In poor neighborhoods, McDonald's have become de-facto community centers - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/08/mcdonalds-community-centers-us-physical-social-networks <comment><USER2> McDonalds is the only restaurant I enjoy eating at with my 2 and 3 year olds. Every other restaurant is a slog to get through the meal. Honestly I'd eat there more often if it weren't for the social stigma of it. (I live in Berkeley).

I am pretty sure the cheeseburger, apple slices, and chocolate milk are not much worse, and probably better, than the typical fare on a slapped together kids meal.

When I was a kid, my dad would take me to the local McDonalds to do math, several times a week. They'd let us sit there ordering nothing but sodas in a comfy booth for hours. These are some of my fondest childhood memories.

There are some issues with McDonalds, but it is a pleasant user experience.

<comment><USER3> People finding community of some form is not just a good thing, it's an essential thing to human life. It should always be lauded. However, there is a lot of socioeconomic and sub-cultural in-group/out-group judgement in US society, all of which feels absolutely justified by those doing the judging.

[http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american- liberali...](http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism)

In reality, it's all exactly the same sort of crap that was portrayed on Mad Men. Such prejudice is the same, whether it is enacted by tweed jacket wearing Ivy Leaguers, rural low-brow native americans, "poor white trash," urban black people, affluent Koreans, undergraduate students, "Social Justice Warriors," or Bay Area programmers. I should know, because I've been on the receiving end of it from all of the above, while also being a member of about half those groups. (Often having diametrically opposed things projected onto me!)

When it comes down to it, people should be given a chance as individuals, not summarily judged as units of a group. (Martin Luther King Jr. put it best...)

I swear, when I hear some fellow "liberals" talking about their own rural underclass or Republicans or Christians, the kind of disdain that comes across seems like something that should no longer exist in the 21st century, outside of movies about the Jim Crow south.

<comment><USER4> > Knowing, for example, that the Founding Fathers were all secular deists. > Knowing that you're actually, like, 30 times more likely to shoot yourself > than an intruder. Knowing that those fools out in Kansas are voting against > their own self-interest and that the trouble is Kansas doesn't know any > better. Knowing all the jokes that signal this knowledge.

Doesn't Vox exist to perpetuate this kind of nonsense? It's undergraduate level politics dressed up as stone tablet commandments. Isn't Vox's very reason to provide political analysis to those otherwise 'too stupid' to know what's going on?

<comment><USER5> I'm from Kansas. I grew up with these kinds of voters. The problem isn't that they "don't know any better". It's that the way the party system is aligned in the U.S., you can vote for one side that may help your economic situation but is pretty much in favor of everything you abhor socially, or you can vote for the other side that won't do much for you economically, but at least pretends to care about the same things you do.

If the Republicans made themselves more like the Lib Dems in Australia, or the Christian Dems in Germany they'd have a clean sweep. But then they'd also lose Wall Street, large chunks of the Libertarian wing of Silicon Valley, and would probably end up having to fracture first.

<comment><USER6> The LDP are a bit of a joke party in Australia, did you just mean the Coalition?

<comment><USER5> Probably. Still figuring some of these parties out. All I know here is that many of the issues like healthcare, gun control, smoking regulations, etc. are mostly supported by both the left-leaning and right-leaning parties here. But support for any one of these issues would be enough to get you kicked out of the Republicans in the U.S.

The point being, you could likely make a party in the U.S. that kept most of the socially conservative stuff from the GOP and still picked up more of the economically "liberal" issues in the U.S., many of which are moderate in Europe, Australia, and elsewhere, and make it work.

<comment><USER7> That's exactly what Trump has tapped into (ie anti-free trade like the left; anti-immigration, pro-life, pro-guns like the right). It's the same populism underlying early 20th century European movements.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Bizarre how the article seems to present this as a hopeful and positive thing about McDonalds.

To me it is just another indicator of how broken American society is. A fast food place serving terrible and unhealthy food is becoming a gathering place for poor people who are probably the ones most in need of a healthier and better lifestyle.

It is also a sad reminder of how society has gone so utterly wrong when the cheapest food is the absolutely worst food.

This is of course not McDonalds fault, but society has allowed huge chains pushing cheap unhealthy food to the masses flourish. It isn't just about the food, but the sort of cultural wasteland a place like McDonalds is. Everything mass produced and equal everywhere. A country priding itself in diversity is drowning in homogeneity.

<comment><USER9> What makes it a cultural wasteland, exactly? Where are people _supposed_ to be socializing, if not the place they like to eat? Mass production is what enables McDonald's to provide good food at super cheap prices. Probably the best food value for your money in the entire USA.

McDonald's food isn't unhealthy as part of a balanced diet. It's no less healthy than chipotle if you're getting a soda. I don't eat there but McDonald's is simply amazing for providing so much great food at rock-bottom prices.

<comment><USER10> Some of the elitism on this thread is absolutely astounding. And I say this as someone who is elitist to at least some degree but I would never think of making some of the comments I read here--and certainly not in public.

<comment><USER11> Yeah it's really something to see. I especially love the guy wondering why all the lower cast people can't just join him at his nice restaurant in downtown Toronto rather and just spend a few more dollors for his obviously superior food.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> In many communities in the UK, it's the pub.

On the positive side, it brings a genuine sense of community where you hang out alone, forge new bonds or maintain old ones. People come and go asking if so-and-so has been in today. Before mobiles, families would call the pub and leave messages for each other. Class lines were much less defined. You leave things behind the bar for other people to pick up later.

On the negative side, well, alcohol, and all the issues that brings.

<comment><USER13> Most of the pubs near me are restaurants first, pubs second.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I recently went to a McDonald's in Austria. I was blown away by how they were going exactly for the community center vibe.

There was a bar with four or five internet connected tablets a half-basketball court next to the jungle gym and patio seating like you'd find at an upscale resteraunt. It also had a dedicated coffee and desert bar. Also, the cash registers were gone and in their place were four huge touchscreens for ordering. The place was like a restaurant from 50 years in the future.

I was shocked at how nice it was and that we don't have any in the US.

<comment><USER15> There are a few in the US. They are just in select locations. I wrote software for McDs a while back and they were always coming up with high-tech initiatives. Too bad the environment was cut throat or I would have enjoyed working there.

<comment><USER16> What was the cause of the cut-throatness if I may presume to ask such a thing? Some form of performance related pay or just heavy headquarters politics?

(in UK McDonalds is a franchise operation I think, not too sure, so each restaurant is its own little enterprise with standardised training &c)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I remember driving through a Native American reservation in the Southwest and stopping at a McDonald's after seeing not much of anything for miles and miles. I walked in and it was like everyone in the reservation was there hanging out it was so alive with conversation and activity. I'm not a McDonald's fan, but I'm glad they exist to serve purposes like that, because I'm not sure where else the people in that one would've gathered.

<comment><USER18> The interesting question is, if this is a sign for an achievement of McDonalds or a failure of the society?

<comment><USER19> I wish the article had expanded on the unsuitability of community centers due to their bureaucracy. It just mentions it in a couple of words and never elaborates. It seems like it should be easy to provide just a simple public space with basic amenities, without even any activities (which is the low bar set by McDonald's). The big exception of course being that food isn't served, but running a little competent sandwich shop or something is far from impossible (every bus and train station I've been too manages that).

<comment><USER20> It is the bureaucracy that amazed me about the Sikh community - or should I say lack of it. As long as you obey a few simple rules (essentially just no alcohol, tobacco, or being under the influence, cover hair, no shoes) you pretty much what you will.

