Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European
countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at
options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU
market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that
will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism.
I'm cautious about over sentimentalizing Loggan, or on the other side getting angry about his situation. He seems like a person who could be a pretty good manager, but just never wanted to take that step up. It's easy to pillory the restaurant, it's managers, or even the entire premise of the service industry itself based on this story, but I would err on the side of it being an anecdote than something to rally upon.
He might not have the skills to be a manager, but I’d like to think after the time he’s been there he could be doing a role that better uses his experience in exchange for more money/benefits than someone who started today. Hell, maybe he’d enjoy just doing something a bit less physical (says in TFA that he gets cramps in his hands).
As you say, not everyone should become a manager. That doesn’t mean seniority isn’t a thing though.
"Lifers" used to be the American Working Class Dream. There seem to be plenty of cogs in the "gig economy" that still wish they'd have a shot at a good "lifer" job.
If he were manager for 54 years at the same restaurant, would the sentiment be much different?
Just thinking out loud, it seems like a lot of the 'point' of this article is that he intentionally stopped progressing in his work, but it seems to me like a lot of people do that in a lot of ways, just not usually as a busser.
You can tell that he's come to terms with his situation in life and lost any ambition. How hard did he have to work mentally to reach contentment? It's admirable but incredibly sad that him and many others like him didn't have much opportunity to explore their talents. It makes me think our goal as collective human society should be not to automate way people like this, but to let them live out their lives, ensure they will have what they need until they die, and look towards not repeating the mistakes of the past to have our upcoming generations have the opportunity to figure out what they are good at.
If the guy loved what he was doing, then that's more than the majority of people can say about their jobs. Money definitely does not make people any happier.
You likely did not read the article... there is nothing in it that would imply he loved his job. He stayed at his job because of complacency and security. Not because he loved bussing tables.
His colleague on dialysis would probably be happier with full insurance rather than relying on Medicare though (or could maybe have got preventative treatment before needing dialysis, who knows).
The focus on take-home pay misses the other parts that don’t show up on your pay slip.
Thanks for your comment. Spend some time traveling the world, head to some developing countries outside of your consumer driven world. People are generally happier and satisfied with what they have. They work, they eat, they enjoy life with their families. As long as basic human needs are met, they don't feel the need for more.
Check out the book, Happiness: A Guide to Developing Life's Most Important Skill
> Spend some time traveling the world, head to some developing countries outside of your consumer driven world.
You're making some unfounded assumptions about me there.
> People are generally happier and satisfied with what they have. They work, they eat, they enjoy life with their families. They don't feel the need for more.
One major problem with this "money does not affect happiness" schtick is that a person will often, if they live long enough, encounter a problem or set of problems that can be solved by the spending of money, perhaps only in that way. An inability to solve such problems because of the lack of money can affect a person's happiness.
It's true enough that some people and some cultures are better at shrugging off disappointments like not being able to afford medicine, education, housing, food, or whatever. To say that being able to solve those problems wouldn't make them happier is just disingenuous.
Also, key point:
> Spend some time traveling the world, head to some developing countries outside of your consumer driven world.
Traveling is a luxury that many people cannot afford - it requires a ton of money.
You're telling me to save up money, then to spend it, to go to a place where I realize I won't need money?
How do you tell a poor person with financial troubles - don't worry just travel and you'll see you don't actually need money?
People who say, "Money does not affect happiness" usually come from a place of privilege - i.e. they already have money and have their basic needs met, so they've never /really/ had to worry about money. If you're a single mother of three kids in a minimum wage job, then money definitely affects your happiness.
No one said anything about telling poor people to travel. The point is that many are already content with what they have. Sure, if they don't have enough food to eat, or access to clean water, that's clearly an issue. But those who have met their basic human needs, generally don't feel unhappy because they aren't buying a new iPhone ever year. I recently spent a month backpacking through India, and the people with the most have nots were some of the warmest, happiest, and inviting people I've ever met in my entire life.
From the article, it sounds like Loggan is exactly that. Never complains. Never asked for a promotion. Content with what he has.
“He could retire now,” said Javon Chambers, his grandson, himself a Walker Bros. busser for 15 years. “He’s financially straight and everything. I just think he knows when people retire, they die. That’s what he’s said: Old people don’t have nothing to do, they see their friends retire, and then they retire, and that’s when they die of boredom too. It’s like people who are married a long time — if one dies, the next goes right after. That’s like my grandfather and this place. He doesn’t want the will inside him to dry up.”
Ambition, in a time of low expectations, in a country defined by inequality, can mean holding on to what you have, internalizing your place in the world. “I think Loggan wanted to fit in somewhere,” said chef Pat Levy, also known as “Popeye”; he has worked at the restaurant 42 years, arriving in Chicago from Jamaica. “I think Loggan just decided to be a busboy. He is content. It’s all he wants. So I ask — isn’t that OK?”
For instance, the company took out life insurance on Loggan (payable to his wife); Ray says that for years he’s set aside about $50 a month for Loggan, as an informal retirement fund (subject to a 30 percent penalty for early withdrawal).
The guy still buys a lottery ticket, so I just assume that he'd find your original statement, "money definitely does not make people any happier," just as naive as most people would.
