4 ms·

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-mi

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.

jonas21 7y ago
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.
- cooper12 7y ago
  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/10.1177/2051570714540560 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/205157071454056...
Lowkeyloki 7y ago
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.
- rossdavidh 7y ago
  Hmmm...I don't see much Randian about this effort. I'm not sure Rand would have approved of a CEO trying to help the poor at all. His point about soup kitchens being depressing places to have to eat, whether it is accurate or not, is at least evidence of thinking about the psychological need for respect of the recipient. Anyway, again, I'm not saying this was the right approach, I'm just saying the article should be more "let's learn what we can here", and less "look at this dumb rich guy being a jerk for trying to help people in a way that didn't work well".

jonas21 7y ago

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.

cooper12 7y ago
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/10.1177/2051570714540560 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/205157071454056...

Lowkeyloki 7y ago

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.

rossdavidh 7y ago
Hmmm...I don't see much Randian about this effort. I'm not sure Rand would have approved of a CEO trying to help the poor at all. His point about soup kitchens being depressing places to have to eat, whether it is accurate or not, is at least evidence of thinking about the psychological need for respect of the recipient. Anyway, again, I'm not saying this was the right approach, I'm just saying the article should be more "let's learn what we can here", and less "look at this dumb rich guy being a jerk for trying to help people in a way that didn't work well".