A Couple More Points About The Noodle Guy

I missed a couple of things the other day about Rob Lewis the service industry worker, which was graciously linked by Bob Belvedere over at The Camp Of The Saints.

So yeah, I'll be wearing a 'Captain Obvious' cap. Much like before.

Noodles & Company is a franchise. Chances are, Rob's boss isn't even the boss of the company. The franchise location where Rob works under control of the corporation *gasp* of Noodles & Company. Which is done so if someone walks into one franchise store and buys a dish they like, they can walk into any other Noodles & Company and get the same dish, made the same way.

Sure there isn't much of a chance to do variations and custom dishes but the chain stores are helped out in the way of name recognition, a set menu and advertising.

I also forgot to mention risk. Rob's boss had to have put up a substantial sum to get his restaurant running. The franchise fee, lease on the building, deposits on utilities, with money on loan from the bank. He needed all of these done even before he can open the doors to the public. Couple that with the chance his place has a 23% chance of failure within the first year. There's bound to be a few sleepless nights when starting out.

And Johnny Come Lately Rob Lewis wants an equal share of the profits because he can flop a spoonful of stir fry on a plate after watching a ten minute instructional video about the importance of food safety? The level of risk by his boss (lots) isn't exactly the same as the level of risk done by Rob (slim to none).

Even the Bible knew and understood how risk and investment worked. Obviously, Rob has no idea about what actually goes into running a restaurant.

There's an old joke that says, "How do you make a million dollars in the restaurant industry?"

"You start out with two million."

One way to 'earn' that million is to let people like Rob run the place.

Video: "Noodles" Restaurant Worker Not Quite Understanding The Concept Of The Service Industry

Rob Lewis-- the main subject of the clip-- is not even in circle he's trying to square.



Parts of the video is some meeting of a few people who are looking to organize a union for something. One of the guys running the meeting goes into a squawking diatribe about the usual left wing offenses. Koch Brothers, 'The Rich', blah blah blah. It's been said before and will be said again. I'm only thankful that the video is edited enough to where his speech is way less than two minutes.  More info about that meeting here.

I suspect I'm going to be preaching to much of the choir with this. At the very least, most people understands how businesses are ran.

There are two parts where Mr. Lewis is showing his disconnect from reality.

The first part of his disconnect:

“You either work for someone else or you work for yourself. And most people work for someone else in a way that they aren’t free. You don’t really get to decide your work. For example, I work at Noodles, a restaurant, and basically it’s a dictatorship there. We’re told exactly what we’re going to cook, how we’re going to cook it, what time we’re going to get there. And basically if they don’t like what we’re doing, they try and tell us what to do. If we don’t listen, they get rid of us,” the employee said.

He's correct to a point about working for someone else or for yourself. Most people are employed by someone else. But its a mutual exchange. For the most part, it's time and labor on behalf of the employee in exchange for a set rate of dollars per hour. If Rob doesn't like it, he can leave Noodles and work elsewhere. Maybe he can find a job with a higher rate of pay. That's part of the perks and risks of living in a free market. All this should have been taught in Econ 101 in high school.

It can be said that even self-employed people are still working for people. Directly for their clients and customers.

As a restaurant that is dependent on repeat service and loyal clientele, consistency in food preparation is key. If the customers who walk into Noodles don't like their food, they will go someplace else next time. There are plenty of other restaurants in the area who would be happy to take in the hungry customer. Noodles doesn't have the benefit of being on the exit ramp near a busy highway where most customers would be one timers.

The second part of the disconnect is here:

The employee continued, “And so we’re not able to actually cooperate in a way that we make decisions together. I try to convince my fellow employees that we should have a union at Noodles so it’s a source of power to start with and then I think in terms of the bigger picture, we need to look at revolutions in a way that you actually get rid of any sort of dictatorship is by having workers take control of the place where they work.”

Who knows what kind of guy Mr. Lewis's boss is. But the key is that Mr. Lewis is free to leave the job and work elsewhere. His boss is the person who put up the money to buy the franchise of Noodles. He rents the building that the restaurant is located at. He has to make it work so that his employees get paid. Keep an eye out on the food. And so on and so forth. Stands to reason why he should be receiving a larger share.

And as a service industry based restaurant based in a college town, I'm sure that he has no end of job applicants to sort through. And with a minimal amount of training, the new person can be serving noodles with the best of them.

There may be a few other reasons but the main reason why people like Mr. Lewis want to unionize such an entry level position is for protection. He should be happy to have a job.

Now if only he would use his energy for socialism towards his job, he might eventually become a free market kind of guy.

Anyway: Stick with the video until the very end to see the free market transaction take place and you'll be doing one of these.

One Last Post About That Racist And Violent Common Cause Rally

Via Insty.

If you can handle one more posting about The Common Cause rally, this should be it. Unless something really good comes along.

