The Moral Order of Panera • Hacker News Board

Re: The Moral Order of Panera

#11

Post by tareqak » Thu, Apr 18, 2019, 2:20 AM UTC

I found the employee who said the discount was only available the first time to be a symptom of a self-defeating policy: once you make such a statement, the transaction would become uncomfortably personal as illustrated by the account of the mother in the article. Having a sign outside the store and another one near the checkout would be less personal. The most that I would ask an employee to say in that sort of situation is "Please pay it forward when you can".

The part about the customer dress code was declared to be unevenly enforced between the Panera Cares store and the normal Panera bread store, so that seems like another issue of policy.

The Yelp comment that mentioned smell is a tough one. I was thinking about not having any place to sit period to avoid that, but then one could make the argument that isn't the Panera Bread experiment.

I applaud Ron Shaich for at least trying. I personally would not have gone towards opening four stores without proving out and refining the first experience of the first one. By just having this one store, it could have stayed open longer before closing, and the employees working at that store could have been given better job security e.g. if this store doesn't work out, then I'll guarantee you a position of employment at your nearest Panera Bread.

Re: The Moral Order of Panera

#12

Post by cooper12 » Thu, Apr 18, 2019, 2:27 AM UTC

rossdavidh wrote: post #8

So, I can totally believe that this particular idea didn't work well. I can totally agree that we should learn from it, perhaps that people want to give $ to feed the poor only when they don't have to sit next to them, or that people on lunch break don't want to have to tackle a moral quandary just then. But, the article seemed needlessly negative. So, the CEO of Panera tried something, put his business experience to…

The reason it's so negative is because it already notes that prior research showed consumer responsibilization doesn't work. Shaich might see himself as good-minded, even volunteering as cashier, but he comes off more as misguided (what with his Ted Talk enthusiasm) and out of touch (note the vast gap between the customers and this man who made $2 million that year). I'm not sure why you expected some bland analytical article. The author clearly doesn't agree with Libertarian ideals or conscious capitalism.

Re: The Moral Order of Panera

#13

Post by rhizome » Thu, Apr 18, 2019, 2:28 AM UTC

panarky wrote: post #4

We all collectively benefit when children get a good education, when everyone has fast and safe transportation, when everyone has enough nutritious food, and when healthcare is available to all. These collective goods must be paid for collectively, or the free-rider problem guarantees failure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-rider_problem I will gladly pay my share to secure these social goods, but I won't shoulde…

These collective goods must be paid for collectively, or the free-rider problem guarantees failure

Free-rider isn't a natural law, it doesn't guarantee anything. It attempts to predict an increased probability of failure, but that's different.

Re: The Moral Order of Panera

#14

Post by rhizome » Thu, Apr 18, 2019, 2:32 AM UTC

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #10

TimTheTinker wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These collective goods must be paid for collectively, or the free-rider problem guarantees failure. That’s close to the truth, but it ignores the efficacy of charities and churches — where many people can (and do) give generously to help others. When run well, those do far more good than even government programs. I challenge anyone who cares about the poor and wants to make a big difference to give to, volunteer at…

The thing is, charities and churches are rarely "run well". Many charities have become a cash cow for their executives and office staff (“Hey, look, we can direct a lot of these donations to paying us extremely generous salaries”), with actual generosity to those in need almost seeming an afterthought. I saw this firsthand when I volunteered in the central office of a charity, and it rather shattered my idealism. Chu…

I can't find it now, but in the last few years there was a "well but what about churches?" story as public services for street problems were being cut, and they themselves said that they'd prefer not to have to take up the slack, certainly aren't prepared to take up all the slack, and that they aren't pros like the people who had just got their funding cut.

Re: The Moral Order of Panera

#15

Post by Lowkeyloki » Thu, Apr 18, 2019, 2:41 AM UTC

int_19h wrote: post #2

It seems to me that the author misunderstands the nature of the libertarian moral-economic approach. The whole point of it is that whatever decisions people make wrt charity and welfare with their own money are the only ones that reflect their true morality, and thus, a free market will simply express the moral consensus of the society in which it operates. Thus, if the experiment supports the theory that "consumers…

You can't apply what you describe as a "libertarian moral-economic approach" to a capitalist culture and society and claim that the result reflects the true moral fiber of its citizens. The system is too complex to make such a sweeping generalization.

For example, I could probably stand to donate far more money to charities and causes than I do. The reason I don't give more is because I worry about whether the charity I choose is being run efficiently, and I worry about my own financial stability changing the moment I give the money away, and a million other varyingly logical/illogical concerns. I'm sure I'm not the only one who fits this description.

Not to mention the capitalist fiction of being able to pull oneself up by one's bootstraps as an excuse for why I deserve the money I've made and the less fortunate are simply lazier, etc. I personally no longer believe in that, but a lot of people do. So-called "hustle culture" is somewhat related in that it romanticises having to work non-stop to be financially secure.

But I digress, as I've wandered off topic. My point is that it's unfair to judge a society's morality by the measure you've applied due to all of these factors of capitalism and more.

