Hacker News Reader

Comment by 93po | Hacker News Reader

Let me get this straight:

1. With zero experience, zero education, and training he was paid to go through, he was handed a franchise and allowed to keep a large portion of the profits

2. In less than a year he was able to use his profits to buy a second location that was presumably all his to profit from

3. Within two years of starting he made $40k in SAVINGS (not just profit) from these two locations, in the 70s

I wish we had it this easy today. No wonder this generation is constantly telling us about bootstraps

View on HN

You do have it easy today in the USA.

The USA is an absolute paradise for an immigrant. The business environment is unbelievably friendly and helpful, capital is easily available. The country is filled with entrepreneurs who are incredibly supportive. There is a stable economy and system of laws. And the country is safe. These things don’t exist in most other countries.

I expect nothing but contempt for my comments above from this community, particularly given how popular it is to drown oneself in self pity. But trust me that when you step off the boat in this country it is exhilarating and inspiring and the world seems filled with possibilities that never existed before.

Unless you’ve lived in a corrupt country, seen hyperinflation of 1% per day first hand, experienced the increase in mental bandwidth that comes from feeling safe and the opposite, experienced tall poppy syndrome and the opposite, seen how hard it is to raise money elsewhere and raised money in the USA, you will never understand how absolutely amazing this country is.

I remember when I first moved here. I was incorporating my first California corporation using a Nolo book. I called the secretary of state’s office with a question. Someone answered the phone after one ring. I thought I’d called the wrong number. I couldn’t believe how helpful and friendly they were. Doing business on other countries is very hard. This country truly is amazing. If you live here and are an entrepreneur, you’re very fortunate.

Is being male and white not a factor in your analysis. Just looking statistically at the segment of the demographic which directly correlates with wealth and entrepreneurship paints a different story from your narrative.

The article we're discussing is about a non-white Asian immigrant becoming a millionaire in U.S. by opening donut shops. He also helped a hundred+ other non-white, Asian immigrants to become small business owners.

And if you ever worked in Silicon Valley as a programmer, you must have noticed how people from India and China are over-represented in that profession.

Not to mention plenty of white males that are not rich and successful.

Being white male is neither sufficient nor necessary for success.

The Donut King of this article is not a while male but a Cambodian immigrant who lifted himself and his entire community up economically.

Methinks you SEVERELY underestimate the business acumen of South and East Asians.

This is actually an interesting study in internal contradictions of the woke ideology. East Asians face a lot of racism when they move to Europe / America. Racial slurs, distrust from authorities, unwillingness to rent premises etc. No doubt about that, I was a kid in the early 90s and Vietnamese in Czechoslovakia were obvious targets, unfortunately. You could see it on a daily basis back then.

But that does not prevent them from growing very rich and successful. The so-called "systemic racism" somehow fails to prevent them from reaching elite status in large numbers.

Now imagine all that opportunity, plus a much less competitive business environment and fewer regulations. That is what it was like 50 years ago in the US.

Anything went but that included building your factory next to the river and dumping in the river.

Imagine having well paid customers.

That's communism...no...what? wait a minute!!

"a much less competitive business environment"

Which business environment? The competitiveness is absolutely not universal across all markets in the US. There are plenty of markets that aren't competitive at all.

I believe the point being made was that in the 50s and 60s in the US there was a large domestic market that had almost no foreign competitors (either they were still rebuilding form WW2 rubble or were way behind US tech) and those same foreign markets were mostly open for US exports. In a lot of industries there was probably a good foreign competitor at the top-end, a few low-end foreign companies, but the vast middle of the market was exclusively owned by US companies for at least two decades.

Sure, but could you imagine the auto industry back then? Or oil and gas?

My point is that there are always highly competitive markets and markets with a lot of slack in them. Not to mention brand new markets that have never existed before.

Also important was a much faster rate of growth in population:

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/popu...

It’s also my opinion that the internet and use of computers and high speed communications have led to more market efficiency and less arbitrage opportunities. In decades past, an individual might have been more likely than now to notice and take advantage of an inefficiency, whereas now the bigger players have access to much more data about the market, satellite imagery, pricing and sales information, etc so that they are competing on all levels.

Now imagine 100 years ago, with regulations levels at this imagined 'golden age'. It was actually called the 'gilded age' and the wealthy scooped up everything for themselves, caused a global depression, and impoverished/starved millions.

