And at no point in the letter does it even imply that this individual is expecting the whole $1,200, merely that they asked about the distribution and were subsequently terminated for pointing out that the restaurant is breaking the law.
I extremely believe that you could be convinced of this. 100%, no doubt in my mind that you are arguing in good faith, and that you want to believe for even a second that you could be wrong.
To what extent is this selection bias, though? I don’t notice ads that have no relevance to me (unless I get them 400 times in a row), but I definitely notice when ads are spot on, because it makes me paranoid. I imagine I see at least 100 ads a day (I use ad blocked on my desktop, but I still get ads other places)…
Yeah, but like the article says, “it’s reasonable to assume that people who watch Netflix via browsers and people who watch on Rokus or Xboxes tend to watch the same stuff.” Thanks for taking the time to find this. I learned!
If they were distributing it evenly, it wouldn’t be $90 flat for every party, as we discussed earlier. It’s wage theft. And at no point in the letter does it even imply that this individual is expecting the whole $1,200, merely that they asked about the distribution and were subsequently terminated for pointing out…
Because the customers are being charged money for the service provided by the waitstaff, but the waitstaff is not being given that money.
It’s also possible it’s a service charge that still may not cover the guaranteed payments for all of the staff required to cover a party of this size and the restaurant may be dipping into its own pocket to cover it.
But the $90 is a flat amount regardless of what the tab is.
Not sure where that report would have come from, since Netflix doesn’t release its numbers, and absolutely would not release that information (as it would give NBC a ton of negotiating power).
Yeah, fuck ‘em.
Well, they get consistent results every year, it looks like, and I think the statistical sampling is probably fair. I think it’s mostly about the open-endedness of the question. If they asked the question like “Are you planning to leave in the next three years” I imagine the number would drop precipitously.
I don’t pretend to understand all the issues. I know my friends in the Bay hate the high cost of living and don’t plan to live there forever, but have no concrete idea of when they will move - it’s mostly “when I’ve made enough money and can’t take this place any more.”
At my last job, we drank whiskey (neat) at the end of Friday. I quit that job and I don’t miss it. I don’t like whiskey neat now.
The Heritage Foundation would NEVER misrepresent something!
Not sure this Edelman poll is the one cited (it’s from 2018, but the 2019 numbers are pretty similar, unsurprisingly), but I think it’s probably close.
I assume the question was “do you plan to move ever” which, sure, I could believe 40% of current SF residents plan to move to somewhere other than SF before they die.
Seriously, just make Magary write a new Foodspin article already!
You’re responding to a post from five months ago, the last time this article was bumped.
To be fair, Joshua Kushner isn’t a great human being either. He may be a lifelong Democrat, but he’s still a technocrat and multimillionaire.
If you’re someone for whom the concept of non-alcoholic beer is complete anathema, then feel free to just close this browser tab now, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.