I agree with the sentiment, and understand completely what you’re trying to say. But I digress, because the lack of logic in this sorry excuse for an argument has to be dealt with.
So along with insulting me by assuming that I didn’t click on the link and was unable to figure out that In-N-Out was in the second position in that list, you are also trying to imply that the a burger place doesn’t belong on a list of 400 companies that are good to work for, simply because it’s a burger join. Simultaneously we must assume that being a burger joint is irrelevant, while ending the statement with the implication being that anyone can be a good employer if a lowly burger joint can figure it out.
Is the argument that a business built around the production and sale of hamburgers appearing on a list of good companies is a bad thing? Cuz that’s what the words say, it I don’t think that’s what you are trying to communicate.
Sorry if any of that was insulting, it wasn’t meant that way it’s just that a relatively small regional business being as high on the list as it is quite an outlier. The international mega corporations should be able to use their resources to gain collective bargaining agreements for their employees benefit packages. job opportunities, etc. that should at the very least rival that of what a company making significantly less annually can manage.
Comparing the profit of In-N-Out in 2023 (545mil) to the profit of on the giants like Microsoft (72.7bil)… it just doesn’t make sense that a company profiting that much more with ‘only’ 5x more workers can’t even breach the top 10 of the listing. That’s the dystopian part of this. At least Google was in the top 10, but the ratio there is even worse.
I agree with the sentiment, and understand completely what you’re trying to say. But I digress, because the lack of logic in this sorry excuse for an argument has to be dealt with.
So along with insulting me by assuming that I didn’t click on the link and was unable to figure out that In-N-Out was in the second position in that list, you are also trying to imply that the a burger place doesn’t belong on a list of 400 companies that are good to work for, simply because it’s a burger join. Simultaneously we must assume that being a burger joint is irrelevant, while ending the statement with the implication being that anyone can be a good employer if a lowly burger joint can figure it out.
Is the argument that a business built around the production and sale of hamburgers appearing on a list of good companies is a bad thing? Cuz that’s what the words say, it I don’t think that’s what you are trying to communicate.
Sorry if any of that was insulting, it wasn’t meant that way it’s just that a relatively small regional business being as high on the list as it is quite an outlier. The international mega corporations should be able to use their resources to gain collective bargaining agreements for their employees benefit packages. job opportunities, etc. that should at the very least rival that of what a company making significantly less annually can manage.
Comparing the profit of In-N-Out in 2023 (545mil) to the profit of on the giants like Microsoft (72.7bil)… it just doesn’t make sense that a company profiting that much more with ‘only’ 5x more workers can’t even breach the top 10 of the listing. That’s the dystopian part of this. At least Google was in the top 10, but the ratio there is even worse.