Notably with the Sikh's the langar hall (where langar, a free meal, is always served) is the hub of a Gurdwara - seemingly food is _the_ great social leveller!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place)

<comment><USER22> These need to be mandatory installations in all communities. Non-commercial, accessible spaces for people to congregate. It's a human-requirement.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> A few years ago my wife and I were coming back from a road trip to visit some friends and family in Canada, and we crossed back into the US at the Detroit/Windsor crossing. We were basically running on fumes by the time we got through the border, so drove around the Detroit side a bit in search of a gas station (it took a while to find one that wasn't clearly abandoned or in complete shambles).

One thing I noticed is that among all of the boarded-up, graffiti-strewn buildings, homeless people sleeping in the gutters, abandoned houses and cars, the one shining beacon of normalcy was the McDonalds. The building was in perfect condition, the lot was clean, lights were on--it was very striking in contrast to the almost post-apocalyptic looking area of the city that surrounded it.

I can totally understand why such a place would naturally attract people as a place to congregate in a neighborhood as poor as that one. Inexpensive food plus a building that not only still functions as shelter, but has electricity, bathrooms, heat/air conditioning--all things that you may very well not have at home (assuming you even have a home).

<comment><USER24> For what it's worth, that's just one example of a McDonalds.

There was one location nearby where I went to college and its lot was frequently used by drug dealers and all kinds of shady types.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> In Brazil we have a similar effect with shopping centers/malls, that tend to be pretty, clean and safe, not just a bunch of stores (the store rent inside the mall is higher than a street store). Shopping center becomes the default place to go since there is food there, it is open on Sundays. One downside is that stores are mostly empty, which negates a bit the original idea (--> shopping <\-- center, not meeting center). The only crowded place is where the food is, and the only really long line is the McDonalds ice cream.

Then some people began to complain that there were too many "ugly people" (mostly poor and young teens that went there for the very same reasons as anyone else). There were some episodes of security barring the entrance of unaccompanied teens that looked "poor". Of course it didn't last long, cooler heads prevailed and I guess that McFlurries were not selling well :)

</comment><comment><USER26> This thread seems like its become a de-facto community center for high horses.

</comment><comment><USER27> when I lived out of my car in SoCal, I wasn't familiar with starbucks yet and so I basically used McDonalds as my table/office/wi-fi/hangout spot for the first month.

I have a soft spot for McDonalds despite what its critics may say. It's an inclusive place which accepts everyone: homeless, indigent, wealthy, kids, adults. It is cheap, unpretentious, and welcoming.

That said, this was a special McDonalds in Pasadena that was clean, had numerous power outlets, and was exceptionally well-run. The McDonalds in the rest of LA were disgusting in comparison and refused to provide outlets, presumably to keep out homeless.

I eventually switched to Starbucks because starbucks always has outlets, the coffee was slightly better (and had more options) and the wifi was significantly faster

</comment><comment><USER28> I often work out of my neighborhood McDonald's when working from home. It's about the only non-faith based multi-generational space in town. The mix of kids, a few other freelancers, and retired folks is unique.

<comment><USER29> Coffee shops fill this role for my area. There is a Starbucks near my apartment that is a thriving multi-nationality community hub. This surprised me, since prior to experiencing this, most of the coffee shops I've been to have had a more... niche... clientele.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> What astonishes me, is how often poor people go eating in a restaurant (e.g. breakfast in the first paragraph) when making breakfast at home (or lunch) is so much cheaper (as a fun exercise we often calculate the prices of our home lunch).

Although I have a nice income, 80% of the time I bring my own food to work because restaurants are too expensive in my opinion to regularly use them.

As a side note: I have the suspicion I'm addicted to fast food (McDonalds/Burger King). When I don't go there for some weeks, I have no urge and I'm fine. But as soon as I eat there, I have the urge for days to go back and have another burger.

<comment><USER31> To make food at home, you either need fresh, perishable ingredients and/or time to prep and cook. Even accessing fresh ingredients may be a hassle (see: food deserts), so eating off the dollar menu often feels like a better use of your money than making the trek to the grocery store to buy some perishables that you then have to cook before they go bad.

It's similar to why poor people buy poor-quality shoes more often, as opposed to one high-quality pair once a year.

EDIT: or cars. Poor people buy cars that are in poor condition because that's all they can afford, and they spend more money on it overall than if they could've gotten a better-quality car instead. It's expensive to be poor.

<comment><USER32> "The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness."

\- Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms: The Play

<comment><USER33> I immediately thought of Sam Vimes too. Well done!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> And in rich neighborhoods, Starbucks?

<comment><USER35> As much as I love small cafes, I have to say, Starbucks has grown on me, specifically living in a nice neighbourhood. The Starbucks near me is always very clean, has a very nice interior, plenty of outlets for laptops, fast wifi, very clean washrooms, and pleasant baristas. They even have a large communal table which they allow meetups to book. And plenty of people ranging from families to students walk from their detached homes to chill. I know that not all Starbucks are like that (one NYC location had a filthy bathroom, one in San Bruno is always packed with inventory boxes and people) but I think they were able to foster a community and place of comfort for their cafe.

<comment><USER36> People hate on Starbucks but it has brought halfway decent coffee to the masses. Yes, the locally owned specialty coffee shop will be better, but Starbucks coffee is not actively offensive the way McDonald's, Dunkin Donuts, or office drip coffeemaker (or worse, vending machine) coffee are. Back in the 80s, "cappuccino" was a signal of rich-toff status. These days anyone with $5 in their pocket (so perhaps excluding the absolute poorest) can have one. Plus they really put effort into making something resembling the "upscale café" experience available to the masses. Which means that small town cafés, in order to cater to young hipsters with money to burn, have had to up _their_ game.

<comment><USER37> I think you're overestimating the number of people in the states who have $5 in their pocket on any given day to blow on coffee, having said 'perhaps excluding the absolute poorest'. :(

<comment><USER35> A few days ago, I was blown away by kids at the Starbucks probably around aged 10 (give or take a few years) teaching one another how to pay their Starbucks balance with their iPhone. In my youth I never had such an expensive piece of hardware in my pocket, nor the cash to spend on $4 drinks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> This happens everywhere, with the establishment varying with the culture.

In much of Canada, the local community center is the Tim Hortons. My labor studies professor back in the day wrote his doctoral thesis on this and (unfairly, in my opinion) won an Ig Nobel for it:

[http://ig-nobel.silk.co/page/Steve-Penfold](http://ig- nobel.silk.co/page/Steve-Penfold)

</comment><comment><USER39> Wal-Mart and McDonald's are the modern equivalent of the diner and malt shop that middle-class white people may be more familiar with (it seems this article was written with a specific readership in mind). Go to any small town or poor rural area, and these are the places people congregate. It has almost nothing to do with food, and more to do with a social space designed for people to gather comfortably.

In Italy it's the piazza. In the UK & Ireland it's the pub. In more enclosed neighborhoods in the US it may simply be your neighbor's stoop, or a certain street or alley. Access to a social space facilitates human interaction & culture.

<comment><USER40> In Italy we have Cafè's, which are usually in a piazza, but there are also other options.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> What's interesting is that the Guardian and HN feel the need to appraise us of what happens in low-income communities.

On one hand, it's realistic - most people reading the Guardian or HN don't know (despite the fact that both are nearly as accessible in low-income communities as wealthy ones, at least via phones).

On the other, what does it say that the readers have to learn about it in a newspaper or Internet forum. It might as well be a story about culture in a foreign country instead of within a short drive for most readers.

