The War Inside 7-Eleven • Hacker News Board

Re: The War Inside 7-Eleven

#61

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Nov 12, 2018, 5:09 PM UTC

vetinari wrote: post #58

esotericn wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: The War Inside 7-Eleven

#62

Post by briandear » Mon, Nov 12, 2018, 5:10 PM UTC

esotericn wrote: post #11

toomuchtodo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

The US was founded on immigration. > Can't let everyone in. Why not?

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 zero. If you enforce minimum wages, then you’d have massive unemployment.

Immigration should be fair, measured and designed around a policy of quick assimilation, both for the benefit of the immigrant and the existing citizens.

Re: The War Inside 7-Eleven

#63

Post by toomuchtodo » Mon, Nov 12, 2018, 5:11 PM UTC

moorhosj wrote: post #45

toomuchtodo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What about the stagnant minimum wage, record corporate profits or union busting might they play a role? I don't discount that these are major contributors to the problem. Adding additional labor supply, supply willing to work for almost nothing, does not help the problem.

Growing the pie has always helped everyone in America. Is there something that has fundamentally changed in your view to alter this trend? Are there Americans out there who want to do these types of jobs?

The pie hasn’t grown for four decades [1], and the middle class has been hollowed out [2]. The existing system must be fixed before more burden is placed on it.

A job not being filled in no way validates that someone should fill that job. Some jobs should not exist (anything where life and limb is constantly in significant peril, for example). We don't throw our hands up when we can't find workers to clean up nuclear waste accidents. We build robots for the job.

[1] https://i.stack.imgur.com/iCTuo.jpg

[2] https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/09/459087477...

Re: The War Inside 7-Eleven

#64

Post by lotsofpulp » Mon, Nov 12, 2018, 5:13 PM UTC

bluGill wrote: post #59

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.

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…

>(but after 30 years you can sell your franchise and get the equity back - enough to retire on).

If the franchisee doesn't own the land or building, it doesn't sound like they have any equity. All they have is the licensing agreement with the brand, which I'm sure has an expiration date, but all the power rests with the brand. Unless there's a clause in the franchising agreement that forces the brand to only license to you, the franchisee doesn't seem to be left with anything at the end of the licensing term.

Re: The War Inside 7-Eleven

#65

Post by jnbiche » Mon, Nov 12, 2018, 5:14 PM UTC

vetinari wrote: post #58

esotericn wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well-argued. I agree 100%.

But note that you can oppose this current system of enforcement being described in the article without being in favor of open borders.

Re: The War Inside 7-Eleven

#66

Post by pixl97 » Mon, Nov 12, 2018, 5:21 PM UTC

esotericn wrote: post #11

toomuchtodo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

The US was founded on immigration. > Can't let everyone in. Why not?

Why dont you ask the native Americans about that.

Re: The War Inside 7-Eleven

#67

Post by esotericn » Mon, Nov 12, 2018, 5:29 PM UTC

vetinari wrote: post #58

esotericn wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 literally setting foot in a country or trading within a country is not that.

Re: The War Inside 7-Eleven

#68

Post by rootusrootus » Mon, Nov 12, 2018, 5:30 PM UTC

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…

Interesting. So payroll goes through corporate, but for some reason they need to call ICE to make sure no illegal immigrants are being employed at the store? And if they are, it's the store's fault?

What am I missing? Seems like every employee ought to have an I9 on file with corporate.

Re: The War Inside 7-Eleven

#69

Post by briandear » Mon, Nov 12, 2018, 5:43 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #44

zzzcpan wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Good point. The War on Drugs stated goal of getting rid of an arbitrary subset of drugs and their users failed. The real goal, oppression and mass-incarceration of dark skinned and poor people, was a pretty resounding success. They’ve at least dropped the pretext with the War on Immigrants. The stated goal is the real goal: oppression, deportation and mass-incarceration of (primarily dark skinned and poor) foreigners…

> War on Immigrants

Immigrants and illegal aliens are different. Legal immigrants aren’t getting oppressed, deported without cause or mass incarcerated.

The clever wordplay to conflate immigrants with illegal aliens is rather effective because it creates a convienent xenophobic narrative, when the truth is that a majority of Americans are against illegal aliens but for legal immigrants.

Re: The War Inside 7-Eleven

#70

Post by will_brown » Mon, Nov 12, 2018, 5:57 PM UTC

jnbiche wrote: post #55

tomschlick wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You could call it “facisism” but that just creates more mudslinging...for example does it help by name calling the franchisees “outlaws” or “criminal enterprises”.

It’s ugly behavior for a franchisor to give tips to the federal government about its franchisees illegally hiring undocumented workers...but that’s what happens when you litigate with unclean hands, the otherside will expose you. The Franchisor would be just as likely to inform local police or DEA if they found out the Franchisees were selling drugs out of their stores. What is the government supposed to do with tips like these? Federal government can’t just ignore tips of criminal/illegal activity because the tipster has a personal bone to pick the alleged businesses hiring undocumented immigrants.