That's why we put the regulations in place. We can argue there are too many, but just smashing the current system is no way to restore anything. And it hasn't - we're back to worse than we were during the gilded age.

> And it hasn't - we're back to worse than we were during the gilded age.

Poverty levels tells a different story.

Growing standard of living is part of it, sure. But because most people can scrape by now, is no excuse for the 1%.

If it's getting better for all then why does it matter? Serious question.

1. The premise that everyone is benefiting is false. A tremendous amount of people are in industries that are shuttered, communities that are withering, locations that are in decline, or otherwise not 'getting better'.

2. The proper basis for comparison for the iterative generation of wealth and productivity isn't the past, it's the reasonable alternatives at the same time in development.

Imagine you and I start with 100 coins each.

In Scenario A, I take 30 of your coins. Then we fight each other and fritter away 10 coins each. Then our respective coin volume doubles. I end up with 240 coins. You end up with 120. We're both better off than in the past. In total, we have 360 coins.

In Scenario B, I steal all your coins. Without any coins, you can't fight me, so neither of us loses any further coins. Our coin volume doubles. I end up with 400 coins.

In Scenario C, I don't steal your coins and because we're not busy fighting each other, no losses occur. We both end up with 200 coins. In total we have 400 coins.

I think the lesson here is self evident, and that's without raising the fact that growth slows and societies collapse due to wealth disparities. If the simple thought experiment isn't enough and you'd like something a bit more involved, read up on the history and philosophy surrounding our transition away from the feudal system. Our distaste of titled hereditary privilege was very well deserved.

I freely give up my coins for comfort and use my time with my family. If someone else chooses otherwise and earns more money than me, honestly. I can't complain about the difference in our individual net.

Freedom is better than control. It leaves everyone better. Control will kill us all.

I don't really believe that, but it is an analog to your "is self evident" claim. Except I think your belief is much stronger.

It is not an excuse for the 1% but it still means that today way more people are better of.

there's just way more people too

And they are better off. Good point! :)

People are better off partly because of the 1%. The system that allows some too gain in excess also allows all to flourish.

I live in a former communist country... holy fuck is that hard to explain to some people. Back then, everybody was poor, and some party members were less poor. Now, everybody has a lot more compared to then, but because someone else has even more than that (huge house, a bmw,...), they blame capitalism. They literally stood in line to buy cabbages, and now they complain that strawberries are expensive (in december!).

Only thing worse ae the pensioners, who complain that there's "too much choice" in the stores... how they used to have one chocolate (which didn't have enough cocoa to actually be a chocolate), and now theres 3/4 of an aisle of just chocolates... the chocolate they used to buy is still there, but it's shitty compared to other stuff, then they buy a milka and complain that Lindt is too expensive...

As long as they didn't cheat or steal to get there, why does it matter? I'm fairly sure wealthy people don't have tons of cash on hand, most of money is in the companies they built or invested in.

According to this article [0] Jeff Bezos net worth is $188.7 billion. His shares of Amazon represent $172.8 billion. While unlikely, if Amazon stock plummeted he would have "only" $15.9 billion. While still a lot on its own, the vast majority of his money is not even usable (immediately).

[0] https://marketrealist.com/p/how-many-shares-of-amazon-does-j...

That is so naieve as to be probably a troll?

The rules were changed, removing limits on sizes of banks and lenders, interest rates, how much the boss can skim, treatment of pension funds and on and on and on. All in the interest of, those with money get more money. To the point they have almost all the money.

It's irrelevant how much cash they have on hand. They own the economy, lock stock and barrel. The rest of us can only hope for a small stream to cover our expenses and little else.

This has been covered by literally thousands of articles. I suggest reading something, anything on the subject.

> They own the economy, lock stock and barrel. The rest of us can only hope for a small stream to cover our expenses and little else.

How do you explain all of the successful people that started from nothing, and got to where they are now?

So what solution do you propose? Do they not deserve the money they made? The majority of businesses fail, don't the ones that succeed deserve a reward?

Net worth disparity between richest and average is irrelevant.

It doesn't change anything.

Everyone is better off and there are some that are, because of the system that made it better for everyone one, much better off.

Just a symptom of a system that benefits all.

> a much less competitive business environment

Could have stopped there. Looks to me like the big chains drove out the ma & pa businesses. Now the online giants are driving out them.

Thanks for the positive comment! Could you say more about your background and experiences as an immigrant stepping off the boat?

