SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the employees-can't-afford-to-be-customers dept.
Casual dining is in danger — and millennials are to blame.
Brands such as TGI Fridays, Ruby Tuesday, and Applebee's have faced sales slumps and dozens of restaurant closures, as casual dining chains have struggled to attract customers and grow sales.
"Casual-dining restaurants face a uniquely challenging market today," Buffalo Wild Wings CEO Sally Smith recently wrote in a letter to shareholders.
According to Smith, these sit-down restaurants' struggles can blamed on the most-frequently besmirched generation: millennials.
"Millennial consumers are more attracted than their elders to cooking at home, ordering delivery from restaurants and eating quickly, in fast-casual or quick-serve restaurants," Smith wrote.
Millenials are too focused on food ordering apps and healthy cuisine.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by idiot_king on Tuesday June 06 2017, @02:33AM (53 children)
Are you saying that... Capitalism is failing to meet our needs????
What an absolute travesty! Whatever will we do without Hyperconsumerism aka Capitalism!? Money save us!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @02:37AM (2 children)
No, no, no. Millennials can't afford to $x because they spend too much eating out! let $x = eat out
(Score: 2) by zafiro17 on Tuesday June 06 2017, @04:35PM (1 child)
I don't get the idea this is about money, it's a matter of shifting tastes. I'm middle aged, so not a Millennial, but I'm not a huge fan of those chains either, though I will from time to time eat there. You walk into one and you know exactly what to expect - and that makes it boring. Tastes change over time, corresponding roughly but not exactly to generations. That's what's happening here - tastes are changing and it's lazy journalism to be able to pin it quickly on a generation, rather than on a market trend.
The world is ready for something new, that's all. TGIFriday's is nothing new under the sun. Next!
Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis - Jack Handey
(Score: 3, Informative) by HiThere on Tuesday June 06 2017, @04:42PM
Were I to guess I'd guess that it's because they have less free cash and less time.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @02:55AM (37 children)
Capitalism is merely the recognition that resources are best allocated when those resources are allocated solely by a person who has gained control of those resources through voluntary agreement with others.
This is an iterative process by which voluntary interaction becomes the overwhelming norm, and by which the shaping of society becomes aligned with the universe's most fundamental process of complex systems: Evolution by Variation (competition) and Selection (consumer choice).
If any economic system is to work (say, socialism), then that economic system must be built atop capitalism; capitalism is the fundamental philosophy—if you want socialism, that allocate your own resources (that is, your own capital, such your your labor, time, etc.) to such endeavors.
YOU are a capitalist... you just don't want to believe it.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @03:08AM (9 children)
Or it's the process by which those who have unethically gained control of resources launder and grow their wealth
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @03:20AM (3 children)
Well, that's true because men are not angels. Maybe GP can help us understand how men may become angels, so we're not stuck with some violently imposed monopoly where those who have unethically gained control of resources launder them and unethically gain control of more resources at an exponential rate.
(Until men are angels, hint to GP, read "wealth" as "unethically gained resources." Hmm, I think we have a catchphrase that's better than "if men were angels," perhaps on par with "violently imposed monopoly:" behold, "unethically gained resources." Yes/No? I like it at least, kudos.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @03:36AM (2 children)
As men are not angels, why would you ever entrust them with a bizarrely blessed-and-ordained monopoly on violence (e.g., the power of a "government")??? Are you insane?
Indeed, in the world at large, there is no such thing as One World Government; governments actually must compete—despite their violent and unangelic natures, this competition keeps governments' excesses in check.
Rather than ignore it, capitalism embraces the fact that men are not angels; capitalism not only allows, but implies the necessity of competition and consumer choice in the provision of those very services that governments often commandeer or otherwise arrogate to themselves, because that is the only way to ensure that the shapes of these services evolve in a way that is productive for society at large.
When devils are forced to compete, the angels are free to go about the mundane business of living productive lives.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Tuesday June 06 2017, @07:51AM (1 child)
So capitalism is fundamentally based on evil? That certainly explains a lot.
The invisible hand is not the hand of god. It's the hand of the devil.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday June 07 2017, @04:19AM
Well, we have this infamous Machiavelli quote:
Perhaps you ought to wonder why systems "based on evil" work better than those that aren't?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @03:22AM (4 children)
Read what I wrote; by my definition, what you wrote is not an example of capitalism.
(Score: 1, Troll) by maxwell demon on Tuesday June 06 2017, @07:58AM (3 children)
So you think you are free to redefine words as you see fit? Communication is possible because words have generally agreed-upon meanings. Terminology matters.