Re: The Moral Order of Panera

#16

Post by jonas21 » Thu, Apr 18, 2019, 2:44 AM UTC

cooper12 wrote: post #12

rossdavidh wrote: post #8

So, I can totally believe that this particular idea didn't work well. I can totally agree that we should learn from it, perhaps that people want to give $ to feed the poor only when they don't have to sit next to them, or that people on lunch break don't want to have to tackle a moral quandary just then. But, the article seemed needlessly negative. So, the CEO of Panera tried something, put his business experience to…

The reason it's so negative is because it already notes that prior research showed consumer responsibilization doesn't work. Shaich might see himself as good-minded, even volunteering as cashier, but he comes off more as misguided (what with his Ted Talk enthusiasm) and out of touch (note the vast gap between the customers and this man who made $2 million that year). I'm not sure why you expected some bland analytica…

The only research this article cites is a 2017 study that looked at Panera Cares itself. You can hardly fault the Panera CEO for trying when his efforts are what allowed the research to be done in the first place.

Re: The Moral Order of Panera

#17

Post by TimTheTinker » Thu, Apr 18, 2019, 2:48 AM UTC

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #10

TimTheTinker wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These collective goods must be paid for collectively, or the free-rider problem guarantees failure. That’s close to the truth, but it ignores the efficacy of charities and churches — where many people can (and do) give generously to help others. When run well, those do far more good than even government programs. I challenge anyone who cares about the poor and wants to make a big difference to give to, volunteer at…

The thing is, charities and churches are rarely "run well". Many charities have become a cash cow for their executives and office staff (“Hey, look, we can direct a lot of these donations to paying us extremely generous salaries”), with actual generosity to those in need almost seeming an afterthought. I saw this firsthand when I volunteered in the central office of a charity, and it rather shattered my idealism. Chu…

> The thing is, charities and churches are rarely "run well".

Do you have any data or personal experience (not just one example) to back that up?

The truth is, the vast majority of churches and local faith-based charities just quietly do their thing and usually aren’t big enough to garner any recognition or attention at scale.

Actually, it’s the big operations with money flowing to a central hub that are usually the most suspect - when those at the top have less accountability and more temptation to not put all that money where it ought to go. The American Red Cross comes to mind. The only exception is large charities with a “100% of donations go to help people” policy (i.e. employees and leaders have to raise their own support to work there).

Re: The Moral Order of Panera

#18

Post by Lowkeyloki » Thu, Apr 18, 2019, 2:50 AM UTC

cooper12 wrote: post #12

rossdavidh wrote: post #8

So, I can totally believe that this particular idea didn't work well. I can totally agree that we should learn from it, perhaps that people want to give $ to feed the poor only when they don't have to sit next to them, or that people on lunch break don't want to have to tackle a moral quandary just then. But, the article seemed needlessly negative. So, the CEO of Panera tried something, put his business experience to…

The reason it's so negative is because it already notes that prior research showed consumer responsibilization doesn't work. Shaich might see himself as good-minded, even volunteering as cashier, but he comes off more as misguided (what with his Ted Talk enthusiasm) and out of touch (note the vast gap between the customers and this man who made $2 million that year). I'm not sure why you expected some bland analytica…

Exactly. It's negative because Shaich acted without doing any research, purely trusting his "gut" about how he, a rich white man, thought food insecurity could be "solved" despite being the last person in the world who would know anything about it.

It's negative because it was a waste of time and money that could have been applied much more effectively to help the problem if some research was done first instead of trying to swoop in like some Ayn Randian super hero.

Re: The Moral Order of Panera

#19

Post by toomuchtodo » Thu, Apr 18, 2019, 2:57 AM UTC

TimTheTinker wrote: post #17

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, charities and churches are rarely "run well". Many charities have become a cash cow for their executives and office staff (“Hey, look, we can direct a lot of these donations to paying us extremely generous salaries”), with actual generosity to those in need almost seeming an afterthought. I saw this firsthand when I volunteered in the central office of a charity, and it rather shattered my idealism. Chu…

> The thing is, charities and churches are rarely "run well". Do you have any data or personal experience (not just one example) to back that up? The truth is, the vast majority of churches and local faith-based charities just quietly do their thing and usually aren’t big enough to garner any recognition or attention at scale. Actually, it’s the big operations with money flowing to a central hub that are usually the…

> The truth is, the vast majority of churches and local faith-based charities just quietly do their thing and usually aren’t big enough to garner any recognition or attention at scale.

Your original comment said:

> When run well, those do far more good than even government programs.

Can you prove this? Because Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps do more good for 100+ million Americans than your local charities and churches, nor do faith based organizations have anywhere near the resources available to them government does.

Re: The Moral Order of Panera

#20

Post by nateabele » Thu, Apr 18, 2019, 3:05 AM UTC

Agree with many other commenters here that holding this up as a supposed failure of free-market libertarianism borders on absurdity. Cut against the grain of human nature and you're going to fail, irrespective of your philosophy.

Also, counterpoint: https://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/television/Rosas...