The comment you are responding to is comparing the USA in the 70s to the USA today. Your response seems to imply you think they are saying that in the US, we do not have it easy. That is not the argument they were making.

> The USA is an absolute paradise for an immigrant.

This is really the key point.

When immigrating to a country, you’re already taking a huge risk. You’re leaving behind extended family. You’re generally a little more well off than a typical person in your home country. You’re not really bound down by debt histories (who’s going to collect when you’re 5000 miles away and your bank accounts are out of reach?). Your debt future isn’t as much of a concern (who’s going to collect if you just pack up and go home without telling anyone?) Your past work experience and education experience isn’t as much of a concern because nobody is going to call up a former employer in a foreign country or look up transcripts or know anything about the reputation of foreign schools. You’re generally willing to take bigger risks because you’ve already taken a huge one by up and leaving your old lifestyle, and you also abandon a bunch of your burdens.

A bunch of people will say their home country doesn’t have great opportunities, but America does. 100% of the time, without exception, there’s an American living in that country making shitloads of money because being an immigrant there presents unique opportunities and they’re laughing at people saying America would be better.

Saying this as someone who immigrated to a country outside of America.

Opportunities exist everywhere, but your argument is not cohesive and it’s insulting; Immigrants don’t see the value proposition of the USA as no debts and a blank slate. In fact, a lot of them lose out because their previous achievements are not recognized by the foreigners.

And the parent comment saying Americans who aren't out there being entrepreneurs and starting businesses are "drowning themselves in self-pity" is insulting.

When I immigrated, I left behind tangible proof of my achievements, but I could've also completely bullshitted my history and instantly jumped into a higher level than was possible in my old country. It's also virtually risk-free should I fail. So long as I have enough money for a plane ticket home, I can just leave and there's zero long term consequence. This is incredibly common for westerners in Asia to do. It's also not uncommon for non-Americans to move to the US to instantly get a leg up in work with some companies really giving preferential treatment to things like H1Bs, then going back home with a larger savings and better opportunities to actually get started as an entrepreneur.

Americans who only have America don't have those massive privileges.

Absolutely. Their comment reeks of privilege but people are too unaware so you get downvoted with no engagement, no one can articulate why you are wrong. We are absolutely fucked. These are the geniuses building the tools being flogged to our society as the ‘future’.

Those mostly don't really seem positive. Future debt isn't a concern... because no one will give a loan to someone with no credit history. No past work or education experience will make it harder, not easier to get a job.

Being well off is positive, but if you're well off in a less-developed country, you'll actually be less well off in the US because of the higher cost of living here. So immigrating made that worse.

Cool story bro. Completely unrelated to the comment you replied though as that was not the point they made, but since you’re in a sharing mode, I’m interested to hear:

1 – Who paid for your education in your native country?

2 – With how much student debt did you arrive in the US?

3 – How did you get your starting capital including flights, rent money, etc?

4 – What are your rationale explaining any of the social issues in the pre-COVID America? (homelessness, foodbank, opioid, incarceration, etc...crises)

Really interested to hear your take.

I think you may be the one that missed the point, as I don't see how mmaunder's comment (objecting to the "I wish we had it this easy today" with "you have it easier that you think") is unrelated.

As someone who found themselves in a similar situation as mmaunder, but who emigrated to Europe instead of the US, I thought I would take a stab at your questions:

1 - In theory, my education was free. In practice, I have to thank my parents for supporting me until I was in my 30s. Otherwise, I would have had to get a job - I still got part-time jobs, but I'm not sure I would have gotten my degree if I had had to work full time.

2 - See 1.

3 - I saved from my part-time jobs enough for the one-way flight plus 3 months, which I spent almost entirely in my first month (I didn't account for the 3 months rent deposit). My parents helped me until my PhD student paperwork was done, at which point I made enough to sustain myself.

4. I think you are reading mmaunder's comment as "the US is the best country in the world", which is not the case (that would be, I don't know, Sweden maybe?). What they are arguing, instead, is that being "okay" in the US is miles ahead of being "okay" in half the world. Could the US do better? Sure, for all the reasons that you mention (plus medical debt). But you may be so used to what people consider normal in the US (drinking water, money that doesn't lose its value week to week, not being shot by someone trying to steal your cell phone) that you don't see the good parts anymore.

