Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remember reading the Slate article you're citing when it first came out. It's a fairly amusing one, which can be summarized as: "Wealthy person without a lick of business sense opens the 'café' of his dreams, declines to do any work himself, and goes out of business." It's entirely irrelevant to the economics of the average coffee shop. First off, it's not clear to me whether the establishment the author opened was…
That's a caricature of the article. Here are some salient excepts. Which parts of them do you disagree with? [...] The logistics of a food establishment that seats between 20 and 25 people (which roughly corresponds to the definition of "cozy") are such that the place will stay afloat—barely—as long as its owners spend all of their time on the job. There is a golden rule, long cherished by restaurateurs, for determin…
You state: "your analysis assumes that the coffee shop market is divided between 'Starbucks' and 'Independents'." It does not, and I'm not certain how you can read it that way. Also, describing what I referred to as a "back of the envelope calculation" as "analysis" is silly.
Furthermore, the comment that I was originally responding to did not distinguish between chain coffee shops and independent ones, so your insistence on excluding Starbucks from consideration is bizarre.
Do you have anything to offer other than insults and an anecdote? You appear to be arguing with some passion for the proposition that coffee shops are money losing operations. Provide some evidence, some reason for believing this other than a single Slate article about a single failed business in trendy part of Manhattan.