6 ms·

It's worth noting that this is a type of economic disaster very different than a hurricane, wildfire, or even the 2008 financial crisis. No restaurants were ph

It's worth noting that this is a type of economic disaster very different than a hurricane, wildfire, or even the 2008 financial crisis. No restaurants were physically destroyed by the pandemic. All the buildings, stoves, tables, signage, etc are still around. The skills of the workers will likely fade only slightly during this pandemic time. There's likely not much reason to think that in 2022 the dining habits of consumers will be drastically different than in 2019. There wasn't a restaurant bubble prior to 2020 necessitating a huge correction. Also it's worth noting that government edicts likely aren't the primary cause of business closures at this point. People (selfishly) don't want to catch the virus and also want to listen to public health advice. Evidence: -There were never any real government edicts banning air travel in the continental US (some few places had non-enforced quarantine advisories). Yet air travel has fallen substantially. -Most large businesses have not returned to in-office work, regardless of no government edicts. -Las Vegas is Open! You can fly there, stay in a hotel, gamble, eat, etc... but yet Vegas has tons of closures. People just don't want to go there right now for business or pleasure.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
VonGuard 6y ago
Agreed. I've noticed that the more someone has to lose by not being open and doing regular work, the less time they think this thing is gonna take. I spent hours arguing with my commercial landlord about why we closed, and how we can't do business until we have birthday parties, corporate events, etc. His response was "Well, next month, you'll be open next month right?!" I'd say no, then he'd be like, "Well, what about September? October? This will all certainly be over by then!" These people are arguing with reality. I really am starting to think that Trumpism is the first of a new generation of mental virii that just short circuit the human brain and turn it into mush. Or maybe that's just the greed inherent in the American way. Either way, it sure would have been nice to have some FUCKING LEADERSHIP here.
- bbarn 6y ago
  What exactly would be gained by FUCKING LEADERSHIP here? The United States because of it's physical size (geography) and spread out population, which are interdependent on each other for a way of life, was going to have the cases and problems that it has now no matter what anyone did. You can blame Trump, but if someone else was in there we'd be in the exact same place, with less media obsession, and people would just be saying "there's nothing we can do better" because, frankly, we can't. The makeup of the United States is incredibly vulnerable to events like this (JIT delivery, trucking as the primary means of goods distribution, long distances and disparate population centers, with different climates, etc., etc.), and the sheer population size makes it difficult to respond to anything en masse, especially when the people can't agree what that en masse response should be! So yes, it's fucked right now, but it's America, not Trump.
  - Arainach 6y ago
    Trump actively contradicted scientific guidance and told people not to wear masks, dramatically increasing spread. He refused to use the Defense Production Act to manufacture PPE, leading to shortages for both medical and civilian use for many months, increasing spread. His lack of central leadership and guidance forced states into adhoc responses, with people freely moving between areas with different restrictions and spreading the virus. His administration put states in bidding wars that raised prices and limited the ability of states to buy equipment, and then confiscated the equipment they tried to buy anyway. His administration has contradicted, insulted, and publicly questioned Dr. Fauci, the CDC, the WHO and all experts. Trump has personally down distrust in our most important institutions. The government's attempt to politicize case numbers and CDC guidance has broken decades of trust. At every stage, Trump has done the worst thing possible. Hundreds of thousands of deaths are DIRECTLY attributed to him. 4 weeks of "everyone wear a mask and stay isolates, we'll pay your salary" would have dramatically dropped case numbers and R0. Instead we're still in our initial outbreak.
  - hilbertseries 6y ago
    What if we had done something like mailed masks to every American? I guess that’s kind of outlandish though, oh wait... https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/18/politics/postal-service-face-masks-coronavirus-trump-administration/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/18/politics/postal-service-face-...
throwaway122378 6y ago
Your evidence is highly skewed People aren’t flying because what will they do at their destination city? Large business haven’t returned to office because employees are productive and even more satisfied working from home Vegas is not really “open”. For example when you’re playing cards and having a drink, the mask must stay on except when you sip.
cardamomo 6y ago