So you think the vast majority of Americans have that easy today? You don’t think millions of Americans see their money lose its value week to week? Their friends or family being shot by someone trying to steal their cell phone? What does understanding the reality of life in America has to do with my capacity to see the good parts?

See how the only point you did not address was (4).

Do you still think I missed mmaunder’s point?

Besides, the comment mmaunder replied to was comparing different periods, but your argument makes for a valid point that America is a great place for a privileged immigrant, but let’s not pretend that this is on offer to every American...or the vast majority of immigrants working minimal wage (when lucky, illegal aliens, forced labour, slave labour...) and providing the services you and mmaunder so proudly benefit from.

Have a quick look at cost of education and housing vs income growth.

> I think you are reading mmaunder's comment as "the US is the best country in the world"

Not at all. I read mmaunder’s comment as “I had the privilege of moving here with many benefits not afforded to the average American and I just can’t believe Americans..."

How do I know/guessed mmaunder’s privilege? Based on this:

> I remember when I first moved here. I was incorporating my first California corporation using a Nolo book.

mmaunder moved to the US to open their business, and that usually means, having enough capital that your worries are well disconnected from the reality of real America.

But at the same time I do think the golden age of US is past, there are greater opportunities in the third world, many ideas that are simply not cost viable in the US, is eminently feasible in a 3rd world country possibly at a fraction of the cost, not to mention there being far too many unexploited opportunities in these places and many of these are going to be bigger markets than the US in short period of time.

> “you do have it easy”

> “you’re very fortunate”

So it’s lucky to be an entrepreneur in the US particularly if you immigrate. I think GP was more interested in having opportunities like: managing a franchise after going on a course someone else funded, starving your family and working them for no money without retribution, throwing caution to the wind re customer hygiene to save a few cents on coffee stirrers, and being able to buy any business whatsoever with 1 year’s worth of donut-shop-manager money.

The only thing this guy did on his own was fritter away other people’s money to get “high”, and try to kill himself when things looked bad for him personally. He’s a pitiful man who has exploited those around him only to end up back in the dirt where he belonged.

Of course he went into politics.

I guess we are in the minority here, but I share your take on this if that means anything.

Same here. Poor guy, so good he changed in the end. Many never do

Addicts who recover tend to admit that they are always in recovery, not that they’re healed. Though the religious framework and the 12 step program are very similar. Hopefully he keeps the faith if it works for him.

Edit to add, look at the last line of the article itself.

> "I never back down. Never give up. Never surrender. Even in gambling. It took longer than 40 years. But I still win. At the end, I win."

> experienced tall poppy syndrome

No, getting called out for being a blood-sucking leech is not "tall poppy syndrome". Consider sitting down for two seconds and asking yourself why people dislike you.

Oh god, really? How is the OP “drowning in self pity”?

The reality is that both you and the OP are correct. There are far fewer opportunities, leg ups, and bootstraps, than it seems there were in prior generations. Yet still, as you point out, the US ranks among the best.

As others have mentioned, I agree the US is easier than other countries. But that wasn't really my point

It’s paradise because you don’t see the obstacles or go gays. They look different in the us than they might in your home country so it’s not obvious what they are. Many Americans see the same when they look at the third world and see no rules or regulations to hold them back but fail to account for other issues.

The guy scaled a tree and evaded security to profess his love to a government officials daughter, lived under her bed for almost 2 months, learned four languages, married her, built an empire, reasoned his way through a gambling addiction and rebuilt his life.

He sounds quite extraordinary to me.

In my teens and twenties, I would've been like "what a lovely gesture."

Now that I'm in my thirties and we've gone through various social movements, I think "whoa, what a creeper." Specifically the whole jumping into her bedroom. And the whole stabbing himself if they broke them apart. Then I had gave a gut check: they were kids. In my teens my mind was definitely in that realm of ambitious gestures.

The stabbing thing however points to toxic relationship even if they are kids.

Even as teenagers those are massive red flags.

I also jumped fences for girls, and unlike this guy I didn't marry into a rich family. I think the only notable thing that happened here is he built an empire, and as my comment pointed out it's much easier to build an empire when you're in an environment that allows you enough profit to buy a house with cash only two years after starting from nothing and taking virtually zero risk.

You left out the part where he and his wife were each working 18 hours a day and saving every penny of earnings to the point where his kids were so hungry they were stealing other children’s lunches.

