Quote from: FirstAscent on July 30, 2013, 05:05:53 PM

Quote from: the joint on July 30, 2013, 04:48:51 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on July 30, 2013, 04:44:14 PM

Quote from: the joint on July 30, 2013, 04:41:09 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on July 30, 2013, 04:30:05 PM

Quote from: the joint on July 29, 2013, 10:44:02 PM

Quote

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.

Not at all. It's been demonstrated that fast food restaurants can afford higher wages. They just have to be a successful business, such as In-n-Out. Of course, if you're less successful, or let's just plain say, "unsuccessful", you can still get your business to survive if you pay below a living wage.

If your food is of low quality, and your service sucks, you can't pack your restaurant at lunch time. Ergo, you're not selling to capacity, and your bottom line is not so good, so you have to pay low wages. That just about sums it up for most fast food restaurants.

It's a non-sequitur because you're saying I'm implying something that absolutely doesn't follow from what I said. My statements apply to those employed by both 'sloppy' and efficient businesses. What you said would be like me suggesting that you're now implying that every business should only be allowed to profit a certain amount and the rest should necessarily be distributed to employees. But that, of course, would be silly...

Incorrect. If I said that, In-n-Out's owner would have to distribute her billion dollar plus fortune to its workers. Ridiculous.

As for your statement - you admitted it. You advocate both 'sloppy' and efficient businesses. I advocate efficient and well run businesses myself.

Read it again. I am indeed saying it would be ridiculous for me to suggest that is what you implied, just as its ridiculous that you're saying I'm implying anything about 'advocating' sloppy businesses.

I will say that there simply ARE businesses that are sloppier than others, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the OP.

Everything I've said is indeed implicit in your OP.

Mediocre fast food restaurants fail (and thus need to pay lower wages) because they offer a substandard product and thus get less customers per store. These restaurants employ one half to one fourth the employees per store that In-n-Out employs, and serve one half to one fourth the customers at any given time. They fail precisely because they have bad service and bad food.

Note that they require two to four times as many stores to create the same revenue that one In-n-Out store creates. And so, because of their poor product, they pay their expenses out to real estate costs and building costs, instead of to the employees.

Is this an entitlement issue with regard to the employees? No, it isn't. If you want to look to why these crappy businesses exist, look to the minimum wage.

All you're doing is talking about something that you 'think' is implied but is really so far off-topic that it warrants reporting to a moderator (I wouldn't do that, but I'm simply trying to tell you that whatever implications you think are present are a product of your imagination.)