Three Twos for One Idiocy

You really shouldn't open a restaurant. I say this, not for the reasons you might expect, but for the simple fact that there are way too damn many of them. Fifteen restaurants close and it seems like another thirty pop up. Nevermind the fact that there are really only two kinds of restaurant: Those yet to open, and those yet to close.

The vast majority of restaurants won't even stay open beyond their first year and, to be sure, the sheer number of restaurants available from which the dining public might choose, is almost definitely part of the problem. Generally speaking, most people don't really care about "your" take on whatever you're serving up. Every time you open a new concept, you're only adding to the rampant idiocy from which most folks seem to currently be suffering. I mean, of course, the idiocy that drives "non-industry people" (also known as customers, or the general dining public) to ask the All-Doing Doers of All Things stupid, meaningless questions like "What's your favorite place to eat?" How is it possible for anyone to answer that question when there are so many godforsaken choices out there?

Nevermind the fact that there are really only two kinds of restaurateurs: Those who've failed, and those yet to fail. You still want to open another one.

Fan-freaking-tastic. And good luck figuring out just how you're going to appeal to the idiots, one of the most difficult things to market is a restaurant. Because the reason behind the answer to where anyone is going to eat, or even what makes some place their favorite spot, is more likely to do with convenience than quality. Maybe if there were fewer restaurants it would be less a matter of comfort and ease, and more to do with real enjoyment and satisfaction. Also, maybe if there were fewer restaurants, there wouldn't be such a dearth of quality help.

Because these all-pervasive eating establishments must be staffed somehow, and there's simply not enough high-grade kitchen crew to fill the void. Chefs (and/or restaurateurs) might not even have time to concentrate on providing "their" take on whatever they're serving. Because they're too busy dealing with a bunch of employees who don't know the meaning of mise en place, don't know how to use a knife, don't know the meaning of "first in, first out". If not that, they're dealing with a bunch of fucktards who do know better, who do know the difference, but who're simply too busy in their fucktard-ery for any of their past experience or present knowledge to make a difference.

And really those are the worst, if we're comparing side-by-side. We (as chefs and managers) can fix ignorant, but we can't fix lazy. Even if we fire your lazy ass, you're only going to go be lazy somewhere else, where you're going to be just as bad an employee as you always were. In fact, you'll probably end up being fairly worse, because you have experience and you think you know how to do things because you've spent some time in kitchens before, but truly you have no fucking idea how things are done in the new kitchen. So when your dumbass gets fired again, or when you decide to walk-out because you'd rather "stick it to the man" than actually listen to your boss and cut the fucking tomatoes correctly, it's not entirely likely that you'll be without a job for a very long time.

Because, of course, new restaurants are opening all the time. There are never enough cooks and usually when it seems like one kitchen has got just enough, that's also when half the crew is getting ready to go--either because they're going to quit, or because they're going to get fired. Which is why every restaurant is literally always accepting applications: And which brings me to the third pair. Because there are also, only two kinds of employees: The ones who work for you, and the ones who used to work for you. And usually if they're working for you, it means they didn't work out somewhere else.

See?

You really. Should not. Open another fucking restaurant.