Panera Bread's Socialist 'Pay What You Want' Experiment Fails Miserably

I had some extra cash to spend on my Jeep. For a split second I felt a slight tinge of guilt. Would the money be better spent on charity. I believe in charity, and worked numerous charity build projects. Then I realized buying KC lights was providing demand for jobs. Charity is great. But what are people really supporting when they give to charity vs buying products that create demand for jobs.

There is more to life than work. But you got to eat, and provide for your family.

a reply to: peskyhumans

Panera Bread isn't a government.

none of that is socialist so...

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: mysterioustranger

How long did that location operate?

A few years, next door to Buffalo Wild Wings, across from Mongolian Barbecue and a few other martini bars, burger joints. Everyone loved the place...but they couldnt survive. We personally? We paid at least menu suggested payment...but the rich Ford Execs among other took advantage'

Great location on the corner of Howard and Michigan Ave.

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: mysterioustranger

Then...the "exectutive-class" started not paying...while us average customers did.

Any proof for that statement? I would be interested in knowing who the executive class in Dearborn, MI are.

Google it:
Henry Ford Motor's offices for World Headquarters... own the entire Michigan Ave West Village and elsewhere...all land. Called Fordland. U of M-Dearborn, Henry Ford Museum, Greenfield Village, Auto Museum of America, Regent Court, Hospitals Beaumont, Henry Ford Hospital, Developed most of 5 miles in all directions plus all their offices, dealerships, Rouge Plant for F150's. Because their exec offices for world wide production are there...and Team Detroit for advertising, test tracks for driverless cars..etc, etc...Ford controls Dearborn. And the Muslims....

If you want excellent examples of socialism at work there are numerous worker owned co-ops in the us. The workers all have votes on policy, work, and where funds go, and the wages are both higher and more equal on average than their capitalist owned competition. I am in the process of starting one up myself actually. They are often very successful and provide a much better environment for their workers, with greater security, dignity, and profit is owned by the creators of that profit. As opposed to standard corporations where profit is created collectively, and accumulated privately.

a reply to: pexx421

How is a company an example of socialism? You just have a different business model than a company ran by outside stockholders.

Both models are to turn a profit.

I found it ironic since Panera charges $9 for a sandwich or salad that I can make better at home for about $3. Although I like the idea of taking money from rich college students (via parental financial backing) who think a $5 Mochalottanicknackpaddywhackichino coffee is a 'good deal' and giving those profits to the poor, I have a counter proposal that many bake sales use: asking a minimum. If your costs including labor is $4.00, charge $4.50 minimum. Maybe you'll get a customer to give you a fiver and smile as they say, "Keep the change". Maybe $10 now and then. Instead of throwing all that food in the trash at the end of the day, donate to a local soup kitchen or food bank. My degree isn't in economics but as others have mentioned here, sustainability and common sense.

a reply to: neutronflux

Because the very basis of socialism is workers owning the profit of their labor. It’s the primary pillar upon which everything else is based. And that’s what worker owned cooperatives are all about. Each person fully owning and controlling the profit that they individually produce. Further most every post on here is jeering about Panera and saying it’s a model of socialism. It’s not, it’s a model of a charity style business. Worker coops are more in line with the socialist model. Profit is the surplus created between the cost of production and the price of sale. Socialism isn’t prohibited from creating profit. It just seeks to limit 2 factors. First it seems to limit EXPLOITATIVE profit, and second it seeks to limit monopolistic profit.

If people have the option between free or pay most will choose free and not pay regardless how they felt about the quality of the product.

I had a website in the late nineties that gave downloaders the option to pay after use. Out of the thousands of users who downloaded the content, only one sent payment for use.

originally posted by: pexx421
a reply to: neutronflux

Because the very basis of socialism is workers owning the profit of their labor. It’s the primary pillar upon which everything else is based. And that’s what worker owned cooperatives are all about. Each person fully owning and controlling the profit that they individually produce. Further most every post on here is jeering about Panera and saying it’s a model of socialism. It’s not, it’s a model of a charity style business. Worker coops are more in line with the socialist model. Profit is the surplus created between the cost of production and the price of sale. Socialism isn’t prohibited from creating profit. It just seeks to limit 2 factors. First it seems to limit EXPLOITATIVE profit, and second it seeks to limit monopolistic profit.

Define exploitative profit...

It’s not surprising that the many on here have such misconceptions about the socialist model because that’s how you’ve all been manipulated to think of socialism. But the founders of it were not idiots, as they would have to be if their plan resembled what you think. They were learned men who put a lot of thought and consideration into the inadequacy of capitalism and created an alternative. And the reality of what they hypothesized has been harshly suppressed by the very people who want a system that has everyone else create the profit while they sit back and accumulate it all, ie capitalism. Where a small group of people control all the wealth and power that is actually generated collectively.

a reply to: pexx421

Socialism is distributed misery.

Saying otherwise flies in the face of history.

See? Catchy slogans and false equivalency are all they can come up with.

