I wonder if franchising vs corporate ownership makes a difference.

In-n-Out does not do franchises, which allows some long-term focus. They can take more risk, they can cross-subsidize underperforming locations, they can take a long-term view of their employees and see them as value creators, not expense generators. Things like careers and promotions are possible, where successful In-n-Out managers are moved up the chain or trusted with new location launches.

A new McDonalds'/Burger King/Taco Bell/Carl's Jr would usually be owned by some local dentist or a retired couple that poured their life's savings into the franchise, and need immediate cashflow. Any increase in expenses forces them to readjust the business model and drives down the ROI. There's also zero potential for promotion - that same dentist or retired couple are unlikely to be in the business of owning 100 franchises of the same kind and have a long-term view for growing their expansive empire.

This is exactly the answer. It has to do with how many people want to take a cut and how big that cut is. Public companies are required to focus on shareholders. We need more companies to become B Corps so that can be tempered with sustainability, the environment, workers, etc.

Usually you hear the “we need to pay our workers low wages” from companies that have very low margin unit economics. McDonald’s for example has a high number of cheap products. Same with Wal-Mart. They need a lot of people to service all the offerings they have. In-n-out has like 5 things on the menu, so they probably need far fewer employees overall. Costco is another example: they carry very few products compared to Walmart and thus need far fewer employees. Guess which companies offer their employees lots of benefits?

McDonald's is actually a very bad example; they're famous in the industry for their ridiculously high margins, on the order of 15-20% rather than the medium single digits for most fast food chains.

Most McD franchises would kill for 15-20% "margins" depending on how you measure that. At the end of the day, a franchisee usually sees a 10% margin after controllable expenses, and before any taxes.

Which is still pretty good :) . From what I know, stores in popular areas have surprisingly big revenues, I'd love 10% of that (my brother used to work at a store with a million dollars in monthly revenue).

Corporate or the individual stores? Most McDonald's franchises are owned separately.

Nothing's keeping McD's or KFC from whittling down their menus. Let's see all our companies pay our workers a decent wage rather than what they have done for the last 30 years, race to the bottom in terms of wages, and ingredients.

+ 1. I love In-N-Out. Their burgers are cheap and the ingredients are fresh. I can have a burger with fries for <$5. Hard to beat that price in SF.

It's good until you've had Shake Shack or Steak n Shake. Both have much tastier burgers IMO. In-N-Out is fine, and I don't have a problem with them, but I'm also not over the moon about it and truly don't understand the 30-minute drive-through lines at their locations. More power to 'em, I suppose, but it's really just a super-basic burger done fairly well for a good price.

I've enjoyed burgers at the Habit, and at Five Guys, and I still love In-N-Out. It's even possible that 5 Guys or the Habit have tastier burgers. However, In-n-out burgers are almost half the price, and the drive through service makes me genuinely pleased every time I go. Best drive through process I've ever seen -- people taking your order before you get to the speakers, a window to take your money, a window to give you food, and every post staffed by cheerful, helpful people.

I've even taken the time to find their website and say, "wow, I'm impressed by the good service I've seen here, there, everywhere", which is something I can't usually be bothered to do for any other restaurant.

I'm not sure how much of my enjoyment of them is due to nostalgia, consistently excellent service, or maybe a pareto optimal price-vs-taste point? ;)

I adore In-N-Out though the guy is right who says the fries are better at Habit.

But I still am convinced that Culver's beats them all. Course you have to be in the upper Midwest to sample them.

We frequently stop at the Culver's in Bowling Green, Kentucky, on the way from here to somewhere else. There are restaurants in Tennessee which are closer, but we never seem to pass them near meal times.

As Culver's is a Wisconsin thing, I'm not at all surprised that they showed up in Arizona.

https://www.culvers.com/locator/view-all-locations

I recently visited the first Five Guys franchise in germany and got really disappointed. The meat itself is better than the burgers at McDonalds or Burger King, but the rest of the burger is equally bad.

There are at least two local burger chains around the serve way better burgers for an equal or even slightly lower price.

So unless Five Guys really messed up in their first german location, I just don't understand why it is so famous in the US.

Steak n Shake? Seriously? They must be really different where you're from.

Maybe he's just really elderly? Every time I've been in one of those (not just at 4 PM) it has been like activities time at the old folks' home. There must be something about that food that really appeals to 80yo's... do they just like patties that have been smashed too thin?

Perhaps it's just fond memories? Steak n Shake was a lot better for many years. But their service and quality tanked after the new (current) CEO came in, back around 2008 or so.

Shake Shack is pretty much tops, Texas’s Whataburger is the only other one close. In and Out is essentially the West Coast Whataburger.

A friend of mine is opening a new burger chain in Houston called Burger Libre — essentially a Shake Shack with a Hispanic twist.

Regardless of everyone’s preferences, it’s a good time to be a burger fan in the US. I live in France and just paid €15 for cheeseburger and fries at a local cafe in the south. Insane how expensive hamburgers are in France. $18.30 for a bistro cheeseburger! Pre-tax that is $14.66. Then take away the “service charge” and that’s $12 for a burger that is functionally equivalent to In and Out et al.

I get Shake Shack has a nice anti-chain image. And the ingredients might be more in line with the customers values.

But do people really enjoy the taste of Shake Shack burger more than In-N-Out?

I don't understand it. The aesthetic is cool, milkshakes are great, and maybe you like crinkle fries more.... but the secret menu has a Peanut Butter burger! That's kinda gross.

Maybe its just my location (Las Vegas) but I don't get the hype at all. Plain cheesburger to cheeseburger Shake Shacks burgers just don't appeal to me.

If someone with a more mature palate can explain the appeal of the burgers it would be appreciated.

> I live in France and just paid €15 for cheeseburger and fries at a local cafe in the south.

Tell me about it. I live in the UK and it's a similar story. People rave about Byron burger for some reason, but it's pretty bad in my opinion (soggy onions, mediocre patty) and also costs well over 10 quid. My favorite in the UK is probably GBK, but it's easily 15 quid for burger and chips. I really miss In-N-Out. Epic Burger in Chicago is also really excellent, but hitting $10 territory.

Hache burgers... fond memories

What do you think of HopDoddy? I travel to Dallas fairly often, I've always thought they were really good. But the prices are quite "European" once you add the tip (don't get me started on that debate...)

Shake shack isn't exactly a fair comparison because it's twice the price.

I wonder how skewed this is by the fact that they're in overwhelmingly high cost of living areas.