</comment><comment><USER42> I was really impressed by the public spaces and squares in European designed cites. Real Mexican cities have lots of it as well.

We have far less spaces for people, so this is understandable.

</comment><comment><USER43> I would love to see someone do a purpose built place with a targeted menu to see how it would do as a modern version of a community center.

1) big glass windows with good interior lighting

<comment><USER31> In some parts of Europe, McDonald's is actually a somewhat upmarket option, and fulfills a purpose similar to Starbucks in the US.

Some downtown ones are in historic buildings with elegant furniture. This is a bit atypical, but here's a nice one in Budapest: [https://mic.com/articles/85625/this-is-the-world-s- fanciest-...](https://mic.com/articles/85625/this-is-the-world-s-fanciest- mcdonald-s)

<comment><USER44> When McDonald's opened in Moscow in the 1980's one of the things people frequently mentioned after standing in line for hours was the high quality of the food. It was normal McDonald's fair tailored to the local market. We're pretty spoiled people in the US. Some large fraction of the species can only dream of eating food as good as what McDonald's sells.

<comment><USER45> Hate to break it to you, but from what I've been told by anyone that went to US: Non-US McDonald's food is way way WAY better than what you get in US McDonald's... Also, this comment really rubbed me the wrong way. I'd say extreme superiority complex with a side of slight ignorance To russians first McDonald's in Moscow was like Berlin wall falling to germans. It was complete antithesis of the Soviet Union.

<comment><USER31> In my experience, between McDonald's in the US and eastern Europe, the food tastes largely the same, but in Europe it is better prepared.

The meat isn't greasy and never burnt, the wrapper is pristine. The fries are fresh and crispy, never soggy. Service is usually very fast; many places have timers that show how long the order took to be fulfilled.

Overall, it's a more polished experience in Europe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> In the early 1970's, after seeing the kids off to school, my mom and dad would get a cup of coffee at the McDonald's at the edge of the neighborhood, and sit and talk. The employees eventually told them that they thought mom and dad were having an affair; why else would they arrange to meet away from home?

I only tell this as an off-topic fond memory, but perhaps it also serves to support the community idea through being a safe, cheap 'third place', and through the notion that the employees and customers treat each other as relationships, not just transactions.

</comment><comment><USER47> McDonalds is _the_ master in orchestrating food. I love McDonalds and I think their hamburger is the best hamburger, their french fries are the best and all the other menu options have this typical McDonalds design--everything, every single piece and ingredient is meticulously thought through and the final dish has a perfect taste. The taste you get for the carb in-take is unmatched.

It's cool to hate McDonalds, I know and I don't care. All my friends would never take their kids to McDonalds. They even don't take their kids to the movies. This is our generation, all they want is 'organic', 'low fat' and 'please don't hurt' stickers on their overpriced crap food without having a clue how nutrition really works. Especially here in Europe, it's about positioning yourself as healthy and smart when educating others about McDonalds. All obesity in this world is caused by McDonalds, yes sure.

It's true that most of McDonalds' customers rather belong to the one end of the spectrum but who cares? I still think that it's in particular the lower middle class which hates McDonalds and which wants to put themselves above even lower classes. They cannot stop telling others that McDonalds is bad and they have to get now some authentic burger at an underground burger place or a healthy Bircher Muesli for their little ones. Btw, the same folks don't go to Starbucks for the same reasons--because they know a better non-franchise place for their ridiculous fair traded organic flat white.

Actually, it's not McDonalds those people don't like--it's their desperation and urge to be something better than they really are, the fear that people confuse them with being white trash instead of middle class. This is the main reason they buy overpriced organic food at 'upscale' locations. The upper classes do not care at all what others think and go from time to time to McDonalds. They don't need to pretend anything and are aware that going to McDonalds from time to time does not mean that's their daily diet. They understand that's about what you eat, that especially the total daily carb in- take and the right balance of carbs, protein and fat is crucial. McDonalds offers everything to eat well _and_ balanced but it's often the lack of knowledge and education if people cannot manage this balance.

With kids it's even better, McDonalds is the rare example where kids are welcome and it's a pleasure with them. Kids hate long sessions in any restaurant and all money left there is wasted when all kids want is a bowl of fries with ketchup. At McDonalds they love every second and usually they eat more than just the fries. This make the total experience a good and _healthy_ one.

For the record, I am super thin and live a healthy lifestyle as my kids do.

<comment><USER48> Have you tried making your own mcdonald's french fries?

This process was tedious, but surprisingly effective: [http://aht.seriouseats.com/archives/2010/05/the-burger- lab-h...](http://aht.seriouseats.com/archives/2010/05/the-burger-lab-how-to- make-perfect-mcdonalds-style-french-fries.html)

I did not have an accurate way to measure the temp of the oil, which is important.

Also I reused peanut oil, fresh oil would make the color nicer and a more pure taste.

<comment><USER10> I do like their fries--though that's about the only thing. To me, McDonalds has better fries than places like In-and-Out but their burgers are far inferior.

<comment><USER49> I agree that McDonald's has the best fries in the game.

Although In-N-Out's fries (when ordered plain) are some of the worst. As is custom, Animal Style is the way to go!

<comment><USER50> Try them "well done". Fresh potatoes cut in-store moments before cooking (McD's are pre-cut and frozen).

<comment><USER10> >McD's are pre-cut and frozen

So?

There are lots and lots of reasons with many types of food to prefer fresh. But it's also possible to fetishize fresh over frozen for no particular reason. (As is often the case with seafood.)

I can only report my experience, which is that I'll sometimes grab (only) some McD's fries when on a long drive and I generally avoid either In-N-Out or ShakeShack fries when getting the rare burger at those places (which I rather enjoy).

It's probably also worth noting though that the premium fast burger places are, to greater or lesser degrees, (unsurprisingly) a non-trivial uplift over McDonalds.

<comment><USER50>
      So?

Just stating fact without making judgments.

      a non-trivial uplift over McDonalds

I agree. McD's price for their "premium" sandwiches are a poor value compared to In-n-Out, Five Guys, etc.

<comment><USER10> >Just stating fact without making judgments.

Fair enough. But "frozen" gets so often used as an automatic disparagement relative to fresh.

To your other point, I personally can't stand McD's burgers so would avoid them unless I were starving so In-n-Out etc. are a better value if I have a choice. (Doubt if I've had a McD's burger in more than a decade.) No judgment about people who do. Just not for me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Most people don't realize it, but McDonald's is not a burger-flipping restaurant chain; it is one of the world's best real estate portfolios. Franchisees flip the burgers. McDonald's simply owns the best commercial property all over the world. Think about it, every town and city in the Country and many of the world, who owns the best lot on highest traffic intersection? McDonald's.

<comment><USER52> I thought the franchisees owned the property too, and that the franchiser just licenses the IP and provides the foodstuff.

<comment><USER50> There are corporate-owned restaurants, and there are franchises.

Stores can be on leased or owned land.

For example, something like 8 McDonald's in San Francisco have closed or are closing in the past few years, many because of lost leases, supposedly.

One rumored to be threatened location is 3rd and Townsend, a great location just one block from AT&T Park and a neighborhood institution (it was there long before the ballpark).

<comment><USER51> "We are in the real estate business, not the hamburger business." Ray Croc, Founder of McDonalds.

"If a location is good enough to buy, we want to build on it right away and be in there before the competition. Pump some money and activity into a town, and they'll remember you for it." Ray Croc, Founder of McDonalds

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> It seem to me that the newly renovated McDonalds are more like Panera's so I can see the appeal to go there to hang and converse. My friends and I used to always hang out at McDonalds when we were kids because they don't care if you loiter for hours.