> People (selfishly) don't want to catch the virus and also want to listen to public health advice. People (unselfishly) don't want to spread the virus, understanding the public health advice that shows a high number of asymptomatic carriers.
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  Both motivations are likely present. The argument can be simplified by eliminating motivation, or balanced by listing both.
- tempsolution 6y ago
  LOL. Using "people" and "unselfishly" in the same sentence is deep. There may be perhaps one out of 100 who acts unselfishly, the rest only cares about themselves or their direct dependents. And usually that one out of 100 only thinks he is acting unselfishly, but just didn't yet honestly evaluate why he/she is caring about other people (to feel better?! Oops). And fun fact: Even if you were right, and locally this would be true for some unfathomable reason... The lockdown has saved lives... Lives of the rich and well off. However it has cost much more lives than those few percent who would have died if we didn't do anything. And it has caused unimaginable economic hardship across the world. But since the people who die and suffer now, are people not included in the statistics, nobody really cares. I mean why would you care about the repercussions of lockdowns in the 3rd world? We have soo much to worry about here, and we are so unselfishly staying at home to help our fellow humans... What an euphemism.
- mensetmanusman 6y ago
  True, but at this point, you can protect yourself if you wish with a proper n95 mask and limiting contact.
  - BoorishBears 6y ago
    A real N95 mask is not that easy to come buy, and that's assuming you can even afford what prices are for individual buyers
CydeWeys 6y ago
Agree with everything. However, this might not be true: > There's likely not much reason to think that in 2022 the dining habits of consumers will be drastically different than in 2019. I know plenty of people who basically never learned how to cook and who always ate out or ordered delivery. A lot of them have been forced by present circumstances to finally learn how to cook. They might continue doing so more often going forward rather than returning to pre-pandemic levels of restaurant consumption. I wonder how widespread this will continue to be. I for sure am cooking at home a lot more than I used to, and this won't change till I go back to the office full time (if that ever even happens!).
- ghaff 6y ago
  A couple weeks ago I saw data that suggested that more home cooking and online grocery shopping were two of the behavioral changes for a lot of people that were most likely to remain in place long-term. (Online fitness was another one.)
  - CydeWeys 6y ago
    I believe it, on both these counts. It rings true with my personal experience and what I'm seeing in my friends, co-workers, and family. It really does seem like some non-negligible percentage of restaurant patronizing isn't coming back, and if that's true, then there's gonna be fewer restaurants.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    We’re never going to back to in-person grocery shopping. It’s much easier to avoid junk food when ordering on-line as compared to when you’re holding it in a grocery store.
- blfr 6y ago
  Knowing how to cook has done nothing to dampen my enthusiasm for going out or ordering in. In fact, sometimes I order the very things I cook to see how a pro makes them. The trend propelling eating out is atomization. It simply isn't time/cost effective to cook for one person, probably not even two. Shopping, prep, cooking, and cleaning take so much time that even gourmet restaurants have completely reasonable prices. Unless people start having big families and living in the exurbs, restaurants should be fine.
bbarn 6y ago
> There's likely not much reason to think that in 2022 the > dining habits of consumers will be drastically different > than in 2019. Big disagree there. 2019 was already starting to see a trend towards an economic bubble bursting with a big near miss in the market that was somewhat corrected by government overreach, and people were already overextended before mass layoffs nation-wide. Many of these jobs are not coming back, and people's perspective on what matters to them has changed dramatically. It will take a generation to see things recover.
- AlanSE 6y ago
  All job growth was concentrated in the service sector, and they tended to not be good jobs. The ethical issues with this were apparent well before 2019. There needed to be a change in individual preferences, as well as attention to lack of progress in things like education, daycare, and health care.
ryandrake 6y ago
Another thing worth noting, however insensitive, is that many (most?) restaurants are just not great businesses. Many of them have mediocre product. Many of them are barely profitable and have no working capital. Many of them are just undifferentiated franchises that anyone can step in and run poorly. It shouldn't be a huge surprise that already-shaky businesses are the first to go when a rare bad event happens. Warren Buffet: “You only find out who is swimming naked when the tide goes out.“
- liability 6y ago
  The shitty franchises are the ones that are most likely to survive. Does anybody really think McDonalds or Subway is imperilled? They'll do fine. But the independent burger shop I used to enjoy will probably never come back.
