(Disen?) FRANCHISING

Is franchising the American dream? Do the upper levels of wealth and power really deserve it, or is more empathy, humility, warranted? 

A bit of a disagreement yesterday at the park. My one friend mentioned that franchising is the American Dream. On its face this may seem true, but I take issue. 

In general, I’m not anti business, indeed I want business owners to do well (with perhaps some limits). I pointed out that maybe this is today’s American Dream, and perhaps for the last handful of decades, but it didn’t use to be. I’m thinking back to proper mom and pop stores, that classic ‘main street America.’ My grandparents ran a sporting goods store in Iowa, with all the kids helping (perhaps a bit too much). Once upon a time that was enough. You could run a business, own it, do moderately well, be middle class, and have a good life (letting aside for the moment all the issues with that time on other measures). Back before big box stores, before some of the super corporate and mass market explosion, prior to proper globalism, certainly before e-shopping. That was the American dream then, so we noted that past. 

I then pointed out that a large degree of franchising is owning a legal and monetary vehicle and doing little work for it. The runners of individual franchise locations do all of the work, make a little of the money, whereas the owner of the brand, trademark, franchise, legal entity, did some work up front, paid some legal fees, and got their hands on the right footprint of economic land to own. They do very little work other than paying off some money to keep the entity running, and benefit wildly.

This confused him some, I believe because it sounded like a criticism of his business, which I disavowed. He owns a business, works extremely hard for, and earns, his success, and I don’t begrudge him it at all.

I think the crux of the criticism is around ownership as a justification or right to profits, proceeds, and success. Certainly we want capitalism, and ownership as a concept, but there are extremes that... just seem wrong. 

This theme is generally prescient today, both around some recent events concerning and the protection of “property” as it has been a major focus in the news, but also in the general debate in American politics the last several years around a wealth tax and similar concepts. The point perhaps unknown to a lot of successful people, or occasionally forgotten, is the concept of self-serving bias. The premise that because I succeeded, because my business blew up, because I built it and made it, I earned all this, is a very strong instinctive pattern our minds like to follow. We attribute successes and positive outcomes to ourselves and our own agency, actions and work, and negative outcomes to external factors. This is generally settled science, accepted psychological understanding of humans. 

In general, you didn’t earn that. Massive swaths of any serious success comes down to luck. 

Luck is so inherent, we even refer to successes with the term luck. Big successes, a business opportunity, upgrading to the next level of success, fame/celebrity, that next move up on the career ladder, all these big upward moves are called ‘catching a lucky break.’

You can see this in every start up story, and indeed just the numbers - how many fail compared to how many succeed. And the failures, they can’t all be dumb people, or layabouts, right? They weren’t all trash ideas, some things just don’t take off. Some weren’t in the right place at the right time. Sometimes opportunity, just, comes a knockin’. 

Even if ‘you won’ at capitalism/society bingo because you were very smart, what made you smart? Perhaps is nature and genetics (out of your control and luck), or nurture, meaning it came from your parents and environment. Did you do something pre-life to deserve that environment and upbringing? Generally, categorically, there are better and more advantaged lives and less advantaged lives (certainly at their start and baseline. Certainly the disadvantaged ones didn’t ask for those or deserve them somehow? They would gladly take one of the more advantaged lives and usually work to try to have their future generations be in one of those, or closer.   

I’m not for a second suggesting people shouldn’t be successful, or even that we shouldn’t celebrate it. Some people being wealthy is good, somebody has to be at the upper end of the spectrum. It’s motivating, drives innovation and competition, all these capitalist egalitarian things I’ll leave for better minds. 

However, perhaps one wants to say “I earned it” a bit less, and instead express slightly more gratitude? 

(Is gratitude the opposite of entitlement? Or perhaps empathy? Unclear.)

Actively trying to balance against this natural instinct of our minds, intentionally compensating for this impulse, is important moral behavior. One who is successful owes it to those less successful, even just for filling out the bell curve. But also, how would you like it if you were one of those, by happenstance, through no fault of your own? 

The other ugly cut of this ownership success is the abuse of it. Examples range. One, having the patent on something, having put it in with no intention of actually developing it but just to hold the spot, and beating up companies who use the same idea and came upon it on their own, just to profiteer, seems wrong. Lobbying and extending the rights on trademarks and copyrights every time it gets close to expiration, just so you can keep exclusive rights and keep the income coming in (looking at you Disney, amidst countless others), is not work or a new contribution to society. 

Modifying a drug in a meaningless way, just to re-patent it and continue exclusivity on creating it (maintaining your monopoly and corresponding profits) as well as lobbying to combat the right to manufacture ‘generics’ of the same pharmaceutical is wrong. Indeed this is even bad for capitalism in some ways, as it reduces competition (although we do want to allow for a window of exclusivity and success to reward good R&D efforts). 

So, when it comes to owning things, be it a franchise, copyright, patent, trust fund, a corporation, real estate and/or any other assets passed down, is that really contributing? How much do those wealthy people really deserve it?