There are solutions for this. In Italy they charge you for the seat. I have been to places where they charge for a laptop too. In addition you can minimize cellular network reception and charge for wifi.
The last thing is not legal in the US. Marriott got in trouble with the FCC over this. https://www.cnn.com/2014/10/03/travel/marriott-fcc-wi-fi-fin...
The FCC only has jurisdiction over active transmissions. They have no power to say that I can't build my hotel out of reinforced concrete that acts as an effective faraday cage.
If commercial real estate is cheap enough, an efficient business chain absolutely can do well with a cozy shop. A lot of people don't want a kiosk, and will simply skip it, but will go to a place if it's a cozy shop. Maybe this isn't so popular in modern America these days, but it is in many other places. Here in Tokyo where land prices are huge, all the Starbucks I've seen are still cozy shops, though they do tend t…
> So either Americans just don't care much about cozy shops any more, or American commercial real estate rent is too expensive, or some combination of the two are making it unprofitable to have a cozy coffee shop in American cities these days. It might also be more profitable to operate a location as a kiosk than as a larger cozy shop.
If you re-read my prior comment, my point is that it doesn't have to be this way, and isn't like this in other places. Cozy (but frequently crowded) Starbucks with sit-down seating are extremely common and popular here in Japan. They aren't turning them into kiosks. And this is the very same company that's doing so in America. So I think we should look at other factors instead of just whining about "evil capitalism".
Naively, a small shop only needs to pay on-the-ground workers and direct owners who may be a subset of the first group. Starbucks has to pay the regional managers and their bosses and the shareholders, etc. Also, at the mom-and-pop, no one is screaming “Why is the fourth derivative of profit increase not higher??”
I think that is, indeed, rather naive. Starbucks has an extremely efficient supply chain which ensures its raw ingredient costs are lower than what the small shop can negotiate, even moreso when delivery to the store is factored in. After raw wages, it can also offer health insurance and benefits to its employees at significantly lower per-employee costs than the small shop. It can often get a better deal on real est…
It's not naive; both posts have correct points. It's the classic little-company vs. big-company scenario. Little companies can move faster and adapt quicker, they don't have the same profit expectations or overhead costs as big companies (upper manager and CxO salaries), however the big company has big advantages with economies of scale, name recognition, and access to capital. Some things for the big company may work against it: some people may go out of their way to avoid Starbucks (or other big name-brands) due to some bad experience ("it tastes burnt!") or association or simply disliking bigger companies, for instance.
In the UK, the IKEA Restaurant offers free hot drinks for IKEA Family members on weekdays - plus all of the other benefits you've mentioned. I would say that the Wi-Fi is important, as the design of most UK IKEA buildings blocks mobile network signals!
IKEA restaurants are my secret (guess the cat is out the bag now haha). I never see anyone else working there. Free unlimited parking too. And Fridays has half price food Only downside is screaming kids And yes there's bad mobile signal but Vodafone (famous for having better indoor signal I believe) works ok
I tried doing IKEA restaurants as co-working but it just doesn't have the right energy or vibe though
What kind of legal protections do you think should go? BTW, say, your bedroom serves no public benefit; its point is to provide you some highly private benefits. Is it bad? I'd say that any activity is fine, as long as it does not result in or intended for public harm. Providing a public benefit should be strictly optional; paying taxes should be enough.
>What kind of legal protections do you think should go? Shielding people from liability is a good start. >BTW, say, your bedroom serves no public benefit; its point is to provide you some highly private benefits. Is it bad? I can't commit crimes in my bedroom and escape any and all responsibility for it.
Pretty sure you can commit crimes in your bedroom, and pretty sure a crime is easier to get away with when you have a private space to do it/hide stuff in.
What I don't see in these conversations is how much increasing property prices contribute to killing third places. People get excited because they bought a house for $200k and it's notionally worth $800k now. In reality they haven't gained anything because every house is $800k and you still need somewhere to live so you still only own one housing unit of wealth. Worse, people actively lobby for policies that increase…
That $200k purchaser is sitting on $760k in equity and paying 1/4th in housing that their peers are, which is its own form of wealth.
And if they’re one of the wealthy that own more than one unit of home wealth they are most certainly cheering for the prices to go up.
What I don't see in these conversations is how much increasing property prices contribute to killing third places. People get excited because they bought a house for $200k and it's notionally worth $800k now. In reality they haven't gained anything because every house is $800k and you still need somewhere to live so you still only own one housing unit of wealth. Worse, people actively lobby for policies that increase…
Yeah the only time that wealth has a chance to transfer back to the young is then the old die and they give it to their children
I think that is, indeed, rather naive. Starbucks has an extremely efficient supply chain which ensures its raw ingredient costs are lower than what the small shop can negotiate, even moreso when delivery to the store is factored in. After raw wages, it can also offer health insurance and benefits to its employees at significantly lower per-employee costs than the small shop. It can often get a better deal on real est…
It's not naive; both posts have correct points. It's the classic little-company vs. big-company scenario. Little companies can move faster and adapt quicker, they don't have the same profit expectations or overhead costs as big companies (upper manager and CxO salaries), however the big company has big advantages with economies of scale, name recognition, and access to capital. Some things for the big company may wor…
Your post - which at least attempts to list some of the advantages of a small shop AND some of the advantages of a mega-chain - demonstrates why kevinventullo's post is, in fact, naive - because he only mentions the disadvantages that Starbucks might have, without considering any obvious advantages it has, like scale and brand recognition.
What I don't see in these conversations is how much increasing property prices contribute to killing third places. People get excited because they bought a house for $200k and it's notionally worth $800k now. In reality they haven't gained anything because every house is $800k and you still need somewhere to live so you still only own one housing unit of wealth. Worse, people actively lobby for policies that increase…
I call this “terminal capitalism.” We’re now in a state where everybody prioritises building their own wealth at everyone else’s and society’s detriment.
I’m not an advocate for communism either, by the way. Just regulation and proper taxation.