Otherwise I'll redefine "what" as "how" and "to write" as "to be a complete idiot", and therefore interpret
as "Read how I am a complete idiot" ;-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @12:48PM (1 child)
That's why you should learn the other guy's definition of "capitalism"; it's the only in this entire thread is even remotely coherent.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday June 07 2017, @04:28AM
Not any point. This rapidly devolves into the argument from semantics fallacy:
1) Define capitalism with some ridiculous negative connotation unrelated to the real world concept.
2) Assert that the US is capitalist under your pet definition just because it's considered capitalist via the real world concept.
3) Be another idiot on the internet. We clearly don't have enough of them!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @07:17PM
Obviously (no rebuttal required) khallow posting as AC! It is his favorite ploy.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Tuesday June 06 2017, @03:34AM (25 children)
Except that capitalism as generally conceived is based upon a completely unnatural principle: the ability to accumulate large amounts of capital. That depends on the ability to restrict transactions to the small subset which are mutually voluntary, and thus completely disconnects the concept from anything fundamental. (The rabbit does not voluntarily feed the fox, nor the carrot the gopher)
In nature (aka fundamental principles) "capital" is measured primarily in terms of personal attributes - size, strength, combat skill, and perhaps most analogous to modern capitalism, body fat. Calories being the currency of life. A few species store assets against the winter, but only to the extent that they can keep those assets hidden and/or defended from others, and it's pretty much impossible to accumulate more than a single year's worth of consumption.
That all combines to put a severe limit on the maximum possible wealth inequality. Strong property laws pretty much eradicate those limits, and any claim of capitalism as a fundamental principle along with it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @03:49AM (1 child)
When the fox eats the rabbit, the fox is re-appropriating the resources of the rabbit against the rabbit's will; clearly, this is not a voluntary trade, and thus this is not an example of capitalism. (And, please, let's not forget that capitalism is an iterative process; it doesn't matter that the current distribution of resources has a sordid history.)
The coercive relationship between these two entities (the fox and the rabbit) yields something like subsistence—exactly the kind of existence that humans lived for most of their history. Then two things happened:
Technological advancements allowed for handling the logistics of capitalism (e.g., negotiating contracts, resolving disputes, and enforcing contracts, all of which require logic and numeracy and measurement of value, etc.).
A philosophical codification of capitalism as part of the culture. (for instance, it doesn't matter that one man is born of a noble family, while another of a peasant family; what matters is that their interaction be governed by a framework of agreements in advance; the nobleman must purchase meat from the butcher.)
Despite the fact that both of these developments are still woefully primitive, the result has been the greatest unlocking of productivity (and thus the greatest accumulation of wealth) that this part of the Universe has ever seen.
Get it yet?
(Score: 1, Redundant) by c0lo on Tuesday June 06 2017, @11:02AM
What, wealth? No, not yet.
I wonder why?
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Insightful) by cubancigar11 on Tuesday June 06 2017, @05:53AM (14 children)
I will quote something I read a long time back on the old website: A transaction is not a 0 sum game. If you have water and I have uncooked rice, we will both survive if we trade and we will both die if we don't. Even communism doesn't confuse trade with a fox eating the rabbit. It only says that it should not be based on capital, but sharing. You know, like all good things, it is about being nice.
The only problem is that people are born with a tribal mindset. They will kill someone to feed their family. Or religion, or nation, or language, or ancestry, or some vague idea about historical revenge etc. etc. If you read Marx, he accepts that this is a problem. You see, Marx, unlike his followers, was not a politician. He was an academic who deconstructed rampant capitalism of his time. If people actually read Marx, both the supporters and the detractors of communism, they will be more educated and less likely to get politically heckled into voting a party or the other.
Anyway, back to the topic. Capitalism is a power game in a microcosm. Capital itself is nothing but power in tangible format. While you say that basing power on natural attributes like size, strength, combat skill puts a natural upper limit, you miss the more important point - why capital was invented in the first place - was to convert power in tangible format so that it can be traded without violence, and to give a chance to a powerless person who wants to take it. Basing power from might into the idea of money has bought more peace and consequently more prosperity.
