Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The War Inside 7-Eleven

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 122 posts

Re: The War Inside 7-Eleven

#51

Post by vezycash »

zzzcpan wrote: post #19
ryandrake wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which generation? This is being planned and executed by the same people that conducted (and failed) the war on drugs.

Why do you think it failed? I imagine failure of the war on drugs would be a revolution. That didn't happen, so the war on drugs didn't fail. War on drugs was never about drugs.

Downvoted you initially but changed it to an upvote after reading it three times.

Clarification:

Iff the war on drugs was designed to systematically imprison Blacks, then the war's been largely successful.

Re: The War Inside 7-Eleven

#52

Post by scarface74 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #27
tomschlick wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes this is very common. I know McDonalds and Chick-fil-a both have clauses that if their operators refuse to comply they can shut down and replace them. Usually the building/land the stores are located on are owned by HQ as well so they have options on that end to revoke leases if need be. I wouldn't be surprised if 7-11 has the same setup.

I always assumed franchised businesses weren't owned by the brand that was franchising. Sounds like a terrible deal for the franchisee if all they're doing is renting a license to operate a business and not gaining any equity. I thought the whole point was so that the could work and gain a bit of equity in their business while using the marketing and quality assurance of the brand they franchise.

It seems like most franchisees are not starting a business, they are buying a job.

Re: The War Inside 7-Eleven

#53

Post by dragonwriter »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #7
supercanuck wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like immigration is gonna be this generation's "War on Drugs"

Not a lot of good solutions. Can't let everyone in. No one cares for merit based immigration like other countries (ie Canada) because pro-immigration supporters want others than the best to have a shot, and no one wants quotas because it'll clamp down on immigration from countries with large populations (China and India).

> Not a lot of good solutions.

There are a lot of easy improvements; there's no perfect solution, but this is a perfect is the enemy of the good situation.

> Can't let everyone in.

There are two halves of this:

Not everyone is personally acceptable as an immigrant; there are reasons for prohibition based on individual history.

You can't let everyone who isn't individually prohibited in for free because assimilating immigrants has costs.

The US has a basically reasonable approach (perhaps wanting some tweaks in details) for the first, but less than ideal handling of the second; most notably, aside from issues with the design of some of the available visa categories like H-1B, hard per-category caps and even moreso, per-country caps on visa categories exacerbate supply/demand imbalances for which the natural consequence is illegal migration.

> No one cares for merit based immigration like other countries

US preference categories, which are the basis of virtually all legal immigration, are merit-based, though you may not like then particular notion of merit on which they are based.

> and no one wants quotas

We have both per-category, and within each category per-country, quotas, and lots of people want them (and many want them to be smaller.) It's not a good policy, but many people absolutely do.want them.

> because it'll clamp down on immigration from countries with large populations (China and India).

Well, the particular formula effects countries with large number of people qualified and seeking to immigrate, which depending on the Visa category includes Mexico, the Phillipines, China, and India (and I think a couple others in a few categories.) Population has an indirect role, but it's not the direct driver of quota imbalance.

Re: The War Inside 7-Eleven

#54

Post by [deleted] »

esotericn wrote: post #39
toomuchtodo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it breaks your economy and social fabric (super simplified for the sake of fitting a decent reply into one short HN comment). We're at the lowest level of unemployment in decades, and wages are barely moving up. Bringing in large amounts of unskilled workers (remember, skilled workers get in on merit) would only delay wages rising (or those unskilled workers are going to be working under the table in jobs lik…

I feel like a summary of all of that would basically be "nationals matter, non-nationals don't". It's not unique to the US at all, I'm in the UK and you know how that's working out. If the same barrier existed between the north and south of England, if I needed a visa to travel/study/work, I wouldn't be on here commenting, and tons of people would be stuck in crap conditions in the expensive south east because moving…

[deleted]

Re: The War Inside 7-Eleven

#55

Post by jnbiche »

tomschlick wrote: post #41
jnbiche wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, a corporation using a federal law enforcement agency to target owners who were disfavored by the corporation is typical of fascism. I'm not even interested in this fake debate that was stirred up about immigration. Of course we have to have enforced borders. Of course we need immigration laws that will be enforced. What concerns me is the collaboration between corporations and state power, all taking place in an…

Would you see it the same way if it were related to taxes? As in, if 7-11 found out certain franchisee's were skirting tax laws using their brand name and they reported it to the IRS to avoid any collusion claims ahead of time would that be fascist? If not then how is that different?

The point of the article is that a unusually high number of businesses targeted for these actions happened to be critiques of corporate 7-Eleven, or engaged in lawsuits.

And yes, I would worry likewise if it were taxes used as the underlying cause for these kinds of raids.

