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

191–200 of 328 posts

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

#191

Post by hinkley »

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".

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.

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

#193

Post by jacobkania »

twblalock wrote: post #68
jacobkania wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You keep saying this, but is the value of the property not what someone is willing to pay for it? If nobody can/will pay rent, the property is worthless. The risk you take on as a real estate investor isn’t just that of the property value, it’s also the risk of not having a tenant. If you have a tenant, they can’t pay, then they leave and you can’t find another renter for a year, you’ve made a bad investment even tho…

Risk of not having a tenant has nothing to do with the current situation. The current situation is the possibility of being stuck with a tenant who will not pay the rent and cannot be removed, indefinitely. At first these rent forgiveness measures were supposed to last a few months. Now we are nearly in the 10th month of the pandemic and these measures are being renewed. There are tenants who have not paid rent since…

I totally get your point, but if an established tenant with a previously successful business cannot afford rent, then who could?

It seems more like “well nobody is going to be able to rent it anyways, so we might as well keep the businesses alive so that recovery can happen”. If those 90% of businesses all went under, then there would be nobody left to pay any rent even after a recovery starts to happen. Creating a law that advantages the renters prevents the landlords from screwing each other, and the entire market, by putting the companies out of business. Those companies need to survive so that the market can bounce back more quickly. And the landlords would get screwed either way.

I do also think that mortgages should be paused, but that’s secondary in importance, in my opinion. Sorry you got downvoted, I think your opinion is also valid, and this does really suck for landlords too.

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

#194

Post by just-juan-post »

MiroF wrote: post #184
just-juan-post wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No am I am not but I understand your assumptive nature. I did speak incorrectly. Here is a repost of my previous comment: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8743605/Nashville-m... In Nashville, TN (USA) bars and restaurants are closed to stop the spread of the virus. In e-mails obtained by a local television station, and later confirmed authentic by legal council, the e-mails discussed how only 80 of the 20,000…

> a city of 2 million aka .004% of the population. Oh so it's the population now? I forgot that the whole city of Nashville was infected. Not going to respond further.

You're done because we both know the math is correct, my argument is sound, and you don't like that. I see it often in these types of debates. It's easier to walk away from a losing position than to defend it.

I'm not sure what you think I changed but the math is fairly straight forward.

Nashville metro is 2 million people. There were 80 cases confirmed traced to bars and restaurants. They were keeping bars and restaurants closed because they were "hotspots".

When you take 80 and divide by 2,000,000 you get .00004 or .004%. Therefore, the government was keeping bars and restaurants shut down because .004% of the infections came from bars and restaurants.

They restricted indoor recreation for 2 million because of 80 cases.

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

#195

Post by jacobolus »

serial_dev wrote: post #155
twblalock wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it is not that simple. There are various ways to respond to a plague, and some are better than others. Some responses result in far more casualties than others, in addition to the economic damage. We can all see that some governments responded well and others did not.

> we can all see that some governments responded well and others did not. Can we, though? We are not even half time yet (most likely). How are we going to judge a government in the beginning of a pandemic as if the pandemic was already over? Maybe what looks like a poor strategy now will turn out to be the best later. Same true for the economic bailouts, some countries went harder than others, and it's not yet clear…

What is the anomaly? Sweden has done substantially worse than all of its neighbors in both lives/health and economic impact. Which was exactly what many people predicted.

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

#196

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

MiroF wrote: post #163
refurb wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

When someone proposes to address a problem by giving the government lots of money, I'm always skeptical. Why should we expect them to spend that money wisely? I'm not opposed to raising taxes if there's something important to spend the money on, but the words "income inequality!" aren't IMO a sufficient description.

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

#197

Post by therealx »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #174
tedivm wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you are saying doesn't seem to be the reality. Studies show that there is in fact risk beyond just your table. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6936a5.htm?s_cid=mm... https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/88543

Is there a particular portion of this study you're referring to? I don't see anything about risk at vs. beyond your table here.

The CDC just said yesterday that they confirm airborne transmission, and from the case of the choir whom was 6 feet apart, it sure makes it seem beyond one table worth.

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

#198

Post by dwaltrip »

just-juan-post wrote: post #183
dwaltrip wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t about people making decisions for themselves. It’s about preventing the spread of infectious disease. You might be fine, but if you are asymptomatic, you can directly harm or kill others and not even know it. That being said, I’m not sure what the best policy is. It doesn’t seem feasible to have a complete lockdown that extends for many months. So we have to be clever, keep learning, and find good solution…

> This isn’t about people making decisions for themselves Making decisions for ones self is exactly the principal that the USA was founded on. > You might be fine, but if you are asymptomatic, you can directly harm or kill others and not even know it. See also: Drinking, condom-less sex, smoking, and junk food. All of these things directly or indirectly harm others and if this is about public safety then it's time yo…

Have you thought about how many people need to die for you to change your mind on this one? Just curious where you draw the line.

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

#199

Post by alecco »

kgc wrote: post #65
paxys wrote: post #58

It's ridiculous that we couldn't coordinate a rent/mortgage forgiveness plan alongside all the customer bans put in place across the country. If a restaurant can't stay open, they shouldn't pay rent. If the property owner isn't getting rent, they shouldn't have to pay mortgage. And so on, up the entire chain.

What's at the top of the chain though?

Top of the chain is "dumb money". Like pension funds and municipal or foreign funds. Those got destroyed in 2008.

The Fed can only absorb so much (currently at a record 30% of mortgage bonds). Banks and the financial markets are not stupid and quickly resell everything. In 2008 they were caught with just ONE batch of mortgage backed securities and it bankrupted a couple. It's not going to happen again.

It's dismaying how GP proposes such a terrible idea. And what worries me the most is the majority of voters have the same feel-good ideas. We are going to get screwed from both sides.

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

#200

Post by ehnto »

just-juan-post wrote: post #183
dwaltrip wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t about people making decisions for themselves. It’s about preventing the spread of infectious disease. You might be fine, but if you are asymptomatic, you can directly harm or kill others and not even know it. That being said, I’m not sure what the best policy is. It doesn’t seem feasible to have a complete lockdown that extends for many months. So we have to be clever, keep learning, and find good solution…

> This isn’t about people making decisions for themselves Making decisions for ones self is exactly the principal that the USA was founded on. > You might be fine, but if you are asymptomatic, you can directly harm or kill others and not even know it. See also: Drinking, condom-less sex, smoking, and junk food. All of these things directly or indirectly harm others and if this is about public safety then it's time yo…

The point of a lockdown is to stop people who think like you from hurting others. If we could trust people to act responsibly we wouldn't need to lockdown so strictly, but in example after example someone who thinks like you will ruin it for everyone.

Regardless, the US has largely already decided to be on your side and let you make your own decision about how to act during a pandemic, and the results speak for themselves. A wholesale failure. Good job, you win, 200,000 people are dead, is that enough patriotism for you?

Post reply on HN