<comment><USER54> >It seem to me that the newly renovated McDonalds are more like Panera's

The McDonalds in my hometown used to be decorated completely in 1950's memorabilia. Lots of mint green and pink colors, old photographs of McDonalds of the time on the walls, big laminate figures of Elvis and Marilyn Monroe, models of cars of the time in a big display case, and even a working 45 record jukebox. It was a really cool place that a unique vibe to it.

A few years back they "renovated" it to look, as you say, like a generic Panera Bread and it lost all its charm and appeal, not to mention the memories I associated with the place as a kid. Until I was like 13 or 14 years old I thought ALL McDonalds looked like that.

<comment><USER53> I can understand, the McDonalds in my hometown had the ball pit and all the 1950's fixings until about 5 years ago when they ripped it all out and did the same but the real killer was that the ball pit was replaced with a bunch of gamecube stations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> McDonald's often provides playgrounds for kids because local governments don't.

[https://youtu.be/F7IQyIWIcdI?t=12m42s](https://youtu.be/F7IQyIWIcdI?t=12m42s)

</comment><comment><USER56> Not just in poor neighborhoods. I worked at one in high school... There were all sorts of regulars who'd stop in, especially in the morning.

There was one group of WW2 vets who would come in every month.

<comment><USER57> When I worked for the Golden Arches in the early 80's, there was a daily group of 10 retired guys who ordered coffee, rarely a danish, and sat in a couple of tables for a few hours. They bitched about the weather, about politics, about "those damn kids" and especially when the price of a cup of coffee went up. It was a ritual in their day, and they weren't some downtrodden group; these were guys who had stories of WW2 that would chill you. They built this country and never considered Mickey D's with the disdain the current generation seems to feel.

<comment><USER58> Many younger people today find it hard to fathom, but the suburbs and fast food car culture were not (entirely) a capitalist plot executed by General Motors and McDonald's to brainwash the populace into unwitting wage-slave servitude.

The WW2 generation built and adopted all that _voluntarily_ , because _they like it_ and think it's a much better way of life than how they lived before the war: in densely packed, dirty cities; unable to remotely afford a car; being _obligated_ to cook for hours every single day before you could even eat a meal, and then often going to bed hungry because there was just not enough food to go around due to the Great Depression.

They moved to the suburbs because they generally view having your very own car to drive places, and being able to pick up dinner on the way home in five minutes, as massive lifestyle improvements rather than impediments.

<comment><USER59> > Many younger people today find it hard to fathom, but the suburbs and fast > food car culture were not (entirely) a capitalist plot executed by General > Motors and McDonald's to brainwash the populace into unwitting wage-slave > servitude.

Yeah, a significant part of it was about race rather than capitalism.

<comment><USER58> Yes, racism existed (and still exists today.) However, the degree to which racism played a part in the construction of suburban America has now been greatly distorted and exaggerated by multiple generations of leftist academic historians, as part of a much larger political and cultural program aimed at disparaging traditional society in general.

This is in turn part of the larger and extensively documented phenomenon of leftists having come to control almost all American academic discourse during the past few decades and systematically stifling any dissenting narratives, especially prevalent in the social sciences.

While some racists certainly existed, the vast, vast majority of individuals who moved from the cities to the suburbs neither knew nor cared about any racism that was going on. It was not a factor at all in their personal decisions to build or move to suburbia.

<comment><USER59> > While some racists certainly existed, the vast, vast majority of individuals > who moved from the cities to the suburbs neither knew nor cared about any > racism that was going on.

The people moving may or may not have known (though I think you seriously understate the degree to which they did), but what is more important is that the people designing and executing the policies (including those of banks and those of governments) which shaped the suburbs definitely and deliberately were not only aware of but actively applying race-based discrimination in so doing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> Does this not strike anyone else as pretty blatant native advertising?

<comment><USER61> It fits with Chris Arnade's other reporting on addiction, but it does seem a bit too focused on McDonald's and a bit too uniformly positive (aside from noting that readers might "sneer").

The Guardian does do native advertising [0], and I find their labeling policy unclear. This case study [1] by their native advertising division, Guardian Labs, highlights videos that are very clearly labeled [2] but also an article [3] that doesn't seem to be. Their policy on commercial content [4] seems to suggest that everything is clearly labeled, but at least in this case they either didn't follow it or ignored the distinctions in the case study.

[0]: [http://www.adweek.com/news/press/guardians-unusual-take- nati...](http://www.adweek.com/news/press/guardians-unusual-take-native- ads-155715)

[1]: [http://guardianlabs.theguardian.com/projects/silent- circle-t...](http://guardianlabs.theguardian.com/projects/silent-circle-the- power-of-privacy)

[2]: [http://www.theguardian.com/media-network/ng- interactive/2015...](http://www.theguardian.com/media-network/ng- interactive/2015/sep/29/the-power-of-privacy-video-series)

[3]: [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/18/guardian-...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/18/guardian- readers-on-privacy-we-trust-government-over-corporations)

[4]: [https://www.theguardian.com/info/2016/jan/25/content- funding](https://www.theguardian.com/info/2016/jan/25/content-funding)

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> My dad used to do all his studying at McDonalds (he was a pastor), and he worked there when I was growing up. We spent a lot of time as a family (because we were pretty poor) eating there and playing on the playgrounds.

For most of my childhood, the first time I saw my dad was when he got home, at around 11am, after working a full shift at McDonalds. The smell of McDonalds has come to be firmly associated with home for me, and when I am feeling stressed, its where I go to eat. :)

</comment><comment><USER63> It's not just poor neighborhoods. I live on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. This is a mostly affluent area, but there are some homeless. There is a McDonalds at 95th street, on Broadway. I believe it is 24 hours, or at least it is open very late. Any time I walk home late at night, I notice that dozens of people are clustered around that place. It offers safety and warmth and a place people can talk to each other.

</comment><comment><USER64> Of course, this doesn't mean it is a good thing. The most probable reason is that poor neighborhoods are so much in need of public services that even a McDonalds will alleviate their problems. In a concrete sense, private companies have largely taken over public spaces and many have no other alternatives.

</comment><comment><USER65> I grew up in Vermont and there was a McDonalds on both sides of town. I've probably eaten at McDonalds that any other restaurant in my life. It's certainly a gathering place in my hometown. It's difficult to go and not run into someone you know.

</comment><comment><USER66> I live in a small-ish, suburb/rural large town in central PA. I have gone to McDonald's a couple of times in the late morning, and every time it's completely full of people over 75 socializing (including half the staff).

</comment><comment><USER67> (What follows is my own opinion, based on my own experience. It's not an intended as an attack on any one group, and shouldn't be construed as such. I'm making no value judgements, simply reporting what I saw and learned.)

I spent two years working freelance for a community centre in the UK. I was working for the Centre's voluntary management committee, who had use of the building through an convoluted arms-length agreement with the local Council who actually owned the building and paid for its upkeep. The Council used some of the Centre's space for offices and the like.

My objective was to expand the Association's programme of learning, creative, and health activities and increase the community's use of the Centre.

The two years I did the work were educational. I learned a lot in the time, not all of it good.

Several things really stuck with me.

There are some people who are genuinely passionate and willing to give over large amounts of time working, for free, to build something they believe in for the benefit of others. Working with these people was inspiring.

There are also at least the same number of people who are interested mostly in furthering their own agenda, their own pet projects, and will often act in a spiteful and overprotective fashion with that aim. Often, they'll actively work against something that has no effect whatsoever on their pet project, simply because it doesn't benefit their own pet project. Negotiating with these people, and working around the blocks they erect, was a huge challenge and not particularly enjoyable.

