6 ms·

Subsidizing the restaurants without getting anything in return seems like a misallocation of capital. Allowing 'creative destruction' on a massive scale is har

Subsidizing the restaurants without getting anything in return seems like a misallocation of capital. Allowing 'creative destruction' on a massive scale is harmful to social stability and frankly just cruel. People didn't plan for it, because it is implied in our various social contracts that they don't need to(and that may be wrong, but this is not the time to fix that). We should consider subsidizing the restaurants to continue to do what they do best: provide food. We need to meet in the middle and provide some assistance while still getting 'wealth'(desired goods and services in this case) but not fully subsidizing empty buildings and idle employees. The delivery or pick-up models work in a pandemic, but they fail to provide enough profit to keep businesses open. Let's bridge that gap. This isn't the time to test out your ideologically pure political/economic/social theories. We need to be pragmatic and get our people and economy through this crisis.

gkoberger 6y ago
You can't end with "this isn't the time for ideology" after three paragraphs of YOUR ideology. For some restaurants, takeout is easy and they can make it work! For others, it really really isn't. What about bars, where most money is made on alcohol? You got it backward. These restaurants all presumably paid taxes and employed people, some for literally a century. Why do you expect them right now, when they're suffering the most, to "give something back" if they don't want to die?
- brutusborn 6y ago
  Why should we not expect organizations to give something back?
  - gkoberger 6y ago
    I answered that already. Because they paid taxes and employed people. It's like an insurance company that drops you as soon as you file a claim... you pay into a pool, expecting it to be there when you need it. This is an unheard of situation, don't forget. The government (rightfully so, in my opinion) is forcing these restaurants to shut down dining. It's not like they're shutting down because they're "lazy".
    - brutusborn 6y ago
      Businesses don't pay taxes or employ people in the expectation of being bailed out, they pay taxes (like everyone else) in the expectation of goods and services from the Government. You may expect bailouts for restaurants as a Government service, but the vast majority of people do not. As a business owner in a 1st world country, for paying taxes I expect infrastructure, security and a functioning legal system.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - threentaway 6y ago
        Security is much more than safety from invasions from other nations. It is a guaranteed safety net for when things go wrong; this covers everything from health care, to unemployment, to services for the homeless, and yes it includes helping businesses that collectively employ tens of thousands of people in times of crisis.
  - hinkley 6y ago
    What do you think restaurants are for? It sounds like you think they’re a scam.
    - brutusborn 6y ago
      For providing food? I'm not sure what you are asking here, I can't imagine how a restaurant could be a scam.
      - hinkley 6y ago
        You suggested they should give something back. Which implies that they aren’t already giving something back that is worth keeping on its own merits. Which is a pretty dim view of both the service industry and third places like restaurants. So I ask again, what do you think restaurants are for, since they aren’t, in your opinion, doing anything that is already worth preserving?
        Dylan16807 6y ago
        You're mixing up different points in time. Normally restaurants provide food for customer money, and that is fine. The suggestion is that if they get bailout money while not providing food then there is an unmet need for them to "give back".
        brutusborn 6y ago
        Exactly my point, thanks for clarifying.
        hinkley 6y ago
        I am not mixing up different points in time. You are considering the past and the present. The bailout is solving a problem in the present that, if not solved, guarantees they have no future. You want guarantees and there aren’t any. If you three want cover for yourself or policy makers, that’s fine. We can tweak the rules a bit to avoid some bad press. We market it as a prorated, forgivable loan if they continue to operate for a year after this is over. That should cull the dozens of restaurants that were likely already about to close before this all happened, who see the handout as a way to avoid bankruptcy. Enough of the rest have a future we get to look forward to.
JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
While restaurants provide food, they may not necessarily be providing quality food. Quarantine has caused some to take a hard look at their diet, and learn to prepare healthy meals at home, and reduce consumption of processed foods. Restaurant food tastes good, but is often excessive in things like sodium. Dietary recommendations likely wouldn't support eating restaurant food regularly, as people have done without questioning it.
threentaway 6y ago
> We need to be pragmatic and get our people and economy through this crisis OK, tax the rich. PS: It was the winning strategy before the crisis too.
- hinkley 6y ago
  It was a winning strategy after the Spanish flu too.
- MiroF 6y ago
  What income do you consider the rich? I thought we were all in agreement, but I recently saw some Pew research that had me surprised.
  - refurb 6y ago
    Link to the Pew research? It reminds me of way back in 2000 when the NDP Party of Canada (left wing) said "we need to tax the rich way more" and a reporter finally asks "what do you mean by rich?" and the NDP leader inferred "a family of four making more than $60,000".[1] That turned some heads, especially among the labor unions who typically vote NDP and typically make more than that. [1]https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/income-over-60-000-qualifies-as-wealthy-says-mcdonough-1.203528 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/income-over-60-000-qualifies-...
    - MiroF 6y ago
      > https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2020/01/09/most-americans-say-there-is-too-much-economic-inequality-in-the-u-s-but-fewer-than-half-call-it-a-top-priority/ https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2020/01/09/most-americans-sa... Namely what stood out, > Among Americans with the highest incomes – a subset of upper income adults who are in the top 7% of the sample’s adjusted income distribution – about a third (34%) of those who say there’s too much economic inequality say the government should raise taxes on people like them to deal with this, while 64% say this should not be done. This surprised me. So I'm curious, for those who are making in the top 7% and believe there is too much income inequality (over about ~$145,000/yr) -- and I do suspect there are a few of us here, you don't think that a plan to reduce income inequality involves taxation on that level of income?
justnotworthit 6y ago
Government mandated closure is hardly a description of "creative destruction".
nickff 6y ago
Many restaurants are actually very inefficient food producers, and specialize in providing a nice setting for a date or other dining experience. Other restaurants specialize in providing a place for people to hang out with colleagues after work, or a place for recreational sports teams to have a meal after the game. These business models have been destroyed, and nobody will pay for the 'services' which cannot be delivered.