  - kinkrtyavimoodh 6y ago
    I think you are mixing up 'good food' with 'good business'. Even if we grant that McDonalds or Subway are bad food, they are often good business because they have a value proposition. For me, it's consistency, low price, a basic degree of hygiene and food safety, which is important when visiting developing countries, and occasionally food that I like to eat. On the other hand, the generic mom-and-pop burger shop might sell a decent burger, but they might still be fundamentally undifferentiated businesses perpetually operating at the brink of bankruptcy. It's no surprise that the restaurant business is Peter Thiel's classic example of a very likely to fail business.
chiefalchemist 6y ago
I'm not sure how your decoupling the gov's various "public health" efforts from the results? Stay home! Translates to "not going to my fave lunch spot." And so on. Large companies are dependent on the pre-school and K to 12 edu system. On what legal grounds would the gov ban air travel? Again. Stay home! Vagas ain't home baby. Furthermore, there's consumer confidence. You don't go on holiday or make frilly expenses when the air is saturated with uncertainty.
AlanSE 6y ago
> Las Vegas is Open! You can fly there, stay in a hotel, gamble, eat, etc... but yet Vegas has tons of closures. People just don't want to go there right now for business or pleasure. Singling out these re-openings misses the math of the problem. In 2019, casinos were operating at a certain capacity. Every Xth slot machine was occupied. The gambling floors tend to have a LOT of vertical space. I don't doubt that their air treatment system is normal to poor quality (aside from whatever features tend to erode your ability to judge risks). As occupancy decreases, particularly for voluminous entertainment spaces, transmission risk declines. The best antidote to COVID risk in public buildings is to decrease the density of people there. This rule applies as much to cherished public institutions as it does to sin industries. Sure there's some occupancy rate where every Yth slot machine is being used, where the risks drop low enough to counteract the fun of gambling for someone. At some lower Zth slow machine occupancy, risks would be nil. Should the acceptable risk be higher for public education of essential employees? Yes, but the physical reality is that there is LOT of gambling floor space, and disproportionately a lot of air volume for that floor space. The people going there are probably going to catch COVID from going out to eat (or other highly direct interactions), which they were going to at home anyway if we're being honest with ourselves.
- atlasunshrugged 6y ago
  What data do you have on the air treatment systems being normal to poor quality? I would have assumed the opposite - many casinos are trying to cater to smokers and nonsmokers (in the same way they're trying to make Vegas a family and party town) and have massive air treatment to pull the smoke from the air so the casinos don't stink
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    Memo to management: casinos stink.
dalbasal 6y ago
"this is a type of economic disaster very different than a hurricane, wildfire, or even the 2008 financial crisis." This is a point worth noting. It is like a wildfire in the sense that because of the pandemic, fewer salads were made and served. But, there isn't any destruction to physical capital like buildings or whatnot. This kind of gets to some economic debate questions, moreso from past generations. Economies, at least modern ones, often deal with physical losses better than money/debt problems.
chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> Also it's worth noting that government edicts likely aren't the primary cause of business closures at this point. Ok, do you have any evidence for this besides your personal opinion?
bluedino 6y ago
>> There wasn't a restaurant bubble prior to 2020 necessitating a huge correction. There kind of was. It’s obscene how much people are charging for sandwiches and even a chicken/sauce/rice meal these days. Delivery made the bubble bigger. $10 in addition to your already overpriced butter chicken or “street tacos”
x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
I think your take is far more charitable than what is going to happen. Getting back to normal after job cuts, housing uncertainty and healthcare uncertainty is going to be a challenge of it's own. This is compounded by the fact that the hospitality/restaurant industry never had the margins to begin with to survive a prolonged closure or slowdown.
deckard1 6y ago
> People (selfishly) don't want to catch the virus and also want to listen to public health advice. So the invisible hand of Adam Smith is only relevant when it's making the capitalists fat and happy, but not when it's keeping individuals alive? People start businesses out of self interest. People don't want to catch COVID and die or kill their relatives out of self interest.
ashtonkem 6y ago
It’s not selfish to not want the virus, it’s rational. To call it selfish is to add a negative character assessment to this action, which I believe is unwarranted.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

