Retail Collapse 2019: Bezos realized that marriage is a form of union

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Retail Collapse 2019: Bezos realized that marriage is a form of union

«‹›367 »

fishmech: Jul 16, 2006; by VideoGames; Salad Prong

learnincurve posted:

So If I�m reading this right, in order to upgrade or extend one bit you find that you have to upgrade or change a whole chain of 83 other things, and all while keeping the whole subway system running so New York�s entire transport infrastructure does not collapse.

So I�m thinking the billion or so in money isn�t really for X miles of track, it�s to do maintenance on a system that is massively out of date due to a lack of past investment?

Absolutely. Though the actual tunneling and new track layout does cost quite a bit on its own!

Roughly speaking there was a sustained period of neglect of the subway system at large from 1965-1985 where things really went into the gutter, and then many years around them of not quite sufficient investment. You also had major one-time issues happening like 9/11 outright destroying large chunks of track and obstructing others, Hurricane Sandy dumping tons of junk into underground areas, and so on. So even with the relatively decent available funding of the 2000s and later, the system had to have a lot of that diverted to just get things back up to "running" state.

And again, in theory you don't need to do all that maintenance on all that connected stuff, it can in theory just wait another year - but that kind of thinking is exactly what got the system into that mess to begin with. Because you wait 20 years to do your maintenance and you're paying 100x what it would have cost to fix it when it cropped up because of all the other stuff that broke on the way.

# ? Dec 30, 2017 00:34

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 12, 2024 16:50

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Every year you wait it costs more too.

# ? Dec 30, 2017 03:28

OneEightHundred: Feb 28, 2008; Soon, we will be unstoppable!

Re: Papa Johns, keep in mind that on top of corner-cutting on their product while still being significantly more expensive than both of their main competitors, Dominos revamped their pizzas for the better and backed it with a big marketing push, and Pizza Hut did a big menu expansion with all of the crust customization stuff.

# ? Dec 30, 2017 04:13

CheeseSpawn: Sep 15, 2004; Doctor Rope

This article popped up recently and would contribute to the costs discussions. K ST in Washington, DC has cycling various shops, part of which is probably due to rent. My hair stylist moved to a more smaller scale operation due to rent/operation costs about a month ago.

"New York's vanishing shops and storefronts: 'It's not Amazon, it's rent' posted:

...

A recent survey by New York councilmember Helen Rosenthal found 12% of stores on one stretch of the Upper West Side is unoccupied and �for lease�. The picture is repeated nationally. In October, the US surpassed the previous record for store closings, set after the 2008 financial crisis.

The common refrain is that the devastation is the product of a profound shift in consumption to online, with Amazon frequently identified as the leading culprit. But this is maybe an over-simplification.

�It�s not Amazon, it�s rent,� says Jeremiah Moss, author of the website and book Vanishing New York. �Over the decades, small businesses weathered the New York of the 70s with it near-bankruptcy and high crime. Businesses could survive the internet, but they need a reasonable rent to do that.�

Part of the problem is the changing make-up of New York landlords. Many are no longer mom-and-pop operations, but institutional investors and hedge funds that are unwilling to drop rents to match retail conditions. �They are running small businesses out of the city and replacing them with chain stores and temporary luxury businesses,� says Moss.
...

# ? Dec 30, 2017 11:36

Tnega: Oct 26, 2010; Pillbug

Why would you drop the rent on retail stores? If they go under, that means that the other stores nearby are going to struggle a bit more (see: cable bundling) and if they go out of business, maybe the owner of the hole sells. Congratulations, you now own more New York real estate. As long as people keep wanting to live there, it isn't like the price for the square footage is going to go down.

If they make rent (IIRC part of the rent is a % of revenue, so you might want a bunch of cycling high end places) you just get paid, so it is really win-win.

# ? Dec 30, 2017 14:05

Spazzle: Jul 5, 2003

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/11/27/the-paradox-of-persistent-vacancies-and-high-prices

quote:

Last month in our social feed, I shared an interesting piece from Greater Greater Washington on the glut of vacant office space in Washington DC. In a city with explosively high housing prices, the article questions why some of the reportedly 14 million square feet of vacant space could not—or was not—being converted for residential use. If half of it was converted to 1,200 square foot units, that would be around 5,000 new units. According to the same site, that is more units than were permitted to be built in DC in all of 2016.

Some people on Facebook were rather dismissive of my take and the article in general. Come on, Chuck. The market will take care of this problem.Indeed, I think it will, but not how you might hope. The way commercial real estate is financed has some strange incentives that I think many are not grasping.

The value of a commercial property is based on the rent that can be obtained. As rents go up, the building is worth more. As they go down, the building is worth less.

