively, Yasujiro Ozu and Kenji Mizoguchi. Both the directors, and their films are huge within the context of cinema history. Unfortunately it doesn't seem Pale Flower is available.
If you're in the U.S., check here for availability on Hulu Plus: http://www.criterion.com/huluI'm not sure I like the sound of The Cruel Story of Youth but I've added Ivan's Youth and Marketa Lazarova.
Cruel Story of Youth is an excellent introduction to Nagisa Oshima, who began making films as a general rebellion to the works of Yasujiro Ozu (see Late Spring, above). And Oshima was one of the members of the Japanese New Wave, of which Masahiro Shinoda was another (see Pale Flower). If you're going to do Ozu right (director of Late Spring), then you do it this way: familiarize yourself with the reverence he is accorded by the film community and why. Get familiar with his themes and film grammar by earnestly watching two of his films, read more about him, and commit yourself to watching the following films if you like him: - Late Spring - Tokyo Twilight - Equinox Flower - Late Autumn - The End of Summer - Early Summer - Floating Weeds - An Autumn Afternoon - Tokyo Story Be aware that Tokyo Story was recently voted the greatest film ever made as voted by directors worldwide and Late Spring was voted the fifteenth greatest film ever made as voted by critics worldwide. From there, I strongly urge you to start exploring the work of Mikio Naruse, especially When a Woman Ascends the Stairs, Yearning, Floating Clouds, Flowing, and others - mostly those that star Hideko Takamine. And finally, be sure Yi Yi is on your list, as that is something amazing. Have you seen any Emir Kusturica films? Underground is a particular favourite of mine.
I have not, but I am now checking out what he has to offer on mubi.com. He looks interesting, but is getting mixed reviews from the crowd over at mubi, which is a crowd which leans towards the arthouse. I will still explore his offerings in more depth. The directors I have mentioned, Ozu, Mizoguchi. Kar-wai, Naruse, and Edward Yang are in the stratosphere as far as love for their works and respect go. |
|
|
|
Someone across the globe could do the same work for pennies and make a living. Maybe instead of forcing wages to go up, government should force the price of food and housing to go down. Then we'll all be rich living on $1 a day Another post that doesn't demonstrate thinking outside the box. Because, what is more "outside the box" than the tried and true "Minimum Wage" Getting businesses to look elsewhere to cut costs besides the labor force. I've already explained how In-n-Out does it. |
|
|
|
Someone across the globe could do the same work for pennies and make a living. Maybe instead of forcing wages to go up, government should force the price of food and housing to go down. Then we'll all be rich living on $1 a day Another post that doesn't demonstrate thinking outside the box. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Feel free to keep ignoring how you would establish what a "fair wage" is by the way.
Something approaching livable. |
|
|
|
Compare sales per store. Compare ratings. Compare worker happiness. Compare freshness of food. Compare prices per volume of food received. Compare earnings per store.
OK, let's compare McDonald's at Downtown Disney to any In-n-Out in the whole country (I am actually being fair, because McDonald's in Italy and Germany is WAY better than here). Sales per store: McDonalds wins hands down. That place is packed from early morning to late evening with huge lines. Ratings: Likely a tie. That McD's uses the best quality ingredients and has impeccable service Worker happiness: No clue. Those McD's workers live in Florida, right next to Disney, work in a high quality wealthy area, and get somewhere around $10+ an hour. Freshness of food: tie for that location Price per volume: In-n-Out wins. That McD's is very expensive Earnings per store: Pretty sure almost every McDonalds store earns more than any In-n-Out. The one in Downtown Disney earns more than most other McDonald's. Final result: You can make up any conclusion if you are selective in what you compare. Bottom line is, McDonald's bottom line trumps In-n-Out's bottom line. We've already established that you have no experience with In-n-Out. Why are you even contributing on this subject? |
|
|
|
The argument was on what is a better business. I do not care whatsoever what people think the quality is. McDonald's is more successful and cheaper. Also, how does McDonald's rank lowest if it's the most popular, I wonder? Maybe because they're where better places are not? Compare sales per store. Compare ratings. Compare worker happiness. Compare freshness of food. Compare prices per volume of food received. Compare earnings per store. |
|
|
|
Since we've had this conversation before, I know the following:
You've never eaten at In-n-Out, and nobody but someone who has never eaten at In-n-Out makes a fool of themselves comparing a McDonald's 99 cent cheeseburger to anything In-n-Out offers. Please stop offering your opinion on this matter.
