Third Places and Neighborhood Entrepreneurship: Evidence from Starbucks Cafés • Hacker News Board

Re: Third Places and Neighborhood Entrepreneurship: Evidence from Starbucks Cafés

#161

Post by pylua » Tue, Jul 16, 2024, 10:30 PM UTC

jonathanyc wrote: post #93

jmyeet wrote: post #15

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 find it particularly infuriating when people want their house to be an “investment” while complaining about increasing rates of homelessness. How is the price supposed to go up unless supply fails to meet demand?

They want more jobs to be available at wages where they can afford to buy or build houses.

I would be careful to read into these things too much.

Re: Third Places and Neighborhood Entrepreneurship: Evidence from Starbucks Cafés

#162

Post by kevinventullo » Thu, Jul 18, 2024, 6:44 PM UTC

listenallyall wrote: post #159

shiroiushi wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you want to be pedantic about it, the post I was responding to was asking how a mom-and-pop might survive when Starbucks didn’t. Thus, I only felt compelled to name some possible advantages on the one side. It was not intended as an overall analysis. Obviously Starbucks has some other advantages over a mom-and-pop, or else they wouldn’t be everywhere.

Re: Third Places and Neighborhood Entrepreneurship: Evidence from Starbucks Cafés

#163

Post by jonathanyc » Sat, Jul 20, 2024, 1:15 AM UTC

pylua wrote: post #161

jonathanyc wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it particularly infuriating when people want their house to be an “investment” while complaining about increasing rates of homelessness. How is the price supposed to go up unless supply fails to meet demand?

They want more jobs to be available at wages where they can afford to buy or build houses. I would be careful to read into these things too much.

You might have replied to the wrong comment. You are talking about people wanting better paying jobs. I am talking about people wanting their house to be an investment.

Perhaps you are implying that even if the price of houses increases, if wages increase at the same rate, then they will cancel out? If so you are describing inflation, and the real cost of houses will be unchanged.

Alternatively, if you are implying that the solution is for everyone's wages to increase faster than the prices of houses increase, then the consequence of your solution is that houses will no longer be anywhere near as attractive of an investment.

Setting aside any moral considerations, it simply does not make any rational sense to wish for the price of a necessity to increase while also wishing for it to become more available. Imagine wishing for food to become more expensive while also lamenting that people can't afford food!

Re: Third Places and Neighborhood Entrepreneurship: Evidence from Starbucks Cafés

#164

Post by pylua » Sat, Jul 20, 2024, 2:29 PM UTC

jonathanyc wrote: post #163

pylua wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They want more jobs to be available at wages where they can afford to buy or build houses. I would be careful to read into these things too much.

You might have replied to the wrong comment. You are talking about people wanting better paying jobs. I am talking about people wanting their house to be an investment. Perhaps you are implying that even if the price of houses increases, if wages increase at the same rate, then they will cancel out? If so you are describing inflation, and the real cost of houses will be unchanged. Alternatively, if you are implying t…

The ideal situation is that people that move to the area are able to make enough wages to pay for the appreciation in the house. I reject any premise that suggests it is not a possible scenario. I will admit that it is not possible given how our economy is doing, but that should change. However, if the economy was healthier that’s what it should look like, and that’s what people should be wanting from its government.

I think the problem is debt. The power of debt has outstripped any buying power of an individual worker.