So, what Marx saw was rampant capitalism and the abuse of working class because they didn't have the capital. So he asked, if working class is more in numbers and has more physical strength individually, what it is stopping them from reverting back the basis of power into natural attributes? Why is capital valuable when it doesn't help most people? The answer is tech. Technology enables the capital holder to continue its hold on power. To him, the tech was machinery and industry, which he called 'Means of production'. After this, as an academician, he conjectured that at some point of time enough people will realize that they will rise up and take control of the means of production. This he called socialism. He also correctly guessed that socialism will not solve any particular problem because at the end, some entity will be needed to make sure the capital/power doesn't revert back to natural attributes (the bigger person doesn't bully you up into submission/bad deal). He believed that at some point of time in future, after socialism, a system will emerge where this entity will not be centralized and individualistic, where power flow will happen fairly, and this called communism.
That said, what happened next is history. People read the book, got together and revolted, got control of the industry, setup this 'entity'. Then waited for the socialist utopia to happen but it turned out the 'entity' were a bunch of dictators and the results didn't come as fast as they had hoped. Life actually turned into shit because the basis of capital - getting a fair chance to have power - gets eradicated.
This is why pure capitalism is bad, and yet attempts at communism fail badly. In the former you, or at least some of you, get a fair chance, for some definition of fairness, to gain power. Without capitalism, a strong fox doesn't need to become even more stronger, it just needs to be strong enough to hold all the rabbits hostage, so that no other fox gets to eat them. The weaker fox never eats enough, never breeds strong foxes, and dictatorship continues.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @11:00AM (5 children)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @01:34PM (4 children)
No, it's pretty apparent studying cultures throughout history and across the globe that men are tribal animals. It's one of the reasons they aren't angels, maybe the main reason. People are willing to kill people from the other tribe and steal from the other tribe, and no contract between parties can prevent this without an escalating situation of contract enforcers becoming warlords out of necessity.
Only a warlord that is keeping the tribes in check with fair and just laws can have any hope of trying to at least stop this from escalating into endless war between tribes. That's why we have our violently imposed monopoly instead. The problems as of late come about because people forget that what they've done is asked a singular warlord to have a monopoly on contract enforcement. We've allowed that warlord's laws to become unjust.
In fact, men are so tribal that a single state in the USA is too big for a tribe. Nationalism seeks to supersede the idea of small tribalism with the idea of the entire nation as a tribe, but this too is an unnatural idea. States and nations are artificial constructs that have evolved too rapidly for man's own biological evolution to keep pace. While we have some very good arguments in favor of nationalism here, all too often man's base instincts win the battle with what little angelic nature he has and nationalism becomes a tool of racism and religious persecution.
Libertarianism is good. We should guide our warlord to adopt libertarian-minded policies, allowing capitalism, free enterprise, and voluntary association to flourish as they may in areas where this makes sense. Anarcho-capitalism is not libertarianism and not workable in every domain of life in the face of man's sum nature.
Get it yet?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @04:04PM (3 children)
Minarchism (a minimal State) is still statism; it's still based on coercion.
Every time you establish a State that is more libertarian than the last version, you end up with a State that can be made yet more libertarian. When taken to the limit, one ends up with anarchy (no State), where the interactions between individuals are "governed" by "law" that emerges organically from the collection of all of the voluntary agreements:
Anarcho-Capitalism
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday June 06 2017, @05:04PM (2 children)
Anarchy is unstable. There have been a few pleasant genuine anarchies studied, but they tended to degrade horribly under stress. The others were more like war-lordism, which was usually even more unpleasant than feudalism, but which, after a period of warfare, tended to evolve into a dictator-ship which tended to evolve into a monarchy. (For all the bad things truly said about feudalism, there are other choices that are worse.)
OTOH, from studying history I've become convinced that nobody can be trusted with much power over other people. One of the advantages of democracy is that it tends to spread the power around so it's less concentrated. This *may* be its only advantage. But it also makes long-term planning quite difficult. It isn't inherently less oppressive. But it's not clear that you can run a dense civilization with fast transport and communications without a large amount of control. It's just not clear that any human, and certainly not any series of humans, and be trusted with that control. Just consider the uses made by police of their control over the cameras that they are often supposed to wear and it becomes evident that they should only be allowed to exert power (as police) when the cameras are on, working, and not covered. Exerting police power in any other circumstance should be considered illegal actions under cloak of law. (I.e., they're wearing a police uniform and fraudulently claiming to be acting as a police officer).
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @07:27PM (1 child)
You can say that anarchy is not inherently stable, but you cannot say that there is no stable anarchy.
Anarchy does not imply a lack of order; rather, anarchy just implies a lack of coercion.
