To be honest, if I worked at burger king I don't think I'd need much incentive to go around smashing the windows either.

Your video, Burger King Employee Pranked To Break Windows, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Well, if I worked at Burger King, and my manager told me we had to smash all the windows to relieve the pressure, no matter how wrong I knew it to be, I would do it with gusto and it would be the best day of working at Burger King ever.

"It was sub-burger king quality..."

Fucking.Yikes.

Sorry @RedSky

I wonder why Obama (or any of the "OMG Burger King!" politicians) hasn't mentioned that Warren Buffett (i.e., Mr. "fair share" advocate) gave Burger King $3 billion for the inversion merger... Maybe it doesn't fit with their narrative. Oh well.

I agree. You can have your Burger King your way and if any man in God's Great 'Murica tries to tell you how to eat it then they can go straight to Commie/Socialist Europe, where there's no Constitution that guarantees Freedom!

On the other hand, some things I cook take multiple days to prepare. Sometimes I may not have slept more than a couple hours overnight, tending to the food I just served you. The rubs, marinades, bastes, brines and such may represent years of experimentation. It often requires multiple different cooking methods to prepare one single item.

When I share that food with you, you can smother it in ketchup and salt before you taste it...that's your right. You can also take that food and eat it in the fucking street. I will, in fact, help you to the street. No...really...I insist.

There's assembly line food and there's unique, carefully prepared, food that sometimes represents a lifetime of care and effort. You can show some appreciation for the work that went into the food you're eating or you can be a self centered dick. That's what Freedom is all about.

Not directed at you personally DannyM...just the concept in general.

'Fstoppers reader Matt Rennells very astutely found a link to the photo file on Shutterstock that Burger King used in the ad. Shutterstock has an excellent policy of requiring a signed model release from the photographer, and that is in play here as it clearly states that they do have one. '

Removed from YT as a violation of their policy against spam, scams and commercially deceptive content.

*discard

While I think the ad is tasteless, I thought large chain business built on reputation were above this, they haven't done anything legally wrong here.

If she posed for the photos, and was paid by the photographer as the model, she had to have signed a disclosure contract that allowed the photographer to sell her image. I'm guessing that it wasn't Burger King she posed for when these photos were taken but an independent photographer, or image bank like Getty Images.

So once she has modeled and collected her paycheck, (or maybe, no paycheck), she has entered into a contract whereby the photographer or artist who took the photos has full say on how those images are used, in this case sold to a major fast food chain.

And it's not Rape. In now way is this rape. Disappointing and a bit embarrassing and by-and-large a completely inappropriate ad for a family focused restaurant chain. But then Burger King is know for it's sometimes inappropriate ads.

I will also say that it was an unprofessional move to buy the model footage and not take their own photos with a willing model. Big companies who can afford it, should never be purchasing stock photos from a service for this very reason, someone will notice and call them out. Big companies have a professional reputation to uphold. This ad campaign was a cop-out, without professionalism.

I'll bet this ad was created by a secondary party as well, and not by Burger King staff creative. Sometimes large corporations can't police every ad that is made in their name - which is unfortunate. I work for a small company and it's often a nightmare trying to police all the creative that gets made which doesn't get filtered through the Public Affairs department.

You're probably right. Haven't eaten at either of them for over a decade.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not some paleo-vegan-organic-raw food zealot. If there's butter, bacon or chocolate involved, I'm there.

I would just rather give my money to my local fish and chip shop than to the likes of mcd or burger king.

Oh my god, I would kill for a Hungry Jacks (what Burger King's called in Australia) Whopper. There's like 2 Burger Kings here in Montreal and they're both filthy, run down shit holes.

I'm an equal opportunities burger consumer... I may have to stop by Five Guys tonight...

Your video, The Burger King Proud Whopper, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

First things first: I read the article you linked as well as three others by the same author, given that he's teaching at a nearby facility. His article "The Three Types of Austerity" was quite enough to know that I'll never see eye-to-eye with him, or anyone of the same views.

"[Austerity] frees up resources for private investment" is a statement that does not match my perception of reality, given the absolute abundance of (financial) resources within the eurozone. It's a lack of demand for investments that's the problem, not supply. Savings are at record highs, investment is at an all-time low.

So, demand vs supply... we all know that discussion won't be resolved here, ever. It's utterly pointless. Same for the gold standard vs fiat, inflation good or bad, or any related discussion, really.

Instead, I'll try to reply to unrelated statements.

------------

"Do you think The Wire paid for their production assistants' healthcare? Did they make more than the $50/day for their 12 hour days (if they weren't working for free as "interns" for the 'privilege' of 'paying their dues' in 'the industry')?"