gkoberger 6y ago

You can't end with "this isn't the time for ideology" after three paragraphs of YOUR ideology. For some restaurants, takeout is easy and they can make it work! For others, it really really isn't. What about bars, where most money is made on alcohol? You got it backward. These restaurants all presumably paid taxes and employed people, some for literally a century. Why do you expect them right now, when they're suffering the most, to "give something back" if they don't want to die?

brutusborn 6y ago
Why should we not expect organizations to give something back?
- gkoberger 6y ago
  I answered that already. Because they paid taxes and employed people. It's like an insurance company that drops you as soon as you file a claim... you pay into a pool, expecting it to be there when you need it. This is an unheard of situation, don't forget. The government (rightfully so, in my opinion) is forcing these restaurants to shut down dining. It's not like they're shutting down because they're "lazy".
  - brutusborn 6y ago
    Businesses don't pay taxes or employ people in the expectation of being bailed out, they pay taxes (like everyone else) in the expectation of goods and services from the Government. You may expect bailouts for restaurants as a Government service, but the vast majority of people do not. As a business owner in a 1st world country, for paying taxes I expect infrastructure, security and a functioning legal system.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - threentaway 6y ago
      Security is much more than safety from invasions from other nations. It is a guaranteed safety net for when things go wrong; this covers everything from health care, to unemployment, to services for the homeless, and yes it includes helping businesses that collectively employ tens of thousands of people in times of crisis.
- hinkley 6y ago
  What do you think restaurants are for? It sounds like you think they’re a scam.
  - brutusborn 6y ago
    For providing food? I'm not sure what you are asking here, I can't imagine how a restaurant could be a scam.
    - hinkley 6y ago
      You suggested they should give something back. Which implies that they aren’t already giving something back that is worth keeping on its own merits. Which is a pretty dim view of both the service industry and third places like restaurants. So I ask again, what do you think restaurants are for, since they aren’t, in your opinion, doing anything that is already worth preserving?
      - Dylan16807 6y ago
        You're mixing up different points in time. Normally restaurants provide food for customer money, and that is fine. The suggestion is that if they get bailout money while not providing food then there is an unmet need for them to "give back".
        brutusborn 6y ago
        Exactly my point, thanks for clarifying.
        hinkley 6y ago
        I am not mixing up different points in time. You are considering the past and the present. The bailout is solving a problem in the present that, if not solved, guarantees they have no future. You want guarantees and there aren’t any. If you three want cover for yourself or policy makers, that’s fine. We can tweak the rules a bit to avoid some bad press. We market it as a prorated, forgivable loan if they continue to operate for a year after this is over. That should cull the dozens of restaurants that were likely already about to close before this all happened, who see the handout as a way to avoid bankruptcy. Enough of the rest have a future we get to look forward to.

JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago

While restaurants provide food, they may not necessarily be providing quality food. Quarantine has caused some to take a hard look at their diet, and learn to prepare healthy meals at home, and reduce consumption of processed foods. Restaurant food tastes good, but is often excessive in things like sodium. Dietary recommendations likely wouldn't support eating restaurant food regularly, as people have done without questioning it.

threentaway 6y ago

> We need to be pragmatic and get our people and economy through this crisis OK, tax the rich. PS: It was the winning strategy before the crisis too.

hinkley 6y ago
It was a winning strategy after the Spanish flu too.
MiroF 6y ago
What income do you consider the rich? I thought we were all in agreement, but I recently saw some Pew research that had me surprised.
- refurb 6y ago
  Link to the Pew research? It reminds me of way back in 2000 when the NDP Party of Canada (left wing) said "we need to tax the rich way more" and a reporter finally asks "what do you mean by rich?" and the NDP leader inferred "a family of four making more than $60,000".[1] That turned some heads, especially among the labor unions who typically vote NDP and typically make more than that. [1]https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/income-over-60-000-qualifies-as-wealthy-says-mcdonough-1.203528 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/income-over-60-000-qualifies-...
  - MiroF 6y ago
    > https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2020/01/09/most-americans-say-there-is-too-much-economic-inequality-in-the-u-s-but-fewer-than-half-call-it-a-top-priority/ https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2020/01/09/most-americans-sa... Namely what stood out, > Among Americans with the highest incomes – a subset of upper income adults who are in the top 7% of the sample’s adjusted income distribution – about a third (34%) of those who say there’s too much economic inequality say the government should raise taxes on people like them to deal with this, while 64% say this should not be done. This surprised me. So I'm curious, for those who are making in the top 7% and believe there is too much income inequality (over about ~$145,000/yr) -- and I do suspect there are a few of us here, you don't think that a plan to reduce income inequality involves taxation on that level of income?

justnotworthit 6y ago

Government mandated closure is hardly a description of "creative destruction".

nickff 6y ago

Many restaurants are actually very inefficient food producers, and specialize in providing a nice setting for a date or other dining experience. Other restaurants specialize in providing a place for people to hang out with colleagues after work, or a place for recreational sports teams to have a meal after the game. These business models have been destroyed, and nobody will pay for the 'services' which cannot be delivered.