Again, I'm explicitly not calling this "fascism". I said "emblematic of fascism". I actually don't think we've descended into fascism yet. But as a country, we're getting comfortable with situations that could lead us to a very bad place.

Finally, could someone please vouch for my flagged top-level comment, as it's not breaking any HN guidelines as far as I'm aware?

Re: The War Inside 7-Eleven

#56

Post by lotsofpulp »

scarface74 wrote: post #52
lotsofpulp wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always assumed franchised businesses weren't owned by the brand that was franchising. Sounds like a terrible deal for the franchisee if all they're doing is renting a license to operate a business and not gaining any equity. I thought the whole point was so that the could work and gain a bit of equity in their business while using the marketing and quality assurance of the brand they franchise.

It seems like most franchisees are not starting a business, they are buying a job.

And the liability for lawsuits from employees, customers, or the government!

Re: The War Inside 7-Eleven

#57

Post by [deleted] »

jnbiche wrote: post #6

I know there are folks on here who will roll their eyes, but this kind of display is emblematic of a fascist government. Fascism is the bonding of state and corporate power, driven by nationalism, authoritarianism, and a (usually) charismatic leader. For the record, I'm not a radical. I'm not even particularly partisan. I'm an average, middle-class American. But I've read enough history to know which way the wind is…

[deleted]

Re: The War Inside 7-Eleven

#58

Post by vetinari »

esotericn wrote: post #39
toomuchtodo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it breaks your economy and social fabric (super simplified for the sake of fitting a decent reply into one short HN comment). We're at the lowest level of unemployment in decades, and wages are barely moving up. Bringing in large amounts of unskilled workers (remember, skilled workers get in on merit) would only delay wages rising (or those unskilled workers are going to be working under the table in jobs lik…

I feel like a summary of all of that would basically be "nationals matter, non-nationals don't". It's not unique to the US at all, I'm in the UK and you know how that's working out. If the same barrier existed between the north and south of England, if I needed a visa to travel/study/work, I wouldn't be on here commenting, and tons of people would be stuck in crap conditions in the expensive south east because moving…

Citizens do matter, if the country has a social system, like the Europeans do.

You can have either social support system, or open borders, but not both. It is unfair to those who built the system to open borders and deplete it on people, who neither built it, nor have intention to continue building it.

Re: The War Inside 7-Eleven

#59

Post by bluGill »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #27
tomschlick wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes this is very common. I know McDonalds and Chick-fil-a both have clauses that if their operators refuse to comply they can shut down and replace them. Usually the building/land the stores are located on are owned by HQ as well so they have options on that end to revoke leases if need be. I wouldn't be surprised if 7-11 has the same setup.

I always assumed franchised businesses weren't owned by the brand that was franchising. Sounds like a terrible deal for the franchisee if all they're doing is renting a license to operate a business and not gaining any equity. I thought the whole point was so that the could work and gain a bit of equity in their business while using the marketing and quality assurance of the brand they franchise.

That should be the idea, but the brand has requirements. When you go to a McDonalds and order a burger you know what it will taste like. The reason you know that is McDonald's requires all franchises to do quality control. I don't know the exact arrangement, but probably the franchise is not allowed to source their raw materials elsewhere. If a McDonald's burger doesn't taste right they will take action up to taking away your franchise rights - I've never heard of this happening, but they have the right to protect their brand in this way.

When you buy a franchise you get a territory. You know you will not have to compete with anyone else. If the brand thinks it would be good to have a store a few blocks from yours they will either offer you the new store first, or give you a guarantee that your business won't suffer for the competition.

While there is risk, if you buy a franchise and work hard it is a path to a nice life. You won't become richest person in the world, but you should be able to get to upper middle class. The first 30 years are mostly paying the bank though, so be prepared for a long term investment (but after 30 years you can sell your franchise and get the equity back - enough to retire on).

Note that I started with should. Some franchises are better than others. Some will try to sell you a bad territory where it is impossible to live on the earnings. Some will force you to buy (sell) product that your customers don't want. It can be a good deal, but it can also be a ticket to bankruptcy.

Re: The War Inside 7-Eleven

#60

Post by [deleted] »

jnbiche wrote: post #29
ericfrenkiel wrote: post #17

The title is crafted so salaciously as to make victims of the real criminals: SMB owners deliberately hiring illegal immigrants because they are easily exploitable. Some of the franchisees were literally stealing money from their hires. I don’t see why we should be lamenting people who abuse and prey on others because of their immigration status.

That's not primarily what the article is investigating. The article is pointing out 7-Eleven's alleged use of ICE and Homeland Security to target those franchisees who criticized or filed lawsuits against the corporation.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN