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

101–110 of 122 posts

Re: The War Inside 7-Eleven

#101

Post by objectivetruth »

vetinari wrote: post #73
esotericn wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This rests on the assumption that immigrants "deplete systems" and that citizens don't. They're both just people. If anything, immigrants are generally above-average in terms of dedication (for one, there's a sampling bias because they've just travelled across countries to come to yours). Limiting access to contributory systems (e.g. having a state pension require contribution) is reasonable, preventing someone from…

The visa-regime borders are not mutually exclusive with migration either. Actually, it ensures, that the country gets the well-driven ones. If you want to see, how to destroy a country fast, have look at the UN Global Compact for Migration. Social service-wise, it binds the countries to provide more for immigrants (even those entering illegally) than for their own citizens!

> Social service-wise, it binds the countries to provide more for immigrants (even those entering illegally) than for their own citizens!

I'm curious what you mean by this: either, a) the compact has language to the effect of "You must provide better services to immigrants than your own citizens." OR, b) the compact requires X standards of human services for immigrants and many countries don't even currently provide those standards for their citizens? Or something else?

a) seems very unlikely.

b) would make sense since a migration/refugee compact naturally wouldn't have standards about general citizen human service standards. Plus, if the compact does specify a basic level of human services, many countries, especially the US, already don't meet those standards for their citizens.

Either way, that doesn't provide any evidence that net immigration "destroys a country fast."

Re: The War Inside 7-Eleven

#102

Post by rayiner »

Aloha wrote: post #96
rayiner wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an immigrant myself, that is certainly what my family thought they were signing up for when they came here. Indeed, we left Bangladesh precisely because it was turning away from western culture and values. I think, for the most part, immigrants today feel that way too. (There is evidence that Spanish speaking immigrants are taking up English faster than German speaking immigrants did). What scares me are the (I th…

I guess they assume that assimilation is bad, and is causing some cultural havoc - Whereas you and I both feel that assimilation is an imperative, While the newly arrived have historically wanted to do everything they can to be american, some old fashioned and/or non-americas values will always remain for them - they didnt grow up fully immersed in our culture. In any case assimilation is what will happen, with it mo…

Assimilation is not inevitable—see France for example. The native born population giving up on the idea of assimilation (and extolling those who reject it) is terrifying to me for that reason.

Re: The War Inside 7-Eleven

#103

Post by winningcontinue »

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.

They are building equity in the form of earning cash income and then using it to invest in additional cash generating franchisees. It's cash, so they could put that money into owning 7-11 stock, the real estate the store is on or whatever.

Re: The War Inside 7-Eleven

#104

Post by winningcontinue »

blakesterz wrote: post #20

"The company’s 2017 disclosure documents give the example of a store in Chicago with $1 million in annual sales. After all the fees and costs and taking into account that the company’s share of the take rises as revenue increases, the franchise owner took home $37,000 before taxes. “7-Eleven always sold its franchises as a gold mine,” says Hashim Syed, a former 7-Eleven franchisee and ex-president of the Chicago fran…

That is brutal for all the stress & hours a franchise owner would have to work themselves to make the store profitable. I wonder who handles the money losing promotions financially, the corporate or small business owner?

Re: The War Inside 7-Eleven

#105

Post by belorn »

tomschlick wrote: post #13
lotsofpulp wrote: post #4

Are these claims below true? I was under the impression that a in a franchisor - franchisee relationship, the franchisee owns the business, and they are paying the franchisor to use the brand according to whatever standards are agreed upon. But I've never heard of a franchisor being able to "take over" a business, or do payroll for a franchisee. I've only ever heard of a a franchisee having to stop using the franchis…

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.

It is sometimes said that McDonalds business model is not in selling burgers but rather being in real estate. They rent out a building and a model for using it, with the goal to rent out more buildings. I don't know how true it is but I have heard that McDonalds as a company don't earn money from any profits from burgers, only from rent. Would be interesting to know how true that is.

Re: The War Inside 7-Eleven

#106

Post by lotsofpulp »

winningcontinue wrote: post #103
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.

They are building equity in the form of earning cash income and then using it to invest in additional cash generating franchisees. It's cash, so they could put that money into owning 7-11 stock, the real estate the store is on or whatever.

I assume the corporation can see any excess profits being made and increase the royalty fees to make sure the franchisee isn't left with much, which it does seem like 7-Eleven is doing according to the article and another poster. It just seems like a very crappy deal, but I guess that's worth taking if you have no other options.

Re: The War Inside 7-Eleven

#107

Post by int_19h »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #84
briandear wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine if the entire population of Bangladesh were suddenly added to the state of California. You’d quickly become the third world because no country could handle that sort of influx. Just the act of building enough schools would bankrupt the state. Not to mention any other social services — and the only benefit to the country initially would be simply millions of unskilled workers — which would drive wages to near…

That's not realistic. Even remotely. There won't be some sudden influx because getting to the United States alone is hard. For most people, it'll be a transoceanic flight which is not very cheap at all.

Speaking as an immigrant - trust me, there would be. Yes, you wouldn't get the entire population of the Third World overnight. But even the amount that could afford it (or would save to afford it if they knew they had that option) would be orders of magnitude more, and would overwhelm the country.

Re: The War Inside 7-Eleven

#108

Post by Aloha »

rayiner wrote: post #102
Aloha wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess they assume that assimilation is bad, and is causing some cultural havoc - Whereas you and I both feel that assimilation is an imperative, While the newly arrived have historically wanted to do everything they can to be american, some old fashioned and/or non-americas values will always remain for them - they didnt grow up fully immersed in our culture. In any case assimilation is what will happen, with it mo…

Assimilation is not inevitable—see France for example. The native born population giving up on the idea of assimilation (and extolling those who reject it) is terrifying to me for that reason.

I'd consider assimilation to be inevitable in the United States - YMMV elsewhere - The European experience is why I'm particularly not a fan of European style multiculturalism

Re: The War Inside 7-Eleven

#109

Post by msla »

lupire wrote: post #48
msla wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fascism is the bonding of state and corporate power ... only if you define "corporation" the way Fascists did: http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/corporatism.htm > In the last half of the 19th century people of the working class in Europe were beginning to show interest in the ideas of socialism and syndicalism. Some members of the intelligentsia, particularly the Catholic intelligentsia, decided to formulate an a…

It's fascinating that "fascism" today means nothing like what it did originally, even though the definition hasn't changed -- the definition of the words in the definition changed! "Fascism" is a bad word simply because Mussolini came to power when Fascism was popular in Italy, and Nazism became "Fascist" because Hitler allied with Mussolini.

> It's fascinating that "fascism" today means nothing like what it did originally, even though the definition hasn't changed -- the definition of the words in the definition changed!

That's entirely incorrect:

People here want to perform a bait-and-switch: "Corporatism" was a word the Fascists used, but people want it to mean "business involvement in government", so the use it in the new sense while stating it's the word the Fascists used. It's dishonest.

Re: The War Inside 7-Eleven

#110

Post by msla »

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…

People here want to perform a bait-and-switch: "Corporatism" was a word the Fascists used, but people want it to mean "business involvement in government", so the use it in the new sense while stating it's the word the Fascists used. It's dishonest.
Post reply on HN