A person can be content with what they have and still find value (happiness, even!) in having more, for a variety of reasons that don't involve naked greed or avarice. It's extremely strange that anyone needs to have this explained to them.
You're going off on tangents and picking apart context unnecessarily. What does the insistence on reiterating that he still buys lottery tickets? So what? I've bought a few, and I don't have any money issues, it's fun to take a chance! We all have our vices, rich and poor still gamble. I piss away money on expensive cocktails because they are delicious. So what have it? If I couldn't afford them, it's not going to be a detriment to my happiness. The discussion isn't about whether having more will make anyone more or less happy, it's whether people are content with the lives they have now. Do they want an iPhone? Possibly. Are the happy without ever getting one? Probably. Would it be awesome owning a 30 million dollar mansion on a secluded beach front property? Heck yes! Am I less happy because I don't? No! Geez, lighten up!
Nick, are you this miserable / condescending in your daily life and with clients? Or just when you preach to strangers on public forums? I ignored your last response, because you don't seem to be a happy person, despite all of the adversity you've overcome in your life. There are many happy people in this world less fortunate than yourself, I hope you find some peace.
The discussion started when you projected your own thoughts and biases into the faces of people in developing countries that you don't really know, and assumed they don't actually want the financial advantages you enjoy.
Now you've projected similarly onto me, who you also don't know, and decided I'm not a happy person.
In both cases, of course, you actually have no idea how happy the people you're interacting with are, or are not.
When you come to realize that you'll perhaps have gained a little bit of humility and empathy. Those will serve you well in discussions such as these.
I've spent a lot time traveling the world, including deep into developing countries. That was cool.
I've also spent time being fucking broke, and being very very well off. Actual adult broke not fake have-a-backup-plan broke. One is way fucking better than the other.
Having money does not create happiness. Not having money most certainly certainly does create misery though. In hundreds of daily very specific death-by-a-thousand-cuts ways.
Instead of wandering around the world, try that instead, and see how your perspective changes.
I mostly agree with what you said, but I disagree that people don't feel the need for more when emergency strikes. No one is happy they can't afford healthcare when it's needed.
"Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism."
I'm sure that what he's saying is that this is a feeble way of complying, not that it's non-complying. The site has apparently chosen to simply block European users, and then to display the insultingly evasive and insincere corporatese message that GP quoted. If the site doesn't wish to take on the burden of complying with the GDPR in a meaningful way that allows access, they should say so honestly.
The page it self might be compliant (not recording IPs/session cookies/etc) but the law still applies on any data collected on EU citizens that might be visiting abroad.
They're a US entity operating under US law. If you are in the US, US law is what applies, not EU law.
They also don't have European operations, so it's not like the EU has any means to compel them to act even if it wanted to.
You'd certainly be laughed out of a US courtroom (rightfully) if you are trying to force a domestic business to comply with arbitrary foreign regulations in a country they have no involvement with.
It's worth noting that the important part here is the "have no involvement with" part, which the geographical blocking helps establish.
A US entity operating under US law with no physical presence in a foreign jurisdiction but actively courting business with citizens in that foreign jurisdiction has to be a lot more careful. For example, if one of their foreign customers sues them in a foreign court, wins, and gets a damages award there is a decent chance in many states that the US court would recognize and enforce that judgement.
For controllers or processors not established in the Union, GDPR only applies to the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the Union. See Article 3 [1].
unfortunately the data collected on eu citizens abroad does not seem to actually be the case, it was a common misunderstanding of the law that I fell prey to as well.
...with tips. The article mentions this comes to about $14/hour for Loggan.
Almost every restaurant server in America makes below the minimum wage, this is allowed by law since their tips almost always take them back above the minimum.
> Almost every restaurant server in America makes below the minimum wage, this is allowed by law since their tips almost always take them back above the minimum.
If an employee's tips combined with the employer's direct wages of at least $2.13 an hour do not equal the Federal minimum hourly wage, the employer must make up the difference.
So, every server by law does not make below minimum wage.
(If this is always enforced, not sure)
The enforcement isn't the problem. When I've brought this up in the past I've been informed that the common result of a server not making enough in tips to cover minimum wage is that they are fired rather than the employer choosing to continue to employ them and cover the difference.
And it is a good thing restaurant owners are a highly ethical bunch that wouldn't try to stiff their employees...
This would be just about the easiest form of wage theft possible, and wage theft is already a huge problem. If I were a waiter I would not put much faith in that law.
guess how many days of employment a server will have after the restaurant have to fill in because he could not make the cut on tips.
it will be one or two days before they are sacked, either because the place have more servers than it need for the traffic or that one server is upselling less than the others.
in anyway, your argument on the letter of the law is pointless (at least on the anecdotes I know about, would love to se actual nation wide data on this), becuase it changes nothing. either you live on tips, or you are unemployed.
This happens more frequently than most realize because of illegal tip sharing arrangements imposed by employers, who take a portion of the tips earned by the employees.
Some tip pools among regularly tipped employees are okay; what is unlawful is the house or managers taking tips from tipped employees, either for themselves or to pay kitchen staff, etc.
A rider buried in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 makes this practice illegal. Department of Labor regulations had already prohibited this, but now we have a statute. Further regulations are to be implemented that may complicate things. Let's see.
