>The fundamental problem is that all of these businesses are devoid of soul, and the majority of the profits don't go to the people working them.

That however is a problem of capitalism in general, not Olive Garden in particular.

And I'd say class snobbism against lower class "taste" (independent of unhealthy fast food vs fine cuisine, since for example something like In and Out is totally acceptable by the same people) is also a problem of capitalism.

>That however is a problem of capitalism in general, not Olive Garden in particular.

Sure, but the lengths Olive Garden's marketing goes to present the facade of a soul is so cringe that they deserve to be emblematic of said problem.

>And I'd say class snobbism against lower class "taste" (independent of unhealthy fast food vs fine cuisine, since for example something like In and Out is totally acceptable by the same people) is also a problem of capitalism.

Not to burst your class snobbism bubble, but as a former poor person I have to say the Dollar Menu kicks Olive Garden's ass all day long. For one (dollar), it isn't reheated cardboard!

I don't think fast food somehow being comparatively acceptable is a problem in and of itself, because fast food isn't pretentious. If anything, narratives that make it seem as if the "lower class" has no choice but to eat cardboard at Olive Garden if they want a dining experience, and that doing so is just a taste that's forced upon them, is laughable.

Right. My local non-chain Mexican restaurant charges far less than Olive Garden, or any other nearby chain for that matter, and manages to put out large quantities of very tasty food. Not surprising, the place is usually very busy.

Your McDonald's still has a Dollar Menu? Over here it's the "1-2-3 Dollar Menu" and there's nothing on it that costs less than $1.79 (a plain hamburger).

Don't conflate class with quality. Chain restaurants serve mass-produced, low quality fare. They have to.

Ruth's Chris is a chain. I don't think they're serving low quality food.

There are chain restaurants that serve high quality food. They cost a lot to eat at though, and so rarely have more than one location in a large city.

> the majority of the profits don't go to the people working them

False. A well run restaurant might make 10% profit. But they pay double or triple that to the staff and managers.

Staff and management don't get paid with profits, by definition. They get paid with revenue.

Business profits, if any, accrue to owners.

In-n-Out is cheaper than McDonald's. A preference for McDonald's isn't a class issue, it's a taste issue.

The popular disdain for family dining comes from people who don't want to sacrifice food quality for table service. Olive Garden isn't competing against fine dining, it's competing against fast casual restaurants. And that's far less of a class divide than a generational divide: restaurant dining as widely available phenomenon is a relatively new concept, with it being a relatively rare luxury for the Greatest Generation. This put a level of perceived prestige on being served, which the family dining restaurants managed to reduce the cost of substantially the latter half of the century.

With ubiquity, though, the novelty wore off. Young people who grew up regularly eating restaurant fare aren't particularly impressed by table service, and thus for a given price point, on average, Millenials and younger tend to choose a fast-casual restaurant with better food quality over a family dining establishment that has to cut into their food quality to pay for table service.

What you're perceiving as a class divide is a urban/rural divide, where trends of all sorts (including this one) lag a decade or two behind in rural areas relative to urban ones.