3 ms·

> Don't underestimate the equally intense downward pressure on staffing that minimum-wage hikes have provided (for instance, in California). In-N-Out allows us

> Don't underestimate the equally intense downward pressure on staffing that minimum-wage hikes have provided (for instance, in California). In-N-Out allows us to discard this notion. They've maintained full staffing while simultaneously paying staff above-market rates (even in California). They only charge 30 cents more for a basic cheeseburger, and the burger is much higher quality, so even that is hard to attribute to wages.

dsr_ 2mo ago
In-N-Out is, IIRC, completely privately owned by the founder's family. Every location is directly controlled. Their customers are the people buying burgers. McDonalds, of course, is 5% corp-owned flagships and 95% franchise "opportunities". They don't have customers, they have tenant farmers who work the land leased to them.
- Ekaros 2mo ago
  Maybe we should start to question how good idea this whole thing of other companies operating under brands of others really is for all of us. Franchises might make money. Or they won't... It is still pretty large rentier cut... Still nothing compared to things like taxis of Uber or Lyft or food delivery... And then the whole Amazon package delivery... So many parties either directly exploiting others or being able to do it by taking significant cuts of revenue for questionable value...
xp84 2mo ago
In-N-Out is a low-margin, high-volume business, kind of like how Walmart is. They literally can't cut staff because they only make money due to the incredibly high number of meals they serve per hour. So they have to serve as efficiently as possible, which requires that fully-staffed kitchen and counter, or there wouldn't be enough time in the mealtime hours to do that volume otherwise. It's just as impossible for them to cut any staff as an airline could remove pilots from the cockpit, in that the whole operation would cease to function. McDonald's and the rest are never going to be In-N-Out though because it would take years of operating at steep losses in the hopes people would notice how fast and tasty they'd become. I can't think of a mature company that's ever pulled off going from "boring mainstream place" to "cult favorite" like that.
- hamdingers 2mo ago
  McDonalds was that and more first. They established the template that In-N-Out continues to follow, as anyone older than ~30 remembers. McDonalds chose to aggressively enshittify, In-N-Out did not. You're probably right that McDonalds will never be that again, I don't think they even want to. If you cut minimum wage in half today, they'd keep the same staffing levels and the franchise owners would pocket the difference.
  - xp84 2mo ago
    We agree mostly. I'm sure they would never "give back" the labor spend they've already 'learned to live without.' Though if you cut minimum wage, it'd suddenly become possible for a new entrant to open a restaurant that would embarrass them, by having twice the staff while holding other things similar. Today that's impossible to do without losing a ton of money, so the current businesses are protected from competition (other than from those "cult" type of place like In-N-N-Out. But how much more business can McDonald's really lose to In-N-Out, since they're basically running at capacity).
preg_match 2mo ago
In-n-out not only has high wages, they’re staffed to the nines. I’m talking 20-25 employees during rush time. You don’t see some, because they’re in the back peeling potatoes for dinner rush 6 hours later.
jerlam 2mo ago
In-N-Out may have a lot of staff but my experience is that they are extraordinarily slow for "fast food", and this was before the pandemic. They would never meet the metrics of other chains. Arguably, they have always been understaffed. I sometimes have the urge to go to an In-N-Out, but the drive through line loops through their own parking lot and into the one next door. There are people standing outside the restaurant because the indoor dining line extends past the doors. I don't really want to sit in my car or stand in line for 30 minutes. I used to go to In-N-Out weekly when I worked a late shift; the line after midnight is much shorter.

dsr_ 2mo ago

In-N-Out is, IIRC, completely privately owned by the founder's family. Every location is directly controlled. Their customers are the people buying burgers. McDonalds, of course, is 5% corp-owned flagships and 95% franchise "opportunities". They don't have customers, they have tenant farmers who work the land leased to them.

Ekaros 2mo ago
Maybe we should start to question how good idea this whole thing of other companies operating under brands of others really is for all of us. Franchises might make money. Or they won't... It is still pretty large rentier cut... Still nothing compared to things like taxis of Uber or Lyft or food delivery... And then the whole Amazon package delivery... So many parties either directly exploiting others or being able to do it by taking significant cuts of revenue for questionable value...

xp84 2mo ago

In-N-Out is a low-margin, high-volume business, kind of like how Walmart is. They literally can't cut staff because they only make money due to the incredibly high number of meals they serve per hour. So they have to serve as efficiently as possible, which requires that fully-staffed kitchen and counter, or there wouldn't be enough time in the mealtime hours to do that volume otherwise. It's just as impossible for them to cut any staff as an airline could remove pilots from the cockpit, in that the whole operation would cease to function. McDonald's and the rest are never going to be In-N-Out though because it would take years of operating at steep losses in the hopes people would notice how fast and tasty they'd become. I can't think of a mature company that's ever pulled off going from "boring mainstream place" to "cult favorite" like that.

hamdingers 2mo ago
McDonalds was that and more first. They established the template that In-N-Out continues to follow, as anyone older than ~30 remembers. McDonalds chose to aggressively enshittify, In-N-Out did not. You're probably right that McDonalds will never be that again, I don't think they even want to. If you cut minimum wage in half today, they'd keep the same staffing levels and the franchise owners would pocket the difference.
- xp84 2mo ago
  We agree mostly. I'm sure they would never "give back" the labor spend they've already 'learned to live without.' Though if you cut minimum wage, it'd suddenly become possible for a new entrant to open a restaurant that would embarrass them, by having twice the staff while holding other things similar. Today that's impossible to do without losing a ton of money, so the current businesses are protected from competition (other than from those "cult" type of place like In-N-N-Out. But how much more business can McDonald's really lose to In-N-Out, since they're basically running at capacity).

preg_match 2mo ago

In-n-out not only has high wages, they’re staffed to the nines. I’m talking 20-25 employees during rush time. You don’t see some, because they’re in the back peeling potatoes for dinner rush 6 hours later.

jerlam 2mo ago

In-N-Out may have a lot of staff but my experience is that they are extraordinarily slow for "fast food", and this was before the pandemic. They would never meet the metrics of other chains. Arguably, they have always been understaffed. I sometimes have the urge to go to an In-N-Out, but the drive through line loops through their own parking lot and into the one next door. There are people standing outside the restaurant because the indoor dining line extends past the doors. I don't really want to sit in my car or stand in line for 30 minutes. I used to go to In-N-Out weekly when I worked a late shift; the line after midnight is much shorter.