I’ve worked at a McDonald’s store which was a franchise and had a Drive-Thru. Whether or not things have changed since my day, I don’t know.
I would imagine it’s more to do with something like the insurance needed to cover a Drive-Thru which inhibits franchise stores from having them, as opposed to a centralised block, but I could be completely wrong.
Ah fair enough. My sister was managing one for a franchise back in…erm…well I guess it was 15 years ago now? I’m sure she’d told me about the issues they had getting the good spots to open stores, that the corporation held onto the ones that were most profitable and those were the Drive-Thrus or something like that.
I wonder how much of an impact Subway’s had on McDonalds in the UK. I think i’m right in saying they have more stores than them now. I know giant babies on here hate Subway, but they’re a healthier alternative and do more to appeal to vegetarians, people who only eat halal meat, etc. Purely in terms of turnover they must’ve taken a right chunk of the market in a very short time.
Places like McDonalds should be fully automated, no one aspires to work serving burgers anyway. Granted it will take a full restructuring of society to make this happen, but there’s no time like the present.
I have three economics degrees and work as a professional economist - but ask me anything relating to day-to-day/political economics and I’m just like o_0
The responses from the franchisee seem to leave out that the “rising labor costs” they’re talking about are generally nowhere near the rate of inflation.
Just had a really long conversation about a made up enquiry I never received about government support mechanisms for renewable energy after someone saw the thread title on my screen and said “I’ve got a degree in economics what do you need to know?”
Been getting well into Keynesian socialist economics recently. Because the academy is basically a propaganda factory when it comes to economics, and most economists have the most bizarre and un-rigorous approach to methodology and totally lack reflexivity etc., much of that heterodox sort of stuff is available via blogs, youtube etc. Varoufakis, Ann Pettifor, Steve Keen are all really interesting. Varoufakis is particularly good cos he’s one of those intellectuals that makes everything incredibly easy to understand somehow, his stuff on a ‘new Bretton Woods’ is esp. worth seeking out (can’t be bothered to find it now).
Economics isn’t great as a social science because if you’re to engage with it meaningfully in a social way (rather than “to get a job” or “to do maths”) you have to either take parts of what some economists say on blind faith based on your political preferences, or actually devote your time (and probably academic learning) to getting to grips with the maths they do and the premises behind it. This kind of inherently limits its capacity for interdisciplinarity.