Next they’ll likely point to the many “socialist “ nations that collapsed. All examples of which would fail any scientific study. First, they don’t identify the nations correctly, often pointing out nations with communism, dictatorships, or state capitalism. Next, every single nation they name will be a nation that was at war with a vastly more powerful nation, but that also is never accounted for in their calculations.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: pexx421
a reply to: neutronflux

Because the very basis of socialism is workers owning the profit of their labor. It’s the primary pillar upon which everything else is based. And that’s what worker owned cooperatives are all about. Each person fully owning and controlling the profit that they individually produce. Further most every post on here is jeering about Panera and saying it’s a model of socialism. It’s not, it’s a model of a charity style business. Worker coops are more in line with the socialist model. Profit is the surplus created between the cost of production and the price of sale. Socialism isn’t prohibited from creating profit. It just seeks to limit 2 factors. First it seems to limit EXPLOITATIVE profit, and second it seeks to limit monopolistic profit.

Define exploitative profit...

I will attempt to do so for you. Exploitative profit is any situation where profit is pushed higher than natural market supply and demand. This Can also be known as economic rent. So, monopolies, oligarchies, price fixing, artificial scarcity, economic bubbles created by future shares speculation, real estate bubbles, charging hiked interest off no risk loans, these are a few good examples.

I would also add, corporations using massive money to push legislation which forces public taxes or funds to be used on their products, or push wars for profit, or subsidies to their already successful companies, or push legislation negating negotiations of prices on their products paid for by public taxes, this is exploitative profit as well.

originally posted by: pexx421

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: pexx421
a reply to: neutronflux

Because the very basis of socialism is workers owning the profit of their labor. It’s the primary pillar upon which everything else is based. And that’s what worker owned cooperatives are all about. Each person fully owning and controlling the profit that they individually produce. Further most every post on here is jeering about Panera and saying it’s a model of socialism. It’s not, it’s a model of a charity style business. Worker coops are more in line with the socialist model. Profit is the surplus created between the cost of production and the price of sale. Socialism isn’t prohibited from creating profit. It just seeks to limit 2 factors. First it seems to limit EXPLOITATIVE profit, and second it seeks to limit monopolistic profit.

Define exploitative profit...

I will attempt to do so for you. Exploitative profit is any situation where profit is pushed higher than natural market supply and demand. This Can also be known as economic rent. So, monopolies, oligarchies, price fixing, artificial scarcity, economic bubbles created by future shares speculation, real estate bubbles, charging hiked interest off no risk loans, these are a few good examples.

Very few instances of those and the reality is that when it does occur, it is not so much because of a free market, but that government often creates barriers to entry with excessive regulations keeping out competition. This results in the largest companies being able to exploit the lack of competition. Funny thing, government creating the very scenario they don't want to happen. Whowuddathunk?

Kind of like how Dodd-Frank created more big banks instead of making them smaller.... small banks can't afford to keep up with the regs, so they merge and get bigger. Doh....

But wait! There’s more! I’d add corporate takeovers so that you can downsize and liquidate inventory and pensions for profits! I’d also add using massive funding to legislate reduced taxation on your industry or tax bracket. Or to legislate deconstructing regulations on your industry so that you can reduce labor costs and protections, despoil the environment, outsource to reduce labor costs, limit prosecution on hiring illegals, or use public funds to compensate you for massive fraud, and avoid prosecution ala bailout. These are all pillars of exploitative profit as well, I think.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: pexx421

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: pexx421
a reply to: neutronflux

Because the very basis of socialism is workers owning the profit of their labor. It’s the primary pillar upon which everything else is based. And that’s what worker owned cooperatives are all about. Each person fully owning and controlling the profit that they individually produce. Further most every post on here is jeering about Panera and saying it’s a model of socialism. It’s not, it’s a model of a charity style business. Worker coops are more in line with the socialist model. Profit is the surplus created between the cost of production and the price of sale. Socialism isn’t prohibited from creating profit. It just seeks to limit 2 factors. First it seems to limit EXPLOITATIVE profit, and second it seeks to limit monopolistic profit.

Define exploitative profit...

I will attempt to do so for you. Exploitative profit is any situation where profit is pushed higher than natural market supply and demand. This Can also be known as economic rent. So, monopolies, oligarchies, price fixing, artificial scarcity, economic bubbles created by future shares speculation, real estate bubbles, charging hiked interest off no risk loans, these are a few good examples.

Very few instances of those and the reality is that when it does occur, it is not so much because of a free market, but that government often creates barriers to entry with excessive regulations keeping out competition. This results in the largest companies being able to exploit the lack of competition. Funny thing, government creating the very scenario they don't want to happen. Whowuddathunk?

Kind of like how Dodd-Frank created more big banks instead of making them smaller.... small banks can't afford to keep up with the regs, so they merge and get bigger. Doh....

You are mistaken. Our whole economy is based upon this. And it has nothing to do with free market, which we don’t have, it’s the opposite of free market which was originally a socialist idea. Further it’s exactly the situation the government wants to create, and in fact are paid to create by the corporations which our government actually work for.