For instance, to enforce a contract by violent means is still a voluntary interaction if such means are specified in the contract; the parties involved agreed to such violent in advance.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Wednesday June 07 2017, @06:55AM
You are arguing on mathematical precision of logic. No such thing exists when you get down to nitty-gritties. Not even in physics (pun intended :P). The issue of creating a system is not based on logic, it is based on management. Game theory comes close to describing it. For example, this article [jofreeman.com] very successfully describes the problem in creating a structureless community that wants to get anything done.
It is actually where left is a complete failure, and everyone else who has tried to create something different - We have yet to create a system that can get anything done without putting power
And what happens when a party says it didn't? That is, btw, the more if not the most common scenario. This is where book-keeping becomes important, and the next moment you will need someone who cannot be coerced into forging the books.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday June 06 2017, @05:16PM (6 children)
I think it's important to note here that both the USSR and the Chinese Communists arose not from revolts against capitalism, but from revolts against feudalism, and that was probably a major factor in how they ended up. If you want an example of a successful revolt against capitalism, you have to look at Cuba: They still have a lot of problems, of course, but they also have a level of literacy and life expectancy that is far better than they had under Batista.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @07:31PM
It's the year 2017. The capitalists of the world have poured tons of resources into figuring out the best ways to care for people's health, to extend their life expectancies, and to teach people to read.
You know who else has seen improvements in literacy and life expectancy? JUST ABOUT EVERYONE ELSE ON THE PLANET.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @01:59AM (1 child)
As long as you take the word of their Dictator for Life, who just happened to be the brother of the last Dictator for Life. They would never lie or anything.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday June 15 2017, @06:02PM
Or take the word of the World Health Organization, or the CIA World Factbook, or several other international organizations, plus in my case the direct experience of talking to Cubans who were able to travel to the US and Americans who were able to go to Cuba as part of a religious exchange program. The claim that those improvements were all made up mostly come from the people who were doing well under the Batista government.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Wednesday June 07 2017, @06:38AM (2 children)
Yes but that improvement in life is (a) funded by selling oil in international market and is not internal and (b) there was always going to be some improvement after a dictatorship. In reality, western Europe today stands closer to the Marxist vision than any other place on earth, but even they are mostly funded by international trade, with no short parts of arms-trade. Personally, more I read about European industry, more I realize that their high-tech manufacturing is all based on military superiority.
Lastly, Cuba, and even European countries like Germany and France, are very small countries which are simply easier to pivot and manage when compared to USSR or China or India or Brazil or USA.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday June 07 2017, @02:36PM (1 child)
Err, what? Cuba is an importer of oil, not an exporter, and its major export has always been sugar. I think you're thinking of Venezuela, which is in a very different situation than Cuba.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Wednesday June 07 2017, @04:39PM
Yeah, you got me. My knowledge about South America and Australia is very bad. Sorry...
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday June 07 2017, @02:07PM
A fine quote, so long as you recognize that "not zero sum" doesn't preclude one participant claiming the vast majority of the over-unity benefits. For example if lots of people have rice but only one has water, then the person with water can negotiate very favorable deals trading a pittance of water for a full measure of rice, such that the rice-holders are just barely better off than before, while the water-holder rapidly gathers mountains of rice as well.
Capitalism, in the form of it's idealized "free market" manifestation, is indeed a wonderful way to allocate limited resources in a relatively efficient manner, it even works pretty well in practice. However, it is also quite problematic as a method of distributing wealth as it gives a grossly outsized advantage to those who already possess it which, if not moderated by some other economic principle, which will pretty much unavoidably snowball into extreme wealth and power inequality.
>People read the book, got together and revolted...
You might want to read history a bit deeper, what actually happened was a handful of people who wanted to overthrow the current regime and install themselves in it's place found a convenient banner to wave to rally the masses and keep them distracted from their actual goals. There were potentially a few figureheads that truly wanted to implement the ideals, but the people backing them and making the revolution a reality pretty clearly had no such interests.
Not that I'm a fan of communism, I don't see any way for it to even have a chance of working at the nation-state scale without first implementing a seemingly even more impossible robust and corruption-proof democracy. And it does seem to require a greater degree of general altruism than there's evidence to believe in. But historical "examples" of its failing are nothing of the sort - it has to be attempted before it can fail. They do though offer strong warning to look very carefully at the agendas of populists and demagogues. Not that that helps much, as such people tend to prosper best when the masses get so desperate enough that they're willing to try anything.
