Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Tuesday June 06 2017, @02:32AM   Printer-friendly
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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @01:34PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @01:34PM (#521310)

    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?

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @04:04PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @04:04PM (#521390)

    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)

      by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 06 2017, @05:04PM (#521431) Journal

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @07:27PM (#521510)

        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

          by cubancigar11 (330) on Wednesday June 07 2017, @06:55AM (#521783) Homepage Journal

          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

          ... the parties involved agreed to such violent in advance.

          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.