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

The Moral Order of Panera

thebaffler.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 64 posts

Re: The Moral Order of Panera

#21

Post by cooper12 »

jonas21 wrote: post #16
cooper12 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Okay I was incorrect on that front, [0] but the field of economics isn't exactly new, nor is the general idea itself (things like pay-what-you-want, voluntary contributions, etc).

[0]: Here's the paper: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/205157071454056...

Re: The Moral Order of Panera

#22

Post by int_19h »

brianberns wrote: post #3
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…

> the current consensus is that the various social causes aren't important enough to pay for them No, the only consensus I see from this article is that this particular approach to solving a very important social problem doesn't work.

Like I said, I do not agree with libertarian ethics. I'm explaining how it looks from that perspective. And in it, by definition, whatever the market does is the consensus.

The larger point is that they're not trying to solve the problem you (and the author) think about. It's not about solving hunger per se. It's about alleviating it to the extent permissible by the bounds of what their value system deems moral - and those bounds do not accommodate wealth redistribution via taxation. So it's kinda like complaining that communists can't solve the problem of protecting private property - well, yes, but they aren't trying to, so you should complain about that very fundamental premise.

In a way, it is rather like religion. Islamic banking, for example, is hardly efficient at solving most problems that modern banking does. If all you cared about was solving them, you wouldn't need it. But if you are under a religious prohibition on charging interest, then you have to come up with all those alternative convoluted schemes, that don't cover many scenarios outright, and are inefficient in others - but it's the best that can be had. Conversely, if a problem requires a sinful action to solve, then it's not really a problem. "Whatever God does is good" is a common religious trope - replace it with "whatever the market does is good", and you'll see that it works just the same here.

Re: The Moral Order of Panera

#23

Post by Fellshard »

There's a secondary cause mixed in here I'd like to propose.

If you were to pay forward at this Panera, you don't know where your money is going to. That alone would make you hesitate as a consumer: You're not sure whether you'll be paying forward for someone who is in extensive need of the meal, or just a well-off customer who's looking for their discount-of-the-week for a decent sandwich.

It's the same kind of unease that pushes people away from giving money to panhandlers: they want to know that they are actually helping a person survive, not enabling them to seek out the means that may have contributed. (No, that's not what all of them will do. The point is you don't have the information and you will tend to err on the safe side in that context.)

Re: The Moral Order of Panera

#24

Post by freshm087 »

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".

It's good that gov't agencies, and programs are so well known to to be run well, don't have problems with inefficiency, and corruption. Oh... wait

Re: The Moral Order of Panera

#25

Post by freshm087 »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #19
TimTheTinker wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Because Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps do more good for 100+ million

Do more good because their have much bigger budgets? - Maybe. More good per every dollar spent? I doubt it.

Re: The Moral Order of Panera

#26

Post by toomuchtodo »

freshm087 wrote: post #25
toomuchtodo wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Because Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps do more good for 100+ million Do more good because their have much bigger budgets? - Maybe. More good per every dollar spent? I doubt it.

I prefer my country’s social services delivered by professionals, inefficiencies and all, over church volunteers. Inefficiencies are okay, expected even, when operating at scale. Sometimes universal availability and coverage take priority (know what you’re optimizing for).

Also, when discriminated against by faith based services, you have no recourse. This is unacceptable, and can be monitored and governed more effectively when government provides services.

Re: The Moral Order of Panera

#27

Post by mirimir »

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…

Right, programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). But I do agree that TFA was needlessly negative. I mean:

> Unsurprisingly, Shaich never mentions SNAP in his TED talk. If he did, he may have had to admit that Panera Cares was nothing but an elaborate branding exercise, a solution to a problem we already know how to solve. Panera Cares was an experiment that, in the end, was exactly like Shaich: full of empty, unpleasant, and superfluous gestures.

I rather envy people who do gestures well. I've been coached at it, but I'm still pretty wooden.

Re: The Moral Order of Panera

#28

Post by 11thEarlOfMar »

mirimir wrote: post #27
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…

Right, programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). But I do agree that TFA was needlessly negative. I mean: > Unsurprisingly, Shaich never mentions SNAP in his TED talk. If he did, he may have had to admit that Panera Cares was nothing but an elaborate branding exercise, a solution to a problem we already know how to solve. Panera Cares was an experiment that, in the end, was exactly like Shai…

AKA: "No good deed goes unpunished."

That last line is all I'll remember about this article. It makes the whole thing into an unnecessary, personal attack.

Re: The Moral Order of Panera

#29

Post by cjhanks »

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…

Yeah, no kidding. A guy tried to find a way for his company to positively contribute to society and failed while absorbing losses. So he should be lambasted? What did Robin Kaiser-Schatzlein do?

Judging from his articles[1] he's a professional kvetch.

[1] https://lareviewofbooks.org/contributor/robin-kaiser-schatzl...

Re: The Moral Order of Panera

#30

Post by js2 »

FWIW, Raleigh has had an independent non-profit pay-what-you-can restaurant for about 16 months now:

https://tableraleigh.org/about

Customers have multiple options to pay and to pay-it-forward.

- Pay the suggested price

- At least half of the suggested price

- By volunteering with us

Pay it Forward

- Tip to fulfill our mission

- Buy a $10 token to hand out yourself in the community

I suspect these may work better as independent establishments as opposed to being part of a chain or large corporation.

Post reply on HN