This sentiment is backwards. You seem to be implying that the children wouldn't be hungry if he wasn't granted a free franchise to run and profit from. Obviously you are trying to imply that it was the "saving every penny" that made him rich, not the "granted a franchise to run".

But let's be real: You can't save money you didn't make to start with. The above poster is clearly calling out the gift as the reason for his success.

I’m not implying that at all. I’m saying the real secret ingredient is a combination of grit and focus.

There’s plenty of people in the USA presented with much more opportunity than this man received. Few have achieved anywhere near as much.

I’d wager that if he got his first job as a janitor he’d be running a cleaning empire rather than a donut chain.

If you did that you might end up broke like him!

Hardwork and grit is overrated. Without proper opportunity you can achieve nothing.

I wish we keep survivor bias in mind when reading success stories; we should ask "out of those who work hard and gritty, how many are successful and how many are actually not?" And not "out of those who are successful, how many are hardworking?"

Most of the time, hardwork is just the minimum prerequisite to success that every aspirants have, de-emphasizing the role of luck in life is simply unwise.

Hardwork and grit are absolutely not overrated and deliver a comfortable life for millions of people.

If you're talking about cases of extraordinary success like this person, then hard work can vastly increase the amount of opportunity you're exposed to. Nobody says luck isn't involved, but you can improve your odds of getting lucky.

Hard work and grit are tied to millions more cases of folks being among the working poor.

I disagree but only because I have a lower bar in mind for success. Success to me doesn't mean being a multi-millionaire or at the top of your field of interest. To me, a comfortable middle-class life is quite good (and I'm used to it). From that perspective, a cushy upper middle-class life -- the life of most people in software -- is quite a success.

Opportunity is not luck. It is everywhere. Saying opportunity is necessary is like saying air is necessary.

The "luck theory" is the one that is damaging. Because the biggest real problem is people don't know about opportunities. This is one big advantage certain immigrant groups have over even locals. They have networks of people from their country telling them where to go, what skills to get, what jobs to get, how to deal with every detail of every hurdle. It's practically a mentoring system for how to succeed in the US.

Not really relevant to the idea of your point, but his first job was as a janitor (mentioned in the article). He expanded into others, including the donut shop.

I've heard similar tales here in Michigan when Dominos and Little Caesars were getting started. A worker gets a franchise and in a couple of years he's got a dozen.

In Lansing Biggby's Coffee got started. Right now they're in a dozen states. I've met the two founders, one of their first employees who was a recent immigrant now owns over 100 stores.

It's a very successful model if you have discipline and the required cash flow to roll from property to property, scaling the cash flow. It's the same reason it can work so well in real-estate. In small franchise attempts, most people get stuck in the first few units, their margins don't kick off enough cash and entropy eats at them persistently. Fat margins are your primary protector against the zillion problems that will try to kill you early on. Anyone that can successfully build a self-sustaining expansion (in franchising) on tiny margins will always have my utmost respect, it's exceptionally difficult to do.

There are plenty of people who work that hard, doing what today is defined an 'essential' job, and yet, get nowhere.

Many of them would love to be gifted a franchise that brings into their wallet, inflation-adjusted, ~200,000K in profit a year.

He wasn't gifted anything.

The article is loosely worded but what happened was that first he invested 3 months of his time (while holding other jobs to support himself) into Winchell's training program.

Winchell is a franchise of donut shops. I don't know what the deal was back then, but today "Winchell's has a franchise fee of up to $0, with a total initial investment range of $3,400 to $44,700"

https://www.franchisegrade.com/franchises/winchell-s

His first donut shop was a Winchell franchise. A franchise is not a gift. He had to work hard, make the business profitable and pay back portion of the profits back to Winchell.

He became rich by extremely hard work, saving all his profits and re-investing them into opening more donut shops.

And working his kids extremely hard, without even managing to feed them...

Find me a place in 2020 that will give you a significant part of a franchise's profits with zero experience and three months of training. And find me a franchise that will give me enough profit to buy a house with cash after only two years. And find me a franchise that I can buy with a few months of savings. None of these exist in 2020 and virtually anyone in 2020 would consider this series of events akin to winning the lottery. It's unheard of and preposterous.

The word franchise doesn't appear in the article. It's light on detail, but I think it's more likely he completed a management training program, and was then given a store to manage. It's not uncommon for a manager to receive a percent of profits as compensation. He then saved enough to put a down payment on his own store.

