4 ms·

Wow, 50-70% drop in online reservations, phone reservations, and walk-in diners, compared to last year, in every country measured by OpenTable. The restaurant

by cs702 7y ago

Wow, 50-70% drop in online reservations, phone reservations, and walk-in diners, compared to last year, in every country measured by OpenTable. The restaurant sector generates $3 trillion in annual sales worldwide, and provides employment to a vast number of individuals.[a] Absent government intervention, the cascading economic impact from just this one sector will be enormous. [a] https://medium.com/@CravyHQ/the-restaurant-industry-a-global-perspective-26cea1b91701 https://medium.com/@CravyHQ/the-restaurant-industry-a-global...

BolexNOLA 7y ago
We’re feeling it baaaad here in New Orleans. Roughly 8% of our workforce is in the service sector and our film/television industry has ground to a halt. I work in video production. My friends/colleagues and I are basically just sitting around now hoping productions can get back up again in a safe but still somewhat timely manner. It’s going to be rough for a while.
- kingbirdy 7y ago
  A friend works at a large chain hotel in NOLA, the entire hotel staff was furloughed for 2 months a few days ago.
  - BolexNOLA 7y ago
    Hope your friend is doing alright. I’m talking to my sister about a project for small businesses and gig economy workers today. Hopefully we can get something going. Let them know that the New Orleans Business Alliance has also set up a fund for people out of work for 7 days or more!
yibg 7y ago
Not sure how well this correlates to revenue lost though. I'm sure there is massive impact, I wouldn't be surprised if there is also a corresponding uptick in takeout orders.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
repsilat 7y ago
> The restaurant sector generates $3 trillion in annual sales worldwide, and provides employment to a vast number of individuals Can someone with an economics background tell me whether this is a sound argument? It looks like it could be reasonable to me, but it also looks a lot like the examples of deadweight losses in Bastiat's "That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen". I would guess that we should count the $3T transferred as a cost on one side of the book and as a benefit on the other side, and from an accounting standpoint not care much either way. I'd also guess we should somehow try to compare the relative value of the service on each side of the transaction to gauge somw "surplus" value. People get food they value at $3.1T, and they pay $3T, and the workers would have done the job for $2.9T, so society wins by $200B in aggregate. Or something. But maybe that's nonsense? I don't know if that's reasonable, but I am fairly convinced that we shouldn't dig $3T worth of ditches just to fill them in. That is deadweight loss. At the very least I think we can assume that restaurants are not a deadweight loss because they're profitable, though. People often choose to pay that premium over cooking for themselves, and we should trust that those choices reflect personal relative value well.
- foota 7y ago
  I think the most important thing is that they're both a net wealth transfer to local food service workers (who by and large are relatively low income) and fuel demand down the road. Most people will be able to cook for themselves just fine, but by doing so they'll be saving money, which would otherwise have been spent locally. This means that that money won't go on to restaurant workers to be spent, and the remainder won't show up as profit for the restaurant. (Instead it'll go into savings, which will likely have a negligible effect at best since money is ~free to borrow these days) Locally this will lead to a depressed demand for everything and globally lead to a decrease in paper GDP and profit for the companies (read: stonks go down). So honestly, I would argue that paying people to dig ditches (vs do literally nothing else, though at that point you might as well just give them cash) is in and of itself beneficial, though of course less so than doing something that generates a benefit outside of that from the activity itself.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
Cthulhu_ 7y ago
Or it's just a correction; especially in the US, the eating out culture is ridiculous, and the staff are massively underpaid and taken advantage of (zero-hour contracts, low wages, dependence on tips which in practice means they're expected to do a lot of additional emotional labor, flirting, etc). This money is not lost from the economy; people still have to eat after all.
- benhurmarcel 7y ago
  > the staff are massively underpaid I understood that in the US, waiters make fairly good money because of tipping, no? Which isn't the case of other workers though.
- rubber_duck 7y ago
  >This money is not lost from the economy; people still have to eat after all. You do know about this thing called service sector that accounts for more than half of the economy ?

by cs702 7y ago

BolexNOLA 7y ago

We’re feeling it baaaad here in New Orleans. Roughly 8% of our workforce is in the service sector and our film/television industry has ground to a halt. I work in video production. My friends/colleagues and I are basically just sitting around now hoping productions can get back up again in a safe but still somewhat timely manner. It’s going to be rough for a while.

kingbirdy 7y ago
A friend works at a large chain hotel in NOLA, the entire hotel staff was furloughed for 2 months a few days ago.
- BolexNOLA 7y ago
  Hope your friend is doing alright. I’m talking to my sister about a project for small businesses and gig economy workers today. Hopefully we can get something going. Let them know that the New Orleans Business Alliance has also set up a fund for people out of work for 7 days or more!

yibg 7y ago

Not sure how well this correlates to revenue lost though. I'm sure there is massive impact, I wouldn't be surprised if there is also a corresponding uptick in takeout orders.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

repsilat 7y ago

> The restaurant sector generates $3 trillion in annual sales worldwide, and provides employment to a vast number of individuals Can someone with an economics background tell me whether this is a sound argument? It looks like it could be reasonable to me, but it also looks a lot like the examples of deadweight losses in Bastiat's "That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen". I would guess that we should count the $3T transferred as a cost on one side of the book and as a benefit on the other side, and from an accounting standpoint not care much either way. I'd also guess we should somehow try to compare the relative value of the service on each side of the transaction to gauge somw "surplus" value. People get food they value at $3.1T, and they pay $3T, and the workers would have done the job for $2.9T, so society wins by $200B in aggregate. Or something. But maybe that's nonsense? I don't know if that's reasonable, but I am fairly convinced that we shouldn't dig $3T worth of ditches just to fill them in. That is deadweight loss. At the very least I think we can assume that restaurants are not a deadweight loss because they're profitable, though. People often choose to pay that premium over cooking for themselves, and we should trust that those choices reflect personal relative value well.

foota 7y ago
I think the most important thing is that they're both a net wealth transfer to local food service workers (who by and large are relatively low income) and fuel demand down the road. Most people will be able to cook for themselves just fine, but by doing so they'll be saving money, which would otherwise have been spent locally. This means that that money won't go on to restaurant workers to be spent, and the remainder won't show up as profit for the restaurant. (Instead it'll go into savings, which will likely have a negligible effect at best since money is ~free to borrow these days) Locally this will lead to a depressed demand for everything and globally lead to a decrease in paper GDP and profit for the companies (read: stonks go down). So honestly, I would argue that paying people to dig ditches (vs do literally nothing else, though at that point you might as well just give them cash) is in and of itself beneficial, though of course less so than doing something that generates a benefit outside of that from the activity itself.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

Cthulhu_ 7y ago

Or it's just a correction; especially in the US, the eating out culture is ridiculous, and the staff are massively underpaid and taken advantage of (zero-hour contracts, low wages, dependence on tips which in practice means they're expected to do a lot of additional emotional labor, flirting, etc). This money is not lost from the economy; people still have to eat after all.

benhurmarcel 7y ago
> the staff are massively underpaid I understood that in the US, waiters make fairly good money because of tipping, no? Which isn't the case of other workers though.
rubber_duck 7y ago
>This money is not lost from the economy; people still have to eat after all. You do know about this thing called service sector that accounts for more than half of the economy ?