4 ms·
> Restaurant owners like Laurie Thomas, who heads the Golden Gate Restaurant Association, say the changes will bring higher prices and sticker shock, which coul
by bell-cot 3y ago
> Restaurant owners like Laurie Thomas, who heads the Golden Gate Restaurant Association, say the changes will bring higher prices and sticker shock, which could then raise a psychological hurdle in customers' dining habits. That, in turn, will hurt restaurants and their workers, she warns.
> "If it's in the core price of the menu, there will be a pullback" in patrons' spending, she told NPR shortly before the attorney general released the guidelines. "There are some people, I think, that are hoping that the restaurants will just absorb that cost, because we've seen people say, 'Oh, it's too expensive with the service charge.' "
> Under the new guidelines, Thomas' organization said in an email to NPR, restaurants will be forced to impose "significant menu price increases." And if customers eat out less, it warns, "Not only will restaurants struggle, but workers will lose hours and jobs."
Suggestion: Instead of mandating honest pricing, CA should just allow their tax collectors to add fees and tariffs and surcharges and other crap to the tax bills of businesses that do not do honest pricing. Then, when those businesses complain, whine about the pain of government having to absorb the lower revenues, and government workers losing hours and jobs, and having to make cuts to various feel-good programs, and ...
- grraaaaahhh 3y agoI know it's more complicated than this, but whenever I see businesses complaining about how including all the fees upfront will harm their business I can't help but read it as "Our business wouldn't be viable without the ability to lie to our customers."
- elil17 3y agoI don’t see how it’s more complicated than that actually
- MajimasEyepatch 3y agoSame with people who complain about paying a living wage or basic benefits. I once had an Uber driver who, apropos of nothing, started telling me that he was driving for Uber because he had to shut his old business down after Obamacare went into effect because he couldn’t afford to provide health insurance for his employees. I just sort of nodded along because I didn’t really have a choice, but I couldn’t help but think, “Sounds like the problem was just that you weren’t a very good businessman.”
- mgkimsal 3y agoCurious if he thinks uber should be providing health insurance for him or not.
- bell-cot 3y agoThat one I'd be more sympathetic to. The fraction of GDP that America's health care sector rakes off is far out of line with other first-world economies. (And, by most metrics, their health systems deliver same-or-better results.) In effect: Any company which wants to employ actual Americans (one who'll have to get heath coverage) is forced to send huge-and-growing protection payments to America's health care system mafia.
- MajimasEyepatch 3y agoBe that as it may, it's not like the ACA invented employer-sponsored health insurance. Health insurance is just part of the cost of doing business in the United States and has been standard for full-time employees (and many part-time ones) for decades. In this particular case, I believe he wasn't providing health insurance for anyone but was now required to because his company was over a certain size. (Something along those lines, it's been a long time.)
- lordloki 3y agoAdditional government regulations will always require additional resources by a business to be compliant. By over regulating, the government is killing small businesses. The only organizations that can afford the resources to manage government bureaucracy are large companies. So I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss that Uber drivers statement.
- squigz 3y agoNot mentioned in this comment are that those large companies are the ones who lobby for such regulation, so they can kill small businesses and gain their customers
- MajimasEyepatch 3y ago
- ISL 3y agoThere are some situations where the business owners are correct, especially if their competitors are permitted to tack on extra fees at checkout. Sometimes it is necessary to establish a global rule to prevent prisoner's-dilemma defections.
- gruez 3y agoWhy are they opposing the law then? Seems like it would solve the prisoner's dilemma issue.
- swatcoder 3y agoBecause they're not just engaged with their competitors. They also have relationships with the government and with suppliers (of food, of labor, etc). Below the line fees are a political statement, and act as political back pressure against the purported source of some costs.
- pixl97 3y agoFor one, there will be an immediate price ratchet that would scare customers away, and they would rather avoid that. Two, customers (yes, that's us I'm talking about) are dumb and superstitious when it comes to numbers. $10 = oh no, that's bad $9.99 = oh, that's perfectly fine! By raising 'visible' prices for everyone some portion of the customers will shy away from the product, say by buying groceries rather than eating out.
- kstrauser 3y agoThey could always lower their prices to the ones they’d been advertising. Sure, they would lose their scam money and that might hurt their finances, but that’s the choice they made when they came to count on the free money.