VonGuard 6y ago

Agreed. I've noticed that the more someone has to lose by not being open and doing regular work, the less time they think this thing is gonna take. I spent hours arguing with my commercial landlord about why we closed, and how we can't do business until we have birthday parties, corporate events, etc. His response was "Well, next month, you'll be open next month right?!" I'd say no, then he'd be like, "Well, what about September? October? This will all certainly be over by then!" These people are arguing with reality. I really am starting to think that Trumpism is the first of a new generation of mental virii that just short circuit the human brain and turn it into mush. Or maybe that's just the greed inherent in the American way. Either way, it sure would have been nice to have some FUCKING LEADERSHIP here.

bbarn 6y ago
What exactly would be gained by FUCKING LEADERSHIP here? The United States because of it's physical size (geography) and spread out population, which are interdependent on each other for a way of life, was going to have the cases and problems that it has now no matter what anyone did. You can blame Trump, but if someone else was in there we'd be in the exact same place, with less media obsession, and people would just be saying "there's nothing we can do better" because, frankly, we can't. The makeup of the United States is incredibly vulnerable to events like this (JIT delivery, trucking as the primary means of goods distribution, long distances and disparate population centers, with different climates, etc., etc.), and the sheer population size makes it difficult to respond to anything en masse, especially when the people can't agree what that en masse response should be! So yes, it's fucked right now, but it's America, not Trump.
- Arainach 6y ago
  Trump actively contradicted scientific guidance and told people not to wear masks, dramatically increasing spread. He refused to use the Defense Production Act to manufacture PPE, leading to shortages for both medical and civilian use for many months, increasing spread. His lack of central leadership and guidance forced states into adhoc responses, with people freely moving between areas with different restrictions and spreading the virus. His administration put states in bidding wars that raised prices and limited the ability of states to buy equipment, and then confiscated the equipment they tried to buy anyway. His administration has contradicted, insulted, and publicly questioned Dr. Fauci, the CDC, the WHO and all experts. Trump has personally down distrust in our most important institutions. The government's attempt to politicize case numbers and CDC guidance has broken decades of trust. At every stage, Trump has done the worst thing possible. Hundreds of thousands of deaths are DIRECTLY attributed to him. 4 weeks of "everyone wear a mask and stay isolates, we'll pay your salary" would have dramatically dropped case numbers and R0. Instead we're still in our initial outbreak.
- hilbertseries 6y ago
  What if we had done something like mailed masks to every American? I guess that’s kind of outlandish though, oh wait... https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/18/politics/postal-service-face-masks-coronavirus-trump-administration/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/18/politics/postal-service-face-...

throwaway122378 6y ago

Your evidence is highly skewed People aren’t flying because what will they do at their destination city? Large business haven’t returned to office because employees are productive and even more satisfied working from home Vegas is not really “open”. For example when you’re playing cards and having a drink, the mask must stay on except when you sip.

cardamomo 6y ago

> People (selfishly) don't want to catch the virus and also want to listen to public health advice. People (unselfishly) don't want to spread the virus, understanding the public health advice that shows a high number of asymptomatic carriers.

