3 ms·

Anywhere you read suggests margins are a lot higher on cafes than restaurants so my point stands I think. I've also been seeing figures like 80 cents thrown aro

by asdff 4y ago

Anywhere you read suggests margins are a lot higher on cafes than restaurants so my point stands I think. I've also been seeing figures like 80 cents thrown around for the true cost of a latte with $7lb beans and $3gal milk, cup included, not rent though. All businesses bear overhead costs, but at least you can sell your used espresso machine for the price you paid for it when your cafe tanks and can get away with staffing one or two people for most of your working hours. 70 orders a day would be easy to hit I would think for a cafe; from my cursory research independent cafes average 250-300 cups a day while your starbucks or places as busy as them might be pushing 600 cups a day.

Mikeb85 4y ago
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/SBUX/starbucks/profit-margins https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/SBUX/starbucks/pro... Starbucks margin is 10%... And they're the biggest, most profitable and among the most sophisticated operators. It's hilarious that you're still arguing about COGS when I plainly spelled out what the biggest actual costs are...
- pwdisswordfish9 4y ago
  > It's hilarious that you're still arguing about COGS when I plainly spelled out what the biggest actual costs are... That's not exactly out of trend, considering how this subthread began. You wrote: > No, you'll pay more ... when that was not the question. The question was whether "they will have to raise prices" is accurate. (If the author had omitted "have to" and just wrote "if a coffeeshop wants to pay their employees more then they will raise prices" (as you more or less have done here), then that would be fine. There's a reason they didn't, though. Inserting the "have to" is a rhetorical sleight of hand. It's a form of hyperbole that makes it sound like the price increase is an unavoidable consequence that follows naturally from the facts and a set of common logical axioms, even though it doesn't.) The other commenter's choosing to argue about cost of goods, even though that isn't the issue you're prosecuting, is a lot like your choosing to argue that they will raise prices, even though that wasn't the issue I was prosecuting.

by asdff 4y ago

Mikeb85 4y ago

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/SBUX/starbucks/profit-margins https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/SBUX/starbucks/pro... Starbucks margin is 10%... And they're the biggest, most profitable and among the most sophisticated operators. It's hilarious that you're still arguing about COGS when I plainly spelled out what the biggest actual costs are...

pwdisswordfish9 4y ago
> It's hilarious that you're still arguing about COGS when I plainly spelled out what the biggest actual costs are... That's not exactly out of trend, considering how this subthread began. You wrote: > No, you'll pay more ... when that was not the question. The question was whether "they will have to raise prices" is accurate. (If the author had omitted "have to" and just wrote "if a coffeeshop wants to pay their employees more then they will raise prices" (as you more or less have done here), then that would be fine. There's a reason they didn't, though. Inserting the "have to" is a rhetorical sleight of hand. It's a form of hyperbole that makes it sound like the price increase is an unavoidable consequence that follows naturally from the facts and a set of common logical axioms, even though it doesn't.) The other commenter's choosing to argue about cost of goods, even though that isn't the issue you're prosecuting, is a lot like your choosing to argue that they will raise prices, even though that wasn't the issue I was prosecuting.