James Taranto points out a few things he noticed in the Wall Street Journal:

The press release is framed as a condemnation of the Common Cause supporters--or, in the group's unwieldy description of them, "a few of those attending the events around a gathering Common Cause helped to organize Sunday near Palm Springs." The statement goes on:

Anyone who has attended a public event has encountered people whose ideas or acts misrepresented, even embarrassed, the gathering. Every sporting event has its share of "fans" whose boorish behavior on the sidelines makes a mockery of good sportsmanship; every political gathering has a crude sign-painter or epithet-spewing heckler.
Everybody does it? Think it through and you will see that this is a stunning indictment of the American left.

[. . .]
In claiming that everybody does it, Common Cause is committing the fallacy known as hasty generalization: drawing an overbroad conclusion based on a statistically insufficient sample. A famous example from politics is the apocryphal quote attributed to the late Pauline Kael, film critic of The New Yorker: "I don't understand how Nixon won. Everybody I know voted for McGovern."
[. . .]
There is another rich irony to Common Cause's "condemnation" of its rally's participants. The purpose of the event was "to call public attention to the political power of . . . corporations, their focus on expanding that power, and the dangers it presents to our democracy." Common Cause is targeting Justices Scalia and Thomas because they voted with the majority in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the 2010 decision that--as Common Cause put it in a fund-raising appeal last year--"inexplicably gave corporations the same rights as individuals" to engage in political speech.
[. . .]
Common Cause's position is that only individuals, not corporations, have the right to free speech. So what is Common Cause? As we noted above, its website describes it as a "grassroots organization." But that term has no legal meaning. As Common Cause's "Frequently Asked Questions" explains, the group is a "a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, tax exempt organization." A corporation, just like Citizens United.
[. . .]
For the sake of truth in advertising, Common Cause should change its name to Hypocrisy Hub.

Please read the whole thing.

One Last Post About That Racist And Violent Common Cause Rally

Via Insty.

If you can handle one more posting about The Common Cause rally, this should be it. Unless something really good comes along.

James Taranto points out a few things he noticed in the Wall Street Journal:

The press release is framed as a condemnation of the Common Cause supporters--or, in the group's unwieldy description of them, "a few of those attending the events around a gathering Common Cause helped to organize Sunday near Palm Springs." The statement goes on:

Anyone who has attended a public event has encountered people whose ideas or acts misrepresented, even embarrassed, the gathering. Every sporting event has its share of "fans" whose boorish behavior on the sidelines makes a mockery of good sportsmanship; every political gathering has a crude sign-painter or epithet-spewing heckler.
Everybody does it? Think it through and you will see that this is a stunning indictment of the American left.

[. . .]
In claiming that everybody does it, Common Cause is committing the fallacy known as hasty generalization: drawing an overbroad conclusion based on a statistically insufficient sample. A famous example from politics is the apocryphal quote attributed to the late Pauline Kael, film critic of The New Yorker: "I don't understand how Nixon won. Everybody I know voted for McGovern."
[. . .]
There is another rich irony to Common Cause's "condemnation" of its rally's participants. The purpose of the event was "to call public attention to the political power of . . . corporations, their focus on expanding that power, and the dangers it presents to our democracy." Common Cause is targeting Justices Scalia and Thomas because they voted with the majority in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the 2010 decision that--as Common Cause put it in a fund-raising appeal last year--"inexplicably gave corporations the same rights as individuals" to engage in political speech.
[. . .]
Common Cause's position is that only individuals, not corporations, have the right to free speech. So what is Common Cause? As we noted above, its website describes it as a "grassroots organization." But that term has no legal meaning. As Common Cause's "Frequently Asked Questions" explains, the group is a "a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, tax exempt organization." A corporation, just like Citizens United.
[. . .]
For the sake of truth in advertising, Common Cause should change its name to Hypocrisy Hub.

Please read the whole thing.

"Their Fingerprints Are On The Pillows That Are Suffocating All Of Us"

Yesterday, the 'Common Cause' rally was highlighted here to show some of the hatred and vitriol and, quite frankly, violence that dwell in the hearts of their followers. Common Cause can't control those who wanted to appear at their rallies anymore than the Tea Parties can.

But what do the the organizers say about those who were invited to speak at a special discussion panel that used extensive rhetoric? "Fight to stop this evil"? Is that a metaphor or was fight meant in the literal sense of the word?



The real cause of their hate and violent rhetoric? (At least I only hope it's rhetorical.)

Global Warming, is there anything it can't do?

Actually, Global Warming is a small apart of it. "Evil" corporations are polluting the planet, causing the earth to overheat. Anti-Global Warming is just a root in the tree of Progressivism. Social Justice is another root that has a vague enough sounding name that it sounds like a good idea until you start to examine it. Give money to the poor from everyone who makes more than I do is what Social Justice is when stripped down to the bare bones.