dredmorbius 6y ago
Both motivations are likely present. The argument can be simplified by eliminating motivation, or balanced by listing both.
tempsolution 6y ago
LOL. Using "people" and "unselfishly" in the same sentence is deep. There may be perhaps one out of 100 who acts unselfishly, the rest only cares about themselves or their direct dependents. And usually that one out of 100 only thinks he is acting unselfishly, but just didn't yet honestly evaluate why he/she is caring about other people (to feel better?! Oops). And fun fact: Even if you were right, and locally this would be true for some unfathomable reason... The lockdown has saved lives... Lives of the rich and well off. However it has cost much more lives than those few percent who would have died if we didn't do anything. And it has caused unimaginable economic hardship across the world. But since the people who die and suffer now, are people not included in the statistics, nobody really cares. I mean why would you care about the repercussions of lockdowns in the 3rd world? We have soo much to worry about here, and we are so unselfishly staying at home to help our fellow humans... What an euphemism.
mensetmanusman 6y ago
True, but at this point, you can protect yourself if you wish with a proper n95 mask and limiting contact.
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  A real N95 mask is not that easy to come buy, and that's assuming you can even afford what prices are for individual buyers

CydeWeys 6y ago

Agree with everything. However, this might not be true: > There's likely not much reason to think that in 2022 the dining habits of consumers will be drastically different than in 2019. I know plenty of people who basically never learned how to cook and who always ate out or ordered delivery. A lot of them have been forced by present circumstances to finally learn how to cook. They might continue doing so more often going forward rather than returning to pre-pandemic levels of restaurant consumption. I wonder how widespread this will continue to be. I for sure am cooking at home a lot more than I used to, and this won't change till I go back to the office full time (if that ever even happens!).

ghaff 6y ago
A couple weeks ago I saw data that suggested that more home cooking and online grocery shopping were two of the behavioral changes for a lot of people that were most likely to remain in place long-term. (Online fitness was another one.)
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  I believe it, on both these counts. It rings true with my personal experience and what I'm seeing in my friends, co-workers, and family. It really does seem like some non-negligible percentage of restaurant patronizing isn't coming back, and if that's true, then there's gonna be fewer restaurants.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  We’re never going to back to in-person grocery shopping. It’s much easier to avoid junk food when ordering on-line as compared to when you’re holding it in a grocery store.
blfr 6y ago
Knowing how to cook has done nothing to dampen my enthusiasm for going out or ordering in. In fact, sometimes I order the very things I cook to see how a pro makes them. The trend propelling eating out is atomization. It simply isn't time/cost effective to cook for one person, probably not even two. Shopping, prep, cooking, and cleaning take so much time that even gourmet restaurants have completely reasonable prices. Unless people start having big families and living in the exurbs, restaurants should be fine.

bbarn 6y ago

> There's likely not much reason to think that in 2022 the > dining habits of consumers will be drastically different > than in 2019. Big disagree there. 2019 was already starting to see a trend towards an economic bubble bursting with a big near miss in the market that was somewhat corrected by government overreach, and people were already overextended before mass layoffs nation-wide. Many of these jobs are not coming back, and people's perspective on what matters to them has changed dramatically. It will take a generation to see things recover.

AlanSE 6y ago
All job growth was concentrated in the service sector, and they tended to not be good jobs. The ethical issues with this were apparent well before 2019. There needed to be a change in individual preferences, as well as attention to lack of progress in things like education, daycare, and health care.

ryandrake 6y ago

Another thing worth noting, however insensitive, is that many (most?) restaurants are just not great businesses. Many of them have mediocre product. Many of them are barely profitable and have no working capital. Many of them are just undifferentiated franchises that anyone can step in and run poorly. It shouldn't be a huge surprise that already-shaky businesses are the first to go when a rare bad event happens. Warren Buffet: “You only find out who is swimming naked when the tide goes out.“

liability 6y ago
The shitty franchises are the ones that are most likely to survive. Does anybody really think McDonalds or Subway is imperilled? They'll do fine. But the independent burger shop I used to enjoy will probably never come back.
- kinkrtyavimoodh 6y ago
  I think you are mixing up 'good food' with 'good business'. Even if we grant that McDonalds or Subway are bad food, they are often good business because they have a value proposition. For me, it's consistency, low price, a basic degree of hygiene and food safety, which is important when visiting developing countries, and occasionally food that I like to eat. On the other hand, the generic mom-and-pop burger shop might sell a decent burger, but they might still be fundamentally undifferentiated businesses perpetually operating at the brink of bankruptcy. It's no surprise that the restaurant business is Peter Thiel's classic example of a very likely to fail business.