It seems to me that capitalism is a wonderful piece of the puzzle, but it requires a second piece - probably some form of ongoing wealth redistribution, in order to keep it from deeply unbalancing the playing field. Because alone it offers no more fair chance to have power than communism.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday June 06 2017, @10:33AM (6 children)
Do please explain to me how this is in any way unnatural. Also, this can be accomplished without exchanging capital in any way whatsoever.
Wrong. In nature capital is expressed entirely in resources. Abilities are advantages but they are not resources.
That you would even unironically use the term "wealth inequality" clearly shows that you don't even know what wealth fundamentally is. Pro-tip: It's not capital.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @12:50PM (3 children)
Capital is any phenomenon that can be put to productive use; "capital" is just a synonym for "resource".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @05:59PM (1 child)
Don't argue with the troll, I'm pretty sure he was the original inspiration for https://www.reddit.com/r/iamversmart/ [reddit.com]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday June 06 2017, @09:51PM
You, my cowardly friend, need to learn what trolling is. Pro-tip: It's not someone disagreeing with your snowflake ass. No, not even snarkily.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday June 07 2017, @04:31AM
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday June 06 2017, @10:40PM (1 child)
>Do please explain to me how this is in any way unnatural.
Do please give me any example of it occurring in nature.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday June 06 2017, @10:50PM
'Kay. Humans.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday June 07 2017, @03:54AM
The unnatural principle here actually is intelligence. No other creature on Earth is intelligent enough to be able to do this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @05:56PM
Another social darwinist comes to explain how life REALLY works. Thank you AC! I have been losing sleep over whether we are inherently capitalist or socialist as a species. /s
Here's a clue, its a big mix!
(Score: 3, Funny) by takyon on Tuesday June 06 2017, @03:48AM (7 children)
Eat the millennials?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday June 06 2017, @10:37AM (6 children)
Dibs on the hot chicks.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @12:34PM (1 child)
They'll be eating each other. You'll be stuck with Emo boys and Justin Bieber.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday June 06 2017, @09:54PM
Damn. Well at least there's the fun of the slaughter in that case.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday June 06 2017, @12:49PM (2 children)
Not enough meat on them bones.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday June 06 2017, @10:01PM (1 child)
"Hot" from me is not the same as "hot" from a NY fashion designer. From one of the greatest sages of my generation:
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday June 06 2017, @11:54PM
Very true.
(Score: 3, Funny) by SpockLogic on Tuesday June 06 2017, @01:41PM
What, no mention of Hooters? You guys are slipping.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 3, Interesting) by khallow on Tuesday June 06 2017, @11:01AM (2 children)
No. Let us look at a quote near the bottom:
Capitalism already saved us from waiting at a table for food which "millennials" apparently do not want in sufficiently high quantity to support the current oversupply of the casual dining niche. This is just a routine economic correction, like how you might shift slightly to maintain your balance while walking.
(Score: 2) by idiot_king on Tuesday June 06 2017, @05:41PM (1 child)
And my point is this: Correction isn't necessary if it is preconceived that people's use of capital needs to be regulated so as to not cause a correction.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday June 07 2017, @03:46AM
I'll note in this particular case, to prevent correction, regulation would have to suppress the preferences of millennials for food and venue choices that run counter to what everyone else eats. After all, if you keep introducing new generations of people who naturally prefer to be different from their forebears, you will get corrections as a result due to old systems not being fully adapted to the new generation's preferences. That's a nasty oppression of those who wish to be different and a recipe for stagnation.
Second, even if one were successful at the above, there would still be corrections merely due to the fact that the world isn't constant. Large scale disasters are good examples of such unavoidable corrections. So not only is regulating away correction a bad idea, it is also impossible.
And that's the virtue of such corrections. They are quick adaptations to changes in the world and one of the big ways modern society avoids stagnation.
Third, a preconceived notion is not actual. You still have a huge gap between the idea and the implementation of that idea. 18th Century Irish hunger and poverty wasn't done away with merely because Jonathan Swift proposed the idea of turning Irish children into nutritious meals. Finally, correction is a regulation of the system, just not one implemented by a central authority. It has the virtue of being created by dynamics and decision-makers closer to and more knowledgeable of the problem leading to the correction.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Wednesday June 07 2017, @08:28AM
I believe the proper solution is for the gov't to force millennials to go to these restaurants. Or else give the restaurants massive, ongoing bailouts and make the millennials pay for the bailouts.
Privatize profits.
Socialize losses.
It's the Republican way!