I.e. he worked very hard, continually leveraged his assets to expand, and was (for a time) successful.

How children worked for free. And he was successful, not just "for a time" the only reason he failed was a gambling addiction.

These shops were not expensive as a modern franchise would be, true, but a modern store could expect to also make a lot by employing family to save money.

Also, I would not call the hours the whole family worked at the shop, or the extreme cost savings they employed, easy. Let alone the difficulty of saving up his first $3,000 by working three jobs.

he was a manager, not a franchisee

[edit: added reference] https://www.encyclopedia.com/books/politics-and-business-mag...

Thank you - I suppose the reverse, then, that the family captured the labor cost. Did he earn a performance bonus that incentivized him to minimize supply cost?

He also worked 12-17 hours a day according to the article, benefiting from child labor.

He was kind of a diplomat back home and he worked 3 jobs when applying for the franchise.

If such a person knocks on your door, it would be foolish to not give him a franchise. He go the team slide in his pitch deck right, the franchise knew the market and the profit opportunity. An (angle) investor's dream made in heaven.

> I wish we had it this easy today.

This is the equivalent of saying that the entire generation known as 'Gen Z' has it easy... because you read a blog post about one kid who makes millions off a YouTube channel.

> was offered a post as liaison officer in Thailand by Suganthini's brother-in-law, Gen Sak Sutsakhan. Instantly acquiring the rank of Major, Ted and his young family moved to Bangkok, and every month he travelled back to Cambodia to collect the wages for his soldiers.

This ... won't have hurt!

Except that led them to being put first in line when the executions happened. If he was in Phnom Penh by any chance, he and his family would have been executed too.

You have to work less today for the same things then in the 70s.

We have great shiny things like the internet; Video, Computer games, a lot more music, everyone can vote, smoking indoors is not normal etc.

We are living in a different world. Its not feasible to compare it to a time 50 years ago.

I prefer this time honestly.

> You have to work less today for the same things then in the 70s.

Well except for housing, medical costs, and college. So all the important things.

It is even easier today. A high school kid can write a few lines of code and become a multi-millionaire overnight.

However, in both cases we don’t hear about everyone else that didn’t win the lottery.

The article did not mention it was easy, in fact quite the opposite on their perspective.

Yes, there is more competition now, but taken into account all the advantages of education, resources, information, and technology, this levels out the playing field somehow.

Every generation has its difficulties- we should not belittle other's challenges since we have never walked in their shoes. We can only learn empathy.

if it were easy there wouldn't be an article written about it

"as easy" shouldn't be taken to mean "objectively, absolutely easy." It's relative. And relative to today, I agree.

Where, today, can one be given a franchise after (paid) training and save close to $200k (net of profits, taxes, etc.) over a one year period? Even given the same work habits and use of family (child) labor? There is either an element of (relative) less difficulty and or extraordinary luck at play here.

He wasn't given anything.

Winchell was (and is) a business, not a charity.

The article lacks details but Ockham's Razor dictates that the most plausible was that Winchell and he entered into a business arrangement where he was running their donut shop for a share of profits. They provided the capital, he did all the work and Winchell got a cut of his profits.

He then saved aggressively and started buying more donut shops.

Notice that Winchell had similar arrangement with many other people and presumably they didn't become millionaires.

As to luck: he trained 100+ other immigrants to successfully operate a donut shop so if an immigrant that most likely doesn't even speak English can profitably operate a donut shop, maybe luck is not such a big factor.

As for why he became a millionaire and not others - I don't see any luck there either. He followed the same formula a hundred times: open one more donut shop. He was just more ambitious, worked harder, saved more aggressively and took a bit more risk.

> He followed the same formula a hundred times:

Its the same formula used by particular Indian community who came to the US in 70s, 80's and now own most of the motels in US. Put your family to work, save lots of money, use those savings to buy another motel, bring immigrants from your community, put them to work, rinse and repeat and that is how a small Indian community are the Motel Kings in the US.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/2018/09/south-asi...

One implied question is whether the franchise opportunity even exists today.

Winchells bought out their franchisees in 1971, at least 4 years before he did the training course and started running a winchells store. So it was a job, not a franchise

https://www.encyclopedia.com/books/politics-and-business-mag...

The biggest difference today is work ethic, IMO. You worked hard and took failures on the chin. Now you can bitch on social media and feel sorry for yourself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com