I know nothing about the situation on set of The Wire. My assumption is that it involved the regular amount of abuse of labour, including unpaid interns.

------------

"Haha, of course, "liberals" get a pass from other "liberals", but no pass for the Kochtopus (even though the Kochs give way more money to charities than The Wire would even be able to)."

Well, good for them. But I don't see why you drag them in here. You made a set of rhetoric questions aimed at hypocrisy by David Simon. I pointed out my view that any possible hypocrisy is dwarfed by the point he made vis-a-vis guilt/Perkins/watch/whatever.

------------

"Yeah? Like you know (the other) David Simon and can vouch for his "lack of guilt?" And "guilt" about what? Having money? Being successful?"

Feeling guilty about the discussion amongst the establishment regarding, for instance, the minimum wage. He finds it questionable how one can argue against giving a fella at Burger King 10-12 bucks an hour without feeling guilty for it. That's the disconnect we're talking about. When extremely wealthy individuals deny even the crumbs to the folks at the bottom.

Shamelessness was my addition, my interpretation. It was aimed at the demand for tax breaks and subsidies for extremely profitable corporations or extremely wealthy individuals. I would feel ashamed for any demands to my benefit if a) I didn't objectively need them and b) they would come at a detriment to others in worse situations than me.

Since I'm arguing from a different economic perspective than you, a shortfall in tax income (aka tax breaks) to me means either more taxes at another place, probably from weaker entitities who can't afford to buy their own representative, or a cut in essential services. I operate under a very broad definition of human dignity and see it as the first and foremost objective. Food, shelter, health, etc for all -- which might just be a reason why some people refer to me as a "pinko commie".

------------

"Does he? Really? How? And how are you doing more for "society" than that? Who are you and what exactly is your great "contribution" to society?"

He "weakens" society, economically, by suppressing aggregate demand. The more wealth you accumulate, the less of it, as a percentage, translates into demand. For an economy that depends on the circulation of goods and services, a massive and non-temporary accumulation of debt or savings (same coin, different sides) in the hands of single players (be it state, corporation or individual) chokes up the system. Less demand, less investment, less growth.
Accumulation is all fine and dandy if it translates into economic activity, but given the pathetic % of GDP that is being invested, despite mountains of unused cash that are forced into financial shenanigans looking for profit, I'd say it is dead weight and a drag.

But since you apparently share the views of Hollenbeck, all of that was probably hogwash to you.

------------

To answer your question: a human being and my great contribution to society is my charming personality, of course.

And with that, I bid you adieu. I've had long-ass discussions about Snowden/surveillance and other topics that led nowhere and I'm not interested in having one about economic theory, especially not in a second language. The floor is all yours, including the last word.

It's your choice. Yes. Does McDonalds make your choice harder, oh hell yeah. It's all about moderation. But, of course, it's hard to "feel full" when you're only eating a portion of the actual meal. When Burger King came out with their Eggnamormous sandwich, it contained as many calories as the average person should eat in a whole day. That was before drink and tater tots.

So yeah, it's not per se McDonalds fault . . . but they're not helping. Roy Crock invented the Super Size because he wanted to increase sales per person, not to increase the quality of food. He saw that people wouldn't go back for seconds because they felt gluttonous …. So he made it bigger and told them they were getting better value for their money. It seemed to have fooled a lot of people.

There is a lot missing in this report. He was eating a limit of 2000 calories daily, he may have ate 2500 a day before Mac meal plan, plus he started exercising 45 mins a day what other outcome could be expected. Not much of a science teacher. Before the Mac diet plan he was on the Burger King plan, who knows.

Let's get a bit more realistic here, shall we?

I like John. He's smart. But he missed the point on government assistance. The guy meant that the wage will be increased through legislation and not merit. I'm sure he also didn't mean that taxpayers are directly on the hook, even though indirectly they will be.

It's easy to narrow this conversation down to Burger King, McDonald's, and the like because they are large corporate entities which pay some employees minimum wage.

But guess what? Tons of other places in the United States pay their employees minimum wage too. The difference is that they are most certainly not large corporate entities and therefore can't mitigate the impact of a rising wage through the diversity of their products or the markets in which they serve. They are Joey's Pizza and Bertha's Plumbing. There is no way in hell they'll be able to pay a federal minimum wage of 15$.

You're right. 15$ an hour won't put a dent on the cost of a Big Mac, but when your septic tank gets destroyed from choking down all those burgers, you'll be sure to get some sticker shock.