I think the people in the video feel entitled to say those things because they consider themselves to be on the 'side' of everything that mighty and just. Clean air and water! Free health care! What kind of monster would oppose that sort of thing? Surely some sort of greedy-eyed hunchback who uses the blood of the poor to mix the cement in the foundation in order to build mansion plantation (sorry, forgot who I was talking about) would do such a thing. At least that's how I would imagine a conservative to appear if I went by their description alone from the video above. So of course if you are on the side of good, everything else will be bad and worthy of scorn and hate and violence.

Because, in their minds, they are the good guys.

Obviously this doesn't apply to all liberals but the most liberal of liberals. The kind who sign up for a Common Cause rally. A very vocal and violent sounding-- again, one only hopes they are speaking rhetorically-- minority.

The rest of the liberals are clueless dolts who haven't thought out their positions very well. They say, "Free stuff? Sure, sign me up!" without realizing that if everyone was promised cookies and lemonade, by the time it was distributed it would only be a couple of crumbs and a teaspoon of juice-- to paraphrase what Jesse Hughes said.

I think I've beaten the 'New Tone' thing to death with a tire iron (whoops, did it again, violent imagery). But its obvious to me that there was no 'New Tone'. It was only another way to tell conservatives and Republicans to shut up.

A Series Of Clown Cars Communist Bus Tour Is Hitting The Streets

Coming this summer, a group of youths advocating violence may be traveling to your town in a bus colored to inflame emotions.

Be sure to find out where they are and ask them questions. Not about philosophy of their system but ask for money.

Something like, "Brother, I identify with your views and agree with you to some point but the man has been keeping me down and I need some money. Can you help me out? One true believer to another?"

Anyway, this is from the Young Communist's website, the group sponsoring the tour:

Youth Unite and Fight! - Young Communist League, USA - Who We Are!

[. . .]
What do you call a system that promotes community, economic justice and equality, peace among nations, and outlaws racism, sexism, and homophobia? [My emphasis on the ironic parts for the liberals who might see this]

I would imagine they are immune to their own irony.

Okay, it's not so much as irony but it's that they want fights and 'revolution' until the right people are in charge. Then there will be 'peace'. And their version of 'peace' is smashing the fingers, toes, feet, hands, nose, kneecaps or nuts of anyone who speaks against their way of running things. How else do you keep order in a "perfect society"?

It's Up To You

In a world. . .



Thanks to my in-laws for finding this.

Video: The Socialist

Via Smitty at The Other McCain.



I wasn't sure about this at first. It seemed to be a "Rah, rah, rah" type of video for the right. But after a few more viewings of it, it does ask the right question about Obama. Are you better off four years ago than you are today?

All dressed up with a cover of Radiohead's song, "Creep".*

I hope that most people will stick with through the end.

*Which will now be stuck in my head for at least two days. Good thing I like the song.

Is Obama A Socialist?

Remember, a person's character can be judged by those he chooses to associate himself with.

Yeah, About That "Obama Derangement Syndrome" . . .

It's more like accuracy in labeling.

When polls have results like this:

67 percent of Republicans (and 40 percent of Americans overall) believe that Obama is a socialist.

It's because Republicans have been listening to Sen. Max Baucus (Democrat, Noted supporter of tax paid programs to give Viagra to convicted pedophiles) and other Democrats say things like this on the Senate floor (audio at the link):

Too often, much of late, the last couple three [since Democrats have had control of Congress] years the mal-distribution [read, redistribution] of income in America is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind. Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution [again, redistribution] of income in America. [Editorial mine]

The mask has more than just slipped.

RELATED: Liberal talker Ed Schultz advocates censorship.

Bill Whittle Fires Off

Stick with it for the entire 10 minutes.



This reminds me when leftists resort to calling people 'racists' and 'fascists' when they can't refute facts.

Thanks to Jim.

Fair. I Don't Think That Word Means What Nancy Pelosi Thinks It Means

Via Infidels Are Cool.



The proverbial 'Creeping Socialism' isn't creeping anymore as much as taking leaps and bounds.

Ace has more about the encroachment of our rights by Congress.

The left continues pounding the table, insisting that right-wingers are "paranoid" and "extremist" to call Obama a socialist, or to use totalitarian imagery in posters to protest his agenda. Why, it's just so not true! they bleat. You'd have to be a maniac like Sarah Palin to make these delusional claims! Why, it's like bad science-fiction!

Really?

Socialism never attends a party without an escort of coercive state behavior. It is a historic fact -- indeed, an economic fact -- that as the state seeks to regulate and control more and more economic activity, they must, of course, control more and more human activity.

A FEW CARTOONS TO ENJOY

Credit to Toby Toons