I've eaten at McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, Hardee's, Checkers, Fudruckers, Rally's, Red Robin, and a few others. So what? I can pretty damn well guess what kind of burger In-n-Out offers.
No, you can't, since you've compared it to a McDonald's cheeseburger in two separate threads. See here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=268056.msg2893060#msg2893060 |
|
|
|
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. I think you're lying to try and save face. Consider this earlier post of yours with the relevant statement boldfaced: If they can strike, more power to them. Agreed. Maybe it will weed out the fast food restaurants that aren't popular due to crummy food. In-n-Out pays well above minimum wage to start, and they do quite well, because they offer a superior product. I'm struggling to find the relevance here. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. In-n-Out is tasty though  Maybe you shouldn't be bitching about what other workers seek in the world, but instead about the idea that any business should succeed, even if they produce a lousy product. My issue is more with the idea that my intuition tells me that this is an inefficient use of the strikers' time. I don't have a problem with people striking, but consider the following: the last time this happened, McDonald's workers in the area got a 10 cent raise. This means that if a worker was to go on strike for a single day, it would take >500 hours or about 3 months of working for that 10 cent raise to earn them back their lost wages. I wonder what percentage of those workers receiving that 10 cent raise remained employed for at least three months after the fact. On a side note, ever drive through bumper-to-bumper traffic and realize the only reason the traffic jam is there is because some group is protesting about something you don't care about? When it starts affecting (objectively) the flow of my day, that's when I feel inclined to give my input. And don't pull the line about how it's going to make lunch prices go up. In-n-Out offers a soda, a delicious cheeseburger and delicious fries (all from fresh ingredients trucked to the store daily) for about $5.00. I wasn't even thinking it. It's not the workers' fault here. It's businesses which choose not to streamline their process and offer a superior product and service that are at fault. To me, this isn't an issue about placing blame. Rather, I see it as a failure-to-adapt problem. Let me be clear first off by stating that I would never even propose a dichotomy of "workers' fault vs. employers' fault." Instead, to me, the situation appears as follows: There are some fast food workers who are dissatisfied with either pay, working conditions, or both. Three things are absolutely certain: 1) They applied for their current job on their own free will, 2) there were preexisting factors or conditions that led them to decide to apply for their current job, and 3) they currently have other options to choose from, and striking is at least one of those options. I simply believe that out of the options available to them, striking is not an optimal one. Of course this is all my opinion. Essentially, it sounds like you're advocating a sloppy and lazy business plan. Quit your whining, enjoy your job, and instead of complaining about workers seek in this world, why don't you go enjoy a nice lunch somewhere?
Holy non-sequitor. |
|
|
|
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'm pretty sure you can get a cheeseburger, fries, and a coke for about $3, to $4 at McDonald's. Most of those items are a dollar each there.
Since we've had this conversation before, I know the following: You've never eaten at In-n-Out, and nobody but someone who has never eaten at In-n-Out makes a fool of themselves comparing a McDonald's 99 cent cheeseburger to anything In-n-Out offers. Please stop offering your opinion on this matter. FirstAscent, you keep saying "descent wage," or "actual work," or "most of your time." Personally, I also believe that everyone should have a great income, and work in very nice jobs, and be very efficient with their time. But that says pretty much absolutely nothing. So, can you be more specific? Give us a formula that would determine how much someone should get paid based on the type of work they do, the amount of time it takes up, and what you consider to be decent wage. Then please explain why someone shouldn't be allowed to work for less than that wage if they need the job more than whoever is holding it now.
Still not getting it, are you? In-n-Out employs about the same number of employees per lunch served as other fast food restaurants, but pays more. Therefore, it appears you're trying to make the argument that if other restaurants adopted a model such as In-n-Out, there would be less jobs for burger flippers. Here's some advice, since you desperately want to show that businesses can't afford to pay more: look at the various fast food business models, and see where they're wasting money and why they're wasting money. |
|
|
|
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... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