chiefalchemist 6y ago

I'm not sure how your decoupling the gov's various "public health" efforts from the results? Stay home! Translates to "not going to my fave lunch spot." And so on. Large companies are dependent on the pre-school and K to 12 edu system. On what legal grounds would the gov ban air travel? Again. Stay home! Vagas ain't home baby. Furthermore, there's consumer confidence. You don't go on holiday or make frilly expenses when the air is saturated with uncertainty.

AlanSE 6y ago

> Las Vegas is Open! You can fly there, stay in a hotel, gamble, eat, etc... but yet Vegas has tons of closures. People just don't want to go there right now for business or pleasure. Singling out these re-openings misses the math of the problem. In 2019, casinos were operating at a certain capacity. Every Xth slot machine was occupied. The gambling floors tend to have a LOT of vertical space. I don't doubt that their air treatment system is normal to poor quality (aside from whatever features tend to erode your ability to judge risks). As occupancy decreases, particularly for voluminous entertainment spaces, transmission risk declines. The best antidote to COVID risk in public buildings is to decrease the density of people there. This rule applies as much to cherished public institutions as it does to sin industries. Sure there's some occupancy rate where every Yth slot machine is being used, where the risks drop low enough to counteract the fun of gambling for someone. At some lower Zth slow machine occupancy, risks would be nil. Should the acceptable risk be higher for public education of essential employees? Yes, but the physical reality is that there is LOT of gambling floor space, and disproportionately a lot of air volume for that floor space. The people going there are probably going to catch COVID from going out to eat (or other highly direct interactions), which they were going to at home anyway if we're being honest with ourselves.

atlasunshrugged 6y ago
What data do you have on the air treatment systems being normal to poor quality? I would have assumed the opposite - many casinos are trying to cater to smokers and nonsmokers (in the same way they're trying to make Vegas a family and party town) and have massive air treatment to pull the smoke from the air so the casinos don't stink
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  Memo to management: casinos stink.

dalbasal 6y ago

"this is a type of economic disaster very different than a hurricane, wildfire, or even the 2008 financial crisis." This is a point worth noting. It is like a wildfire in the sense that because of the pandemic, fewer salads were made and served. But, there isn't any destruction to physical capital like buildings or whatnot. This kind of gets to some economic debate questions, moreso from past generations. Economies, at least modern ones, often deal with physical losses better than money/debt problems.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago

> Also it's worth noting that government edicts likely aren't the primary cause of business closures at this point. Ok, do you have any evidence for this besides your personal opinion?

bluedino 6y ago

>> There wasn't a restaurant bubble prior to 2020 necessitating a huge correction. There kind of was. It’s obscene how much people are charging for sandwiches and even a chicken/sauce/rice meal these days. Delivery made the bubble bigger. $10 in addition to your already overpriced butter chicken or “street tacos”

x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago

I think your take is far more charitable than what is going to happen. Getting back to normal after job cuts, housing uncertainty and healthcare uncertainty is going to be a challenge of it's own. This is compounded by the fact that the hospitality/restaurant industry never had the margins to begin with to survive a prolonged closure or slowdown.

deckard1 6y ago

> People (selfishly) don't want to catch the virus and also want to listen to public health advice. So the invisible hand of Adam Smith is only relevant when it's making the capitalists fat and happy, but not when it's keeping individuals alive? People start businesses out of self interest. People don't want to catch COVID and die or kill their relatives out of self interest.

ashtonkem 6y ago

It’s not selfish to not want the virus, it’s rational. To call it selfish is to add a negative character assessment to this action, which I believe is unwarranted.