Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Almost 90 percent of NYC bars and restaurants couldn’t pay August rent

nypost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 328 posts

Re: Almost 90 percent of NYC bars and restaurants couldn’t pay August rent

#161

Post by apatters »

xenihn wrote: post #131
anovikov wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are you going to bail out landlords then? The money isn't going to come from nowhere.

I always see the argument of "when all the mom & pop landlords are gone, major corporations will own everything, so we have to protect them". That consolidation is going to happen anyways. It's inevitable. The only factor is how long it takes for it to happen, and how big the payout will be for small landlords when they finally decide to cash out. There's much more at stake for the renters. Forcing small landlords in…

I don't think that consolidation is inevitable at all, Americans are increasingly disillusioned with big business and there is a slowly growing anti-corporate sentiment being expressed (albeit opportunistically) by politicians as varied as Liz Warren, Ron Wyden, Marco Rubio and Trump. Matt Stoller's Substack is a great resource to learn more: https://mattstoller.substack.com/

Re: Almost 90 percent of NYC bars and restaurants couldn’t pay August rent

#162

Post by just-juan-post »

dehrmann wrote: post #149
just-juan-post wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think spring was "the wave". In Nashville they closed bars and restaurants for 6 months because .004% of the cases came from bars and restaurants. We need to give people choice. If we wait until we get a vaccine it will be Fall 2022 and many Americans won't get it. What then? No bar and gym re-openenings until X percent of the population is verified to be vaccinated? Mandatory vaccination checks on entrance? Punt a…

I wonder how much people changed their behavior in sunbelt states in July when cases were on the rise. I don't remember lots of new restrictions or lockdowns. New cases just kinda peaked. I'm cautiously optimistic that the past week in the US is a blip from Labor day. Both peaks and troughs are improved from two weeks ago, but up from the week before.

There were supposed to be spikes after spring break, Memorial Day, 4th of July, Labor Day, back to school, the Sturgis bike rally. There were a blip...if that.

Rather than biting our nails at daily numbers it's time to allow for individual choice and remove the government restrictions. It's clear that the virus is not nearly as potent as people think and we're prolonging this due to fear and politics - not science or numbers.

I am pro-choice.

Let us choose.

Re: Almost 90 percent of NYC bars and restaurants couldn’t pay August rent

#163

Post by MiroF »

refurb wrote: post #157
MiroF wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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/can…

> 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?

Re: Almost 90 percent of NYC bars and restaurants couldn’t pay August rent

#164

Post by Dylan16807 »

hinkley wrote: post #125
brutusborn wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For providing food? I'm not sure what you are asking here, I can't imagine how a restaurant could be a scam.

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?

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".

Re: Almost 90 percent of NYC bars and restaurants couldn’t pay August rent

#165

Post by zaroth »

MiroF wrote: post #138
just-juan-post wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think spring was "the wave". In Nashville they closed bars and restaurants for 6 months because .004% of the cases came from bars and restaurants. We need to give people choice. If we wait until we get a vaccine it will be Fall 2022 and many Americans won't get it. What then? No bar and gym re-openenings until X percent of the population is verified to be vaccinated? Mandatory vaccination checks on entrance? Punt a…

> In Nashville they closed bars and restaurants for 6 months because .004% of the cases came from bars and restaurants. You're taking the number of cases that they've managed to contact trace to bars (difficult, especially if lots of cases all at once). You're then dividing that by the total number of cases, including the ones after they closed bars and concluding that it was the incorrect choice.

There’s email chains that came out showing that they knew the bar numbers were low and buried them. Then lied about it when asked.

Whether you think it was the correct choice or not is politics. It was not data driven nor supported by any actual exposure data that they collected, they knew that was the case, and tried to cover it up.

Re: Almost 90 percent of NYC bars and restaurants couldn’t pay August rent

#166

Post by brutusborn »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #164
hinkley wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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".

Exactly my point, thanks for clarifying.

Re: Almost 90 percent of NYC bars and restaurants couldn’t pay August rent

#167

Post by refurb »

jojobas wrote: post #34
t-writescode wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those landlords also need bailing out. They need to pay their loans, as well.

Would you also bail out those who bet on black and got red? When you bail out something like Ford you keep it running and collect tax revenue. If you don't, factories stop and the business essentially disappears. When a landlord goes bust nothing happens, other the financial loss for the landlord.

When a landlord goes bust nothing happens, other the financial loss for the landlord.

It's like the old saying "when you own the $10,000, that's your problem", "when you own the bank $1B, that's the banks problem".

When 1/3 of NYC commercial real estate gets foreclosed, that's not just the landlord's problem, that's everyone's problem.

Re: Almost 90 percent of NYC bars and restaurants couldn’t pay August rent

#168

Post by zaroth »

grey-area wrote: post #57
dehrmann wrote: post #35

Only related because NY, but NY state covid 19 new cases have been incredibly flat since June. I would think they'd trend closer to zero, up some, or just bounce around more. Normally, new cases are driven up by complacency and down by fear or policy, but there doesn't seem to be either happening quickly and subtly enough to keep new cases between 500 and 1000 for so long, and r0 should be metastable, so keeping it i…

Yes there's something going on we don't understand, because some places that were hit very hard first time round are not seeing a second wave.

The positivity rate of testing is 1% and below. Guess what the false positive rate of the actual test is?

What’s more likely, the virus actually has a perfect 1.00 Rt factor, or there’s a systemic error introduced by humans?

Re: Almost 90 percent of NYC bars and restaurants couldn’t pay August rent

#169

Post by brutusborn »

hinkley wrote: post #86
brutusborn wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should we not expect organizations to give something back?

What do you think restaurants are for? It sounds like you think they’re a scam.

BTW, why do you send such a hostile response without trying to answer my question? I genuinely just wanted to understand the Parent.

Re: Almost 90 percent of NYC bars and restaurants couldn’t pay August rent

#170

Post by bmn__ »

just-juan-post wrote: post #160
MiroF wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Study Finds Most Restaurants Fail Within First Year Of It Becoming Illegal To Go To Them Even without these laws, personal decisions would have decimated the business regardless. Even in places didn't shut down, patronage plummeted.

If people are scared and won't go to restaurants and bars then why continue to keep them closed? You are saying that patronage is already down so why even restrict them? Give people and businesses a choice in the matter. This is about letting individuals and businesses make their own decisions without the government forcing them to close.

That would be fine and dandy if the decision to engage in risky behaviour only affects the individuals and businesses making them. However, this is not the case in reality.
Post reply on HN