The local Council's policies and institutional biases actively work against a community centre in many respects. There's so much red-tape that quite a lot of activities which would be popular can't run -- the burden imposed by the bureaucracy smothers it, and grinds down the people working underneath it. One example is a drop-in youth group: these ran for nearly 30 years in the Centre to huge success, but were infeasible now due to Council regulations and requirements; the Association would have had to employ multiple youth-workers (at £20+ an hour) where previously carefully vetted volunteers ran these groups.

When working in a modern community centre with volunteers and professional community workers, 'community' usually means one of four things: the middle- class, ethnic minorities,* children, and people with special needs,* and with a heavy leaning towards females in all four of these group. (This feels like an appropriate time to remind reader that I'm not making any value judgements or attacks.)

There is some effort made to reach the very, very poor (usually in the form of at-risk teens), but almost none made to engage with lower-income/working-class people. Males are similarly not a priority. Questioning this is extremely difficult, and too easily dismissed as sexism/racism/inverse snobbery.

After my freelance work at the Centre finished, I spent nine months working in a supermarket in a poor part of town. It was pretty eye-opening. In that time, I got to know people from all walks of life, of all ages, and various nationalities.

Each day as I was working, I spent time interacting with, and supporting, a genuine, organic community. I experienced more genuine community there than I ever did at the community centre -- and I was a _part_ of that community. I saw the same customers every day, and often speaking to me and the other staff would be their only social contact that day. I never experienced that at the community centre: there, I almost exclusively interacted with people who had a strong, well-developed base and social structure around them.

Council bureaucracy and the unquestioned biases existing within community work failed these people. Imposing a bureaucracy over a community impairs that community, unintentionally marginalises certain people, and causes community to develop unnaturally if it develops at all. When that happens, though, those who get left behind will do what humans naturally do, and develop a community of their own.

I'm saddened that for some people this community has to be their local supermarket, but I'm incredibly grateful for the people who work there who take on this extra community work naturally and without any expectation of extra reward or recognition.

* The correct term for these groups changes frequently. I'm using the ones which will be most widely understood and intend no offence.

</comment><comment><USER68> Aren't Japanese McDonald's a popular hangout for teenagers?

<comment><USER36> When I was in Osaka, the McDonald's had a blockbusting line going into it.

The food was, near as I can tell, identical to the American locations -- but the place was spacious, clean, and staffed mostly by the sort of mousy-voiced girls Japan seems to produce in legion strength. And you get a Handi-Wipe to clean up with after your meal.

<comment><USER69> It's a popular place to go just to get coffee. (Their coffee is pretty okay in the US too.)

I feel like I remember totally offending a French guy by suggesting we do this once.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> After getting mild food poisoning from a McDonalds, I would not return. Bad experience aside, the food is gross, unhealthy and not as cheap as a local restaurant that serves real food.

However, foreign McDonalds are very very different. I would visit one of those again, sure. The quality is a world away different.

<comment><USER71> I don't know about your city, but where I am I would struggle to find "a local restaurant that serves real food" for even 50% more than McD's. Probably 100%, if I'm going to limit it to within a block or two of where a McD's is. In a lot of places, chain restaurants are the cheapest and most reliable way to get something edible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> People like to bash McDonalds, I love it.

I'm a very health-conscious person. I'm 5'10", 155 pounds, 53 years old, and have a nicely defined body (you can see my abs!)

It's easy to count calories in McDonald. An Egg McMuffin is 310 calories. A regular hamburger is 240, a Big Mac is 563.

I can have an Egg McMuffin and black coffee for breakfast (310 calories), two regular hamburgers for lunch (480) calories, and a Big Mac for Dinner (563) and be at 1353 calories, which leaves me with 650 calories for healthy snacks (fruit, vegetables, yogurt) and be at 2,000 calories/day.

It can be an excellent way for people on a budget to get some meat several times a weak. (Buy the hamburgers, w/o buns, and eat them with rice and broccoli!)

<comment><USER73> You're being downvoted because it's cool to hate on McDonald's, but I agree with you.

From my experience in the UK, their menu is increasingly easy to find nutritional information for (the print it in big font on -all- of their packaging), and they offer alternatives for fries/sodas if you like. Much of the McDonald's menu is far healthier than 'real' restaurant equivalents, which use much more oil/salt because the international community isn't scrutinising every menu item.

<comment><USER74> I think they're being downvoted because they're a new account with no submissions and no other comments bar this one, which looks a little... ah... suspicious?

<comment><USER72> I've had a bunch of comments, but I think new users are shadowbanned by default.

<comment><USER75> I saw your "dead" comment, thought it was valuable. Your previous comments didn't appear to be antisocial so I vouched it.

Your karma went up since then so apparently some people agree.

You're still flagged for whatever reason, so whatever you write will still be invisible until someone using showdead comes along and decides it shouldn't be hidden.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> Reminds me of this 2014 article about a "standoff" between McDonald's Employees and elderly Chinese people using it as a community space

[http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/McDonalds-Elderly- Senio...](http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/McDonalds-Elderly-Senior- Citizens-Wont-Leave-Standoff-Flushing-Queens-240348291.html)

Also, chess players being evicted from a Vancouver mall after 50 years of congregation

[http://www.timescolonist.com/chess-players-offered-new- play-...](http://www.timescolonist.com/chess-players-offered-new-play-place- in-vancouver-area-mall-stalement-1.2238914)

I have an ideological axe to grind here, but I can't help but think of this as the end-game of libertarian "the government should enforce property rights only". Of course, currently existing social services are more like a band-aid on top of inequality than a real cure, so you end up with things like,

> In almost every franchise, there are tables with people like Betty escaping > from the streets for a short bit. They prefer McDonald's to shelters and to > non-profits, because McDonald's are safer, provide more freedom, and most > importantly, the chance to be social, restoring a small amount of normalcy.

but it's really not hard to imagine something superior to both McDonald's and shelters, just real community space.

<comment><USER77> > the end-game of libertarian "the government should enforce property rights > only"

The alternative is government, but this is clearly a case where they've failed. Federal, state, and local governments haven't provided any comparable services, only the private sector did, and with no government funding.

I think the liberal (or north-american libertarian) way, would include local community areas run by individuals within said community similar to a co-op. Remember that liberalism doesn't tell you HOW you have get together, only that politicians can't create a one size fits all solution and force everyone to pay for it.

<comment><USER28> The bigger issues with co-ops right now in the USA are the regulatory barriers in the way of forming one without everyone involved becoming liable for anything bad that happens.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> I can't tell if this is sponsored content or not...

<comment><USER79> I'm not sure why you are being downvoted; I think it's a great question.

<comment><USER80> No sponsored content would mention the likelihood of readers sneering at the sponsor in the headline.

The Guardian is a reputable paper, although, barring the views of a few commentators like Aditya Chakrabortty, it tends to have a complacent middle- class outlook on things.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER81> I personally avoid Chic-Fil-A because of their anti-LGBT and pro-religion values, but I'm glad to hear they're pleasant for children.

<comment><USER82> It's really unfortunate, because Chic-Fil-A is arguably the best fast food option in the US when it comes to user experience (depending of course on your exact definition of fast food and whether or not you include non-franchised local businesses that nevertheless operate similar to fast food places).

I'm routinely impressed with the level of customer service at Chic-Fil-A. It's frankly better than what I've gotten at many formal restaurants. On several occasions my SO and I have been given generous amounts of free food as well, and we're only semi-regulars (maybe twice a month).

