Quote from: the joint on August 13, 2013, 05:24:28 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on August 13, 2013, 05:20:09 PM

Quote from: J603 on August 13, 2013, 05:07:24 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on August 13, 2013, 04:26:19 PM

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=1006

A 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.

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:

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

Quote from: FirstAscent on July 29, 2013, 07:12:13 PM

If they can strike, more power to them.

Agreed.

Quote

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

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

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.