6 ms·

Probably because they are? A 2014 survey of more than 5,000 owners, operators, and current and former restaurant employees found that 97% of restaurant managers

Probably because they are? A 2014 survey of more than 5,000 owners, operators, and current and former restaurant employees found that 97% of restaurant managers and 94% percent of shift crew employees had advanced to higher-paying jobs in the industry. What's more, 90% of operators under 35 and 87% of operators between 35 and 44 said their first job was entry-level. https://www.qsrmagazine.com/ladder-success https://www.qsrmagazine.com/ladder-success

scarecrowbob 5y ago
It seems pretty obvious that most of the folks owning/operating retail or restaurants come out of the industry. What's being argued isn't that point: rather, it's the question of how many workers move to better positions in that industry. Even if 100% of the people running restaurants/retail come from within the industry, that fact has nothing to say about how many within the industry make that move to owning operating.
bmicraft 5y ago
Isn't that the wrong direction to think in? If one employee in a team of 10 gets promoted to be their leader (because the former one retired or got promoted themselves) then the other 9/10 don't get promoted. And those people won't ever have reasonable chance to be promoted because the same problem exists one layer up where their team leader only has a 1/10 chance to get promoted over their own colleagues
- missedthecue 5y ago
  Well yes, every industry has an organizational pyramid. There are just simply more fryer and cashier positions available than regional manager positions. But the fact that 9 out of every 10 operators started out at the fryer seems to indicate that there is clearly upward mobility.
  - scarecrowbob 5y ago
    But it doesn't, though. If 9/10 of every fry cooks ended up owning a restaurant, you'd be correct in your claim about upward mobility. But what you're claiming is that 9/10 owners started out as fry cooks. Those are wildly different claims. It could be the case that only 0.002 of frycooks end up owning a restaurant and there is only an infinitesimal amount of mobility, and your claim could still be totally true.
    - californical 5y ago
      It means that upward mobility is possible for those who are the best (generally, obviously it’s not always purely skill). Not everyone can be hugely successful in any given field. And you’re arguing a silly point. Do 80% of accountants become CFOs? Upwards mobility doesn’t mean that everyone rises up — it means that those who are highly skilled do though.
      - scarecrowbob 5y ago
        I appreciate the feedback, even if I don't agree.
      - fragmede 5y ago
        That's assuming that people are promoted based on merit, and not something else, like the Peter Principle, or being a tall man who socializes well (aka drinks alcohol and does drugs with his boss). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle
  - bmicraft 5y ago
    But that goes completely against the point that those jobs are supposedly only a bridge to a better one, when for most people (like you said) that simply can't be true
solarmist 5y ago
This wasn't the case just a generation ago. When I was little, in the '80s, it was common for people to work in retail for decades, often in the same store, and those salespeople tended to like their jobs because they got to help people and make a living without a ton of stress. Similarly, I had a friend, and both his parents were janitors the whole time he was growing up. They were happy with their lives and eventually saved up and bought a house, was rural Minnesota. Sure they weren't going to change the world or anything like that, but there are plenty of people who want to be comfortable, spend time raising their children, and interacting with friends and family. For them, that's enough.

scarecrowbob 5y ago

It seems pretty obvious that most of the folks owning/operating retail or restaurants come out of the industry. What's being argued isn't that point: rather, it's the question of how many workers move to better positions in that industry. Even if 100% of the people running restaurants/retail come from within the industry, that fact has nothing to say about how many within the industry make that move to owning operating.

bmicraft 5y ago

Isn't that the wrong direction to think in? If one employee in a team of 10 gets promoted to be their leader (because the former one retired or got promoted themselves) then the other 9/10 don't get promoted. And those people won't ever have reasonable chance to be promoted because the same problem exists one layer up where their team leader only has a 1/10 chance to get promoted over their own colleagues

missedthecue 5y ago
Well yes, every industry has an organizational pyramid. There are just simply more fryer and cashier positions available than regional manager positions. But the fact that 9 out of every 10 operators started out at the fryer seems to indicate that there is clearly upward mobility.
- scarecrowbob 5y ago
  But it doesn't, though. If 9/10 of every fry cooks ended up owning a restaurant, you'd be correct in your claim about upward mobility. But what you're claiming is that 9/10 owners started out as fry cooks. Those are wildly different claims. It could be the case that only 0.002 of frycooks end up owning a restaurant and there is only an infinitesimal amount of mobility, and your claim could still be totally true.
  - californical 5y ago
    It means that upward mobility is possible for those who are the best (generally, obviously it’s not always purely skill). Not everyone can be hugely successful in any given field. And you’re arguing a silly point. Do 80% of accountants become CFOs? Upwards mobility doesn’t mean that everyone rises up — it means that those who are highly skilled do though.
    - scarecrowbob 5y ago
      I appreciate the feedback, even if I don't agree.
    - fragmede 5y ago
      That's assuming that people are promoted based on merit, and not something else, like the Peter Principle, or being a tall man who socializes well (aka drinks alcohol and does drugs with his boss). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle
- bmicraft 5y ago
  But that goes completely against the point that those jobs are supposedly only a bridge to a better one, when for most people (like you said) that simply can't be true

solarmist 5y ago

This wasn't the case just a generation ago. When I was little, in the '80s, it was common for people to work in retail for decades, often in the same store, and those salespeople tended to like their jobs because they got to help people and make a living without a ton of stress. Similarly, I had a friend, and both his parents were janitors the whole time he was growing up. They were happy with their lives and eventually saved up and bought a house, was rural Minnesota. Sure they weren't going to change the world or anything like that, but there are plenty of people who want to be comfortable, spend time raising their children, and interacting with friends and family. For them, that's enough.