One instance stands out. We ordered a frosted coffee to try it. Out of nowhere one of the employees made us a second one for free, but he made it differently from the first one with different ingredients. He gave it to us so we'd each have one and so we could decide which method of making it we thought was better. Stuff like this has happened _multiple_ times at Chic-Fil-A for us.

<comment><USER83> I find Wendy's to be the best option. Chili instead of fries is nice in the winter. If you want the fast food is going to instantly give you a heart attack experience (admit it, sometimes you just want some horrible for you food), there is always Hardees, they get some good specialty burgers from time to time.

I had only been to a Chic-Fil-A a few times before refusing to go there after their stance, and I really do not see what is so special so I'm not feeling like I'm losing out on anything.

I'm laughing, well more smirking really, about the cleanliness of McDonalds in the thread. I stopped eating there after I got sick after getting a drink at two different ones. This was after their McCafe upgrades so it's not like it was a 50 year old restaurant.

<comment><USER84> As a side note Wendy's doesn't use frozen pre-made beef patties, instead they get fresh ground beef shipped in and they form the patties. That's another reason I like Wendy's compared to other options.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER85> > _I am pretty sure the cheeseburger, apple slices, and chocolate milk are not > much worse, and probably better, than the typical fare on a slapped together > kids meal._

Wow. It saddens me to see that statement. I thought it was commonly knowledge that McDonalds isn't actually "food" in the nutrition and health sense of the word any more than cotton candy and pure salt are.

<comment><USER86> That's awfully ignorant. Hating on McDonalds and the like is the trendy thing to do now, but to say that there is no nutritional or health value in their food is ridiculous.

I just looked up the nutrition facts for a kid's happy meal with a cheeseburger, apples slices and chocolate milk. In total, you've got:

      450 calories
      12g total fat
      6g saturated fat (not that it matters)
      61g Carbs
      32g Sugars (22 of which come from the chocolate milk)
      24g Protein

Thats about 60% carbs, 24% protein, and 12% fat. Lacking a special diet, that's about ideal (textbook anyway) macros.

Wanna talk 'health' and specific micros?

You've got 820mg of sodium. High, sure, but so is all American food. 20% of your daily Vit A, 160% of your daily Vit C, 50% of your daily Calcium, 25% of your daily Iron.

You're getting a reasonable amount of calories, with a reasonable macronutrient ratio, and a fair spattering of micronutrients for, what, $5?

Plus a toy, and a playground. Two things that plenty of people don't have trivially available to them.

But it's not organic, or free trade, or antibiotic free, or gluten free, or made exclusively by third-world war orphans, so it must be crap. I get it.

<comment><USER58> High sodium intake is not bad for you (unless you have a few very specific and unusual health conditions.) Like most late 20th century nutritional guidance, turns out that idea was totally wrong.

[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-time-to-end- th...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-time-to-end-the-war-on- salt/)

[https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=sodium+no+longer+bad+f...](https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=sodium+no+longer+bad+for+you)

<comment><USER86> I'm on board, but when talking about stuff like this it's best to use the textbook answers: less wiggle room.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER87> The pictures look pretty sad and the mc donalds house is filled with a cloud of sugary sweetness. Kids may like it but if one is older and still likes it, i would assume that this person either got addicted to this in some form or simply has the stomach and tastebuds similar to a dog (which is nothing to be ashamed of).

<comment><USER88> Does that mean dog treats are super sweet and salty?

<comment><USER87> No, more like dogs don't care much about taste, as long as the food is somewhat edible and contains minimal nutritional value (some dogs eat shit or rotten carcass for example). That's why my guess is that their taste buds and stomachs are different.</comment></comment></comment>


"We Don't Need a Project Manager" - <AUTHOR> https://freelancemag.blogspot.com/2020/02/we-dont-need-project-manager-agile-of.html <comment><USER2> The problem I have with most of the "project manager" bullshit is not related to hierarchy or structure. In my opinion, the role of a boss/leader is useful and most of the time necessary.

But we're not talking about that, we're talking about middle-management, and this is a completely different story.

Very often, managers don't have the legitimacy of a boss or leader, they're not charismatic or visionary, and they often are unable to do or even fully understand the job of those they are managing.

Their role is mostly bureaucratic and to reduce slack.

</comment><comment><USER3> Leaders will either be imposed, chosen, or emerge organically. Not necessarily formally/titled as such, but they will emerge.

Sometimes an organic leader will be great for a group - best person for it - but there's potential for someone more malicious to simply seize power which makes me uncomfortable.

Whether "bad" leaders emerge more from organic situations than from organisation-selected ones is an interesting question!

<comment><AUTHOR> >> but there's potential for someone more malicious to simply seize power which makes me uncomfortable.

Best leaders are those who don't "want" to be leaders but have leadership thrust upon them. I think if everyone follows this basic principle then it should be good in all settings irrespective of organic/chosen/imposed.

<comment><USER3> Definitely some truth here, but it favours upper management benevolently choosing leaders IMO. Those with talent/ability but without the desire to lead will never compete with the actively power-hungry.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've started seeing this pattern as well, and it really has me wondering.

If you have a team of relative newbies, they learn from trial-by-fire and grow really fast. I guess it's up to you if you have the time/bandwidth/runway for this process. It's really messy, but 1 or 2 years of this gets you a programmer who _is_ able to talk to customers, able to coordinate among their peers, take feedback, self-manage etc. (or the programmer gets frustrated and quits)

I'm old, so I think it's better to have a PM doing coordination so the programmers can focus on good, clean, scalable code. But, maybe the definition of 'programmer' is changing. Maybe all the above skills are also required to be a 'programmer' nowadays, and the frustrated ones who quit are something else. Code specialists?

I really don't know... I'm heavily biased against it but I'm very interested in what others have experienced with this flat PM-free structure.

<comment><USER5> One thing that's really come through with Agile is how little value traditional project planning actually brings to real-world software development. You can do any amount of estimation, forecasting, scheduling... but actually the only question that's worth getting a useful answer to is "what should I work on this week?", and the amount of work you have to do to figure that one out is much smaller. What you do need is someone who can understand the priorities that different stakeholders (including engineering) have, weigh those up, and come up with overall priorities for engineering to execute on; that's an extremely valuable role, but probably not to the extent of being a full-time position for someone who contributes nothing else.

The other side is that it's very difficult to evaluate a coordinator's performance, as an outstanding team poorly coordinated will look much the same as a poor team outstandingly coordinated. As an engineer, if I see a non- technical PM then there's a significant chance that they're contributing nothing but bullshit, and presumably someone from the business side would be equally skeptical of a PM with no business experience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> > We are increasingly seeing a transition (especially in the West) to a "flat > hierarchy" system

Interesting take. I'm probably a bit older than the author and from my perspective _" flat hierarchies"_ are thing since at least the late nineties. The cynic in me sometimes believes they were actually a thing since forever and hierarchies that seem flat from some viewpoints are just a management instrument to keep workers content.

</comment><comment><USER7> I work in the public sector, which is a large enterprise beast that has it's reason for being outside of tech, but a reason that increasingly can't be executed without tech. So this has obviously coloured my perspective in a way that may be strange to people in all tech teams in all tech businesses. We operate more than 500 applications from contractors, we've build around 200 ourselves and we utilise around 25 co-municipality open source solutions where we project lead but buy code from small local shops. We also track and benchmark everything.

I think the biggest issue with project management, and, the agile toolkit is one that this article and a lot like it pass over a little too quickly. I don't think there is a right answer, because every situation is different.