- the_snooze 3y ago>By raising 'visible' prices for everyone some portion of the customers will shy away from the product, say by buying groceries rather than eating out. Respecting the agency of customers to make informed decisions for themselves. How terrible.
- Lewton 3y ago> I know it's more complicated than this it really really really isn't
- the_snooze 3y agoBusinesses hate capitalism. They don't want to compete on pricing and quality.
- MathMonkeyMan 3y agoIf you're doing capitalism correctly, there is no competition. You control pricing, and quality is irrelevant. It's all about the power of money. Businesses hate markets, because it's sink or swim and almost everybody sinks.
- gruez 3y ago>They don't want to compete on pricing and quality. I support this bill for other reasons, but price competition is a poor reason. Is not having all-in menu pricing really detrimental to price competition? My impression is that most restaurants have the same cost structure of menu price + tax + tip. I very rarely see restaurants trying to add any sort of charge on top. Therefore, at least when it comes to restaurants competing with each other, this law is a non-factor in most cases.
- pixl97 3y agoThe thing is we're seeing more and more restaurants doing this. It's like a cancer cell, there's only one at first, then if its successful it's conquered the entire organ market rather quickly. This is about cutting off a bad practice we're seeing spread in that industry. And I want the bill to spread to other markets that love tacking on hidden fees (looking at you Airbnb).
- daft_pink 3y agoI don’t get it. People are charged the fee anyways. Why would including them in the displayed price create higher prices?
- Detrytus 3y agoBecause they will, out of the habit, mentally compare those prices to the prices they are used to see printed in the menu. Basically double-counting all the taxes and fees. They do not say it will create higher prices, it will create AN IMPRESSION of everything getting more expensive. It's all about perception, that will cause people to be more frugal.
- reportgunner 3y agoBecause the restaurants will raise the fees that are baked in the prices.
- cool_dude85 3y agoI suppose the theory is, fewer people buying food when the menu lists the real price, revenue goes down, we must raise prices to keep revenue up.
- mgkimsal 3y agoWhen searching for online pricing, seeing 'menu' prices gives one impression. Hey, this burger is only $6?! Great value! So... you end up going there based on some mental impression of getting a $6 burger for... $6.
- jawilson2 3y agoThere are a lot of people who respond like this. It reminds me of years ago when JCPenny stopped having "sales," and they just set prices to be permanently low. [1]. It cratered their business. It turns out people love having coupons and feeling "smart" about getting a good deal; coupons are sort of a way to gamify shopping, even if you actually end up paying more. In the case of fees, there are apparently many people who don't consider the fee part of the product, and are an external to what they are purchasing, or out of the control of the restaurant. For me, and probably many like us, the sticker shock comes at the checkout with the final price, and I have zero hesitation to cancel the order at that point. I refuse to use delivery apps, or even online ordering from many restaurants, for this reason. I hate the feeling of being psychologically manipulated into buying something because I'm already "committed" at the last step, where they can add fees. Concert and sporting event ticket hubs, like StubHub, are the same. I'll add 4 tickets to an event at a reasonable price, and the final checkout price is $200 higher, so I'll find something better to spend my money on instead. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/panosmourdoukoutas/2017/02/24/a-strategic-mistake-that-still-haunts-jc-penney/?sh=445ce8001bcf https://www.forbes.com/sites/panosmourdoukoutas/2017/02/24/a...
- eagerpace 3y agoThe net price is still the same. You could make the reverse argument just as easy that if people are better informed they will spend more!
- manuelabeledo 3y ago> ... say the changes will bring higher prices and sticker shock, which could then raise a psychological hurdle in customers' dining habits. This person is essentially admitting that people may not eat out if they knew they are being overcharged. If a business relies on false advertising, maybe it shouldn't exist.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- kstrauser 3y agoCute, Thomas. Know what’s worse? Getting the check and realizing you lied to me with false advertising.
- pixl97 3y agoBut when everyone does it, it's just call "standard practices", and there are a million crappy little things like this you're already used to.
- kstrauser 3y agoYep. Fortunately it’s far from standard practice around here. There are a few restaurants I know doing this. Most don’t. The restaurants who aren’t doing this nonsense have to be thrilled that the others have to compete honestly now.
- Pet_Ant 3y agoI don't mind separate fees for separate services. Take-out should cost less than dine-in. If you waive the table fee that makes sense.