• atrielienz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    They were worried that nobody would buy an $18 burger from them when they could get an $18 burger of much better size and quality from a better chain restaurant.

    • Ptsf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 days ago

      That’s the excuse used so they can charge you $18 for a burger, truth be told if you took some of the greedily hoarded profits alway from the franchise agreements and ownership cuts you’d be able to pay workers more and keep prices low. The ownership class just wants to have their cake and eat it too, which last time was forcibly ended with a shit ton of daggers (Rome) and guillotines (France).

      • atrielienz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        The way I said it was less elegant and more sardonic, but this is pretty much what I meant. They weren’t worried about the understaffing or the people. They were worried about the effect on their bottom line. Raising prices directly effects their bottom line because they aren’t aiming to compete with a place like Red Robin, but to keep profits high they are having to raise prices and that is literally making them compete above their weight class.