We have a lot of smaller projects where less than five people build a piece of software that will either be left mostly alone for 25 years, or get completely replaced after five. On those cases utilising the whole agile toolkit is silly, because the only benefit it has is controlling how we learn together, and you can do that with simple light code-reviews. If complexity is really low, building extensive testing may even be a waste of time, and you genuinely rarely need a project manager for just 3 smart co-workers.

On other projects we're building extremely complex applications for thousands of end-users. That will have a direct impact on citizen lives. In these cases the "NASA engineering approach" is the way to go, and here project managers play a critical role connecting engineering and business. A lot of programmers can do what project managers do, but the interpersonal relationships, the historical knowledge of how to play corporate politics to get things done, and the time to do it, is not something you or your programmers really want.

We really want that assembly line process, but there is just no perfect fit for everything in the world we operate.

</comment><comment><USER8> My opinion of professional project managers has been ruined by an experience 10 years ago where I was in a "matrix" structured organization.

I had been warned about PM's in this company, but I didn't believe it because the PM I was working with was cool, approachable and seemed reasonable. Basically, he set insanely short deadlines always citing critical business imperatives. It was frequently impossible to actually meet the deadlines. We accepted it as a reality of the situation and didn't push back.

One day, near the end of a project, I happened to be in on a "status update" call with upper management. The call was about a dozen people, all but a few in bullshit management/coordinator roles, including the PM (BTW, high PM-to- contributor ratio in meetings in itself should be a red flag). Throughout this whole project the technical side had been always under a timeline fire. We cut corners, poured on the technical debt like there was no tomorrow, abandoned long-going efforts at cleaning up our codebase, fought bitterly with design engineering for access to extremely limited hardware-prototype resources, frequently came in on weekends. We were always late. I had expected to be chewed out by the VP. Instead, the VP graciously addressed my PM and told him "Wow, thank you <PM-name>, we're really impressed that you guys were able to bring this in so early!". I was so pissed off, it didn't even occur to me to say anything. I found out later that not only was this behavior true, it was routine and encouraged by program managers. The PM's had been scoring huge bonuses for "performance" while the teams were always led to believe they were falling behind and always assumed our modest bonuses were just largess bestowed upon us even though we were "unworthy".

I am not going to say we "don't need" project managers, but I think everyone working with them should be skeptical of whatever they say. Since then, I've gotten aggressive about making demands of project managers. If their primary concern is meeting deadlines, then it follows that you can "put them to work" for your team by making demands for resources, access, or information from other parts of the organization. If you meet the deadline, they're more than happy to oblige.

</comment><comment><USER9> There is "Project management" work, like estimating how long the entire project will take, how much they will charge, tackling dependencies, holding clients accountable etc. that needs to be done. If you don't have a Project Manager to do this, you're probably using engineers to do it.

</comment><comment><USER10> And yet most of the PM I have worked with are useless. They are the daily meeting host that understand nothing. They make twice your salary by producing nothing. They assign blame on people but don't even understanding what those people are working on. They are good at nothing but throwing more work in the current sprint, pushing for deadlines and saying "yes" to every stupid request from other department.

Face it : Really good PM are rare. And a team will perform better without PM than with a bad one.

<comment><USER11> Agreed 100%

> They make twice your salary by producing nothing.

this sucked the most

<comment><USER12> It's truly mind blowing how intelligent comments can be here, but the circle jerk of engineers vs non engineers rings so loud.

Good PMs know how to gatekeeper from other departments and leadership, identify engineers strengths and defer to their expertise, and remember answers to the same technical questions so they can at least build upon their knowledge of the craft. I have no clue how rare they are, but those are what I try to do on a regular basis on top of disseminating information as it changes from product stakeholders to engineering.

I can list a whole host of reasons why engineers can flounder without a mediator between product and marketing leadership to make sense of requests. I'm also acutely aware that great engineers can make things work in lieu of someone who owns that process.

I'm not going to bash engineers as a whole though. I'm not ignorant.

<comment><USER10> > Good PMs know how to gatekeeper from other departments and leadership, > identify engineers strengths and defer to their expertise, and remember > answers to the same technical questions so they can at least build upon > their knowledge of the craft. I have no clue how rare they are, but those > are what I try to do on a regular basis on top of disseminating information > as it changes from product stakeholders to engineering.

Good PM, yes, they can. But how does that required any kind of skill than have more value than an engineer skill ? I haven't met any good PM in 7 years and 3 jobs... It's kind of sad really.

<comment><USER12> The value of the skill is relative. Some places may have incredible technical talent in their engineering team, but the team doesn't know an SEO optimization from a consistent UI architecture.

In my opinion, a PM is a jack of all trades, and a master at communication and organization. Engineers on Team A who can identify why Feature A has dependencies on Feature B that Team B is building is awesome; but that's the accepted exception. I'd also argue there's a case that an engineer's time should be spent building and writing code, not managing the release schedule to best meet business goals. Leave that to the PMs.

<comment><USER10> > I'd also argue there's a case that an engineer's time should be spent > building and writing code, not managing the release schedule to best meet > business goals. Leave that to the PMs.

They will manage the schedule based on what the engineers estimations (and try to push for a better release date).

Any way, good PM must exist and add value to a team. But most of them don't know what they are doing... It's really painful.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> There's a reason that Scrum Master / Agile Coach roles exist, they help train up the team to work in a self organised way. Sometime a Product Manager or Engineering Manager does it as part of their role but it's the core of what agile coaches do.

The author is right that it takes skill and practise but I believe training your engineers to work this way is more effective than having a full time role do it.

</comment><comment><USER14> Leadership de-facto means responsibility.

If you take responsibility, or responsibility is thrust on you, then you should have compensation and seniority (power) to back this up. So flat heirarchies are a fantasy because without seniority we all stand back, stay quiet and don't make calls or decisions that could land us in hot water.

</comment><comment><USER15> I think we have this problem now. Too many chefs in the kitchen has led to an unorganized codebase. Lack of direction/vision. No consistency. We have a "scrum master" but they are more to facilitate meetings, the work falls to whichever developer happens to take it on which can be different than the one who previously worked in that area.

Some days we need a quarter back to call the plays. Otherwise, it's like watching a game of six year olds playing soccer.

<comment><USER5> Whenever I've seen "organisation", "direction", "vision" or "consistency" in a codebase, it's always done more harm than good. One of the cornerstones of agile is that you ruthlessly pare away anything that isn't necessary for delivering user-facing functionality - YAGNI. If anyone is reshaping the style of an area of code, they should be able to justify that in terms of the value they're delivering in their current two-weeks-or-smaller story. Each part of the codebase ends up uniquely shaped to the business problem it actually solves, and is as simple as possible to solve that problem. You don't need architecture; what would adding it gain you?

<comment><USER15> How do you deal with all the uniquely shaped pieces of code? If they are radically different, you won't be able to use them together later. Bob doesn't grok what Alice did when he goes to implement something in that area, and ends up introducing a bug of his own.

<comment><USER5> > If they are radically different, you won't be able to use them together > later.

Why would you want to use them together? Their differences reflect differences in the underlying business areas. If those businesses need to somehow be combined, their representatives will have to come to a common understanding of how to translate between them, and then that business understanding can be reflected in a corresponding way in the code.

> Bob doesn't grok what Alice did when he goes to implement something in that > area, and ends up introducing a bug of his own.

The biggest barriers to understanding are length and indirection, and they're the only way to make code consistent. It's easier to understand code that describes the unique problem that it solves in a unique way than code that tries to force that solution into some generalised framework.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Wow, so many people who lack the skills to be a manager dismissing it. I've worn several hats during my time, and doing manager stuff was the hardest. Dealing with interpersonal relations on the team, managing expectations from internal and external clients. Translating tech speak to and from marketing speak. Running code reviews, etc, etc.

It's a hard job. And there are a lot of people that are bad at it that get put in that role anyway. A good manager does way more than you'll ever see, because he's dealing with a world of crap so work can be done.

It so much easier to sit and work on one programming task than to try to keep an eye on all the "big picture" and "small picture" stuff at once.

Once I had a programmer who had an idea for a different data structure for one of our code bases that made generating the objects faster, as the cost of slowing read time a bit. He couldn't fathom the idea that even though his new structure would be good for HIM, the other teams that process that data are not going to be happy if each read is slower.

</comment><comment><USER17> This conflates two different concepts: division of labour and hierarchy.

Whether you should have separate project managers and whether you should have a flat hierarchy shouldn't be connected.

As far as PMs go: from long experience, I've yet to witness a good one. I'd say at least 80% of devs are productive assets -- i.e. their work moves the project forward. Maybe 20% of PMs are. In well over half the cases, the team would be more productive, happier, and effective if you simply fired the PM. Others might scrape by with a break even.

As far as flat hierarchy goes: that's anarchy, and anarchy is conflated with chaos for a good reason. You can read a codebase and detect within 5 minutes if it was written by a flat hierarchy team. I'll take a foul mouthed Linus tyrant at the top over a flat hierarchy any day.

The problem is that due to the nature of the job of PMs (supervising & giving orders & planning work etc), they're naturally superordinate in role, no matter how many times you call them a "servant" or "facilitator". But they're also the least qualified types to lead devs. They know nothing about development, and most of what they naturally tend to do to exert control and carry out their role results in purely damaging effects.

As I see it, the only effective solution is: (a) train devs how to manage -- since that's much easier than teaching managers how to dev, (b) establish clear hierachy but with everyone subject to rules (basically replicating how states work).

I'm never one to turn my nose up at the division of labour rule, but I don't believe PM is ever truly labour that can be divided out without interfering with another rule: the wise should lead. PM is too close to a "boss" concept to be separable labour. I.e. it's never truly horizontal, but vertical. Which is why I'll never hire or create such a role, and instead train the best devs to move beyond just typing code and move towards "conductors of the code being typed".

</comment><comment><USER18> > Its a known fact that most techies suck at interpersonal skills and > communicating with their own peers

Drivel. We just don't need people who neither understand the technology or the business getting in the way.

</comment><comment> apt-get Indeed, once you reach a certain scale (even a small one), a separate manager is often needed. However, they can be elected as well, rather than imposed top-down.

</comment><comment><USER19> I currently act as a lead whatever: I program, architect and coordinate a team of seven. Works quite well and is pretty enjoyable. Though I obviously program less than I would like to.

<comment><USER20> So you're PM in function, not in title...

This is what happens if you're lucky when you have teams without a PM. One person will end up taking the lead. I've seen this go completely off the rails too, where nobody took the lead and the project went nowhere.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> > Its a known fact that most techies suck at interpersonal skills and > communicating with their own peers, let alone with other stakeholders in a > project.

This is utter crap. And if you honestly believe it then you certainly shouldn't be acting in any capacity related to team performance. Engineers are allowed to make this excuse. There is nothing about the software engineering that stops people from being good communicators.

> Following the Division of Labor principle, there clearly is a space for > coordinator in a software development project which cannot simply be wished > away.

Coordination and communication is not a specialization. It is something critical to all roles in a team. That's what makes it a team. If you try and centralize coordination into a single person then then you're just adding overhead and extra steps to something that needs to be made as natural and seamless as possible

<comment><USER22> This is just a continuation of the infantilisation of development teams. I don't know whether it's because the industry is young so there are a lot of younger people working in it, or that they're the loudest as they're using social media and blogs more, but it seems pretty common at the different places I've contracted at. All these silly games they play in the scrum 'ceremonies', the need for pizza and beer and games in professional settings. I don't see it in any other business setting.

Its unsurprising businesses feel like they need a mediator between the childish way a lot of development teams want to behave and people working as actual professionals within businesses. It would make sense that in smaller pure tech companies where the 'culture' is that everyone behaves like that it may be less necessary, but it certainly is in a more classical business setting.

<comment><USER23> Not sure how the industry ended up with it, but it's crazy. I've witnessed discussions where people point blank refuse even to interview with companies that don't have fussball table. On the other side, companies advertising ridiculous things, like bean bags, beer fridges and some other trivial shit. Seriously, there are all these smart people usually solving extremely difficult problems and yet at the same time it feels like some of them never left nursery.

<comment><USER24> Yep. I got a friend who works remotely but had to fly to New York for meetings. Showed me some pictures from his trip, They have a beer available in the fridge, along with bottled water, energy drinks and stuff... I'm not much of a drinker but he told me he thinks it's for after hours lol. but not sure what the actual rule is... or why people would even be there after-hours? I don't get it... Seems like any other jobs, drinking on the time clock you'd get fired... If you worked at a bank or Walmart and was drinking on the job, I got a feeling that wouldn't go over very well... Then I'd be worried about screwing up due to drinking but maybe you don't drink enough to get drunk...

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something but doesn't make sense to this whole thing lol. Soda, Water and energy drinks and snacks is cool idea though but the whole alcohol drinking part is just confusing to me. I wonder how much they spend on these perks extra, well some people might use it much more than others... I guess that's probably a good reason to buy in bulk though. but I know some of that stuff isn't even healthy and some people with unknown heart conditions died from drinking too much caffeine too... I feel like unlimited energy drinks some people would go overboard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> You keep using that word "communist" . . . etc.

<comment><USER26> Actually in this case it makes sense, communist theory says workers should only produce what is socially necessary, and so in many cases managers are just there for nothing. However communist theorists like engels also wrote about some industries requiring management, so it's not totally out of the question, but i don't think you'd find many communists saying software is one of those industries.

<comment><USER27> Which is weird since open source at least has the properties of knowledge belonging to everyone.

Also programmers are the owners of their means of production. Most artists too, but for some reasons they are often paid very badly if they aren't get excessively popular by accident.

I think there were a lot of changes since the beginning of the industrial revolution and if knowledge and abilities increasingly keep being the primary ressource of production, the theory could fit at some point.

<comment><USER28> The means of production for a programmer is not always as simple as just a computer.

At my last job I wrote a driver for a proprietary framework to talk to closed hardware units, which made lots of money. I could not have done this without the company's license as a developer for the framework, or without the protocol specification for the hardware units. In this case, the company I worked for owned the means of production, not me, so it's perhaps unsurprising that I got a very tiny cut of the fruits of my labour.

<comment><USER27> No, I was referring to the knowledge you have, not to the device you are currently using. Compared to the beginning of the industrial revolution, where factories could only ever be build by extremely wealthy individuals that could afford the expensive machines, today we have a situation that the hardware becomes cheaper and cheaper and the skill set of workers become the most prominent resource. I would indeed expect your situation becoming more and more rare.

Edit: or maybe not rarer, but the costs of machine and license become smaller compared to your wage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> > Its a known fact that most techies suck at interpersonal skills and > communicating with their own peers, let alone with other stakeholders in a > project.

Actually I'd say they communicate the best with their peers, because they usually put logic and rationality before emotions. I would say that "techs" and "engineers" have the hardest time talking to people like HR, which are usually not best at logic and rationality.</comment>