When obtaining commercial financing—when getting a loan—the value of the building will be appraised based on the rents that can be obtained. If you can collect a lot of rent, the bank will loan you a lot of money. If you can’t collect much rent, the bank is not going to loan you very much.

This is all pretty straightforward, right?

Let’s say a commercial property developer acquires a $1 million office building. First, they must put 20% down—$200,000. Likely half of that down payment comes from gap financing from a local bank(s) and the other half comes from investor cash. That means they will borrow $800,000 from a major bank—and that loan will be a financial instrument that will ultimately get sold onto a secondary market and securitized into different packages that are then sold in bundles around the world. It's a very efficient capital allocation model.

To get that $800,000 loan, the developer is going to need to show collective rents that value the building at $1 million. For ease of calculation, let’s say they have seven different units in the building and collect $10,000 per year from each unit. That is $70,000 of revenue annually. That’s enough money to make their annual debt service of $52,000 on a 5% loan, and have some money left over for other things (maintenance, taxes, investor return, etc…).

Building Value: $1 million

Loan Amount (80%): $800,000

Annual Debt Service (5% interest): $52,000

Annual Rent Revenue (7 units x $10,000 per unit): $70,000

Now the developer owns the building and everything is going great until—oops—market glut. We’ve just built too many units in the market and, as things turn over, we’re not able to fill all the units at the $10,000 per year rate. In fact, ponder a situation where only four of the seven units are rented.

The developer has some options at this point. Option 1: Lower the rent to a level that fills the vacancies. Option 2: Convert the office space to some other use. Option 3: Stay put and hope that the vacancies are a momentary blip in the market and that new tenants will soon be secured at pre-vacancy rates.

Let’s take a close look at how the "marketplace"—which is how we’ve come to define our centralized, corporate/government financial system—works these things out.

OPTION 1: LOWER THE RENT

With a sound grasp of free market economics, the developer understands that supply and demand equilibrate with price. If the units don’t fill at $10,000 per year, then the price has to be lower.

Image by Tiger Pixel

Let’s overlook the impact this has on the four existing tenants who are paying the higher rate—sure, they have leases, but contracts are malleable and fluctuating prices tend to destabilize agreements—and just focus on filling the three vacant units. Let’s say our developer drops their prices by 20% and so the market clearing lease rate is now $8,000 per year.

Now the developer's bringing in $64,000 per year instead of $70,000 per year. That’s okay. They're still making their payment to the bank. They're still keeping up with the maintenance. Their investors aren't happy to take a haircut, but that’s part of the risk of investing. So, this is stable, right?

Not really. Commercial loans are generally financed over 3-, 5- and 7-year timeframes. That means every few years, the developer is going to have to roll over that loan. When they do, the value of the building is going to be based off the current market rent, which in our case, is now 20% less.

So instead of having a building that is worth $1 million, your building is now worth just $800,000. When you go to get your next loan, the bank is only going to lend you $640,000. And, in a falling market, they might be a little bit nervous about that.

Here’s the kicker: The developer has been making the loan payments every year and is completely current, but after five years, they still owe $735,000 on the initial $800,000 loan. Since they are only going to get a new loan at $640,000, they are going to have to come up with the difference—$95,000 in cash—before they can refinance.

Where is that money coming from? That’s a year and a half of rent! Is the investor going to kick that amount in? Not likely, since they are getting stiffed on their return already. Is another bank going to loan you that money? Possibly, but not likely, and certainly not at friendly terms.

The only real option is for the developer to take $95,000 out of their own pocket and put it into a declining building, something they are really not going to want to do. There is little to be gained at this point and nearly six figures to lose. You don’t last long in the development game doing things like that.

In summary, lowering rents to market price lowers the value of the building and makes the project insolvent. Game over.

OPTION 2: CONVERT FROM OFFICE SPACE

Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington DC. Photo from SEC.

Remember that whole bundling and packaging thing with the original $800,000 loan? The people who made that happen—the banks, the agents, the brokers, the insurers, etc.,—they all deal with commercial office space. Their checklists and forms and paperwork are all dealing with a commercial office product. The stuff they report to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), let alone their investors around the world, stipulate that they are investing in commercial office paper.

The developer, who is not the owner of the building—it is the owners of those securities that technically own the building—is not able to unilaterally change the arrangement and make that commercial office paper into residential mortgage paper. If the developer does, there is going to be a lot of paperwork of the unhappy variety.

The developer could opt to refinance the building with a different financial arrangement, but they would be subjected to a very different set of rules and standards that would impact the value of that property. This would, almost certainly (unless residential rents were really high and practically guaranteed) bring about the same insolvency situation as simply lowering the rent, albeit with more paperwork.

And, since the developer specializes in commercial office space—and they probably do specialize, because it’s more efficient that way—making the shift to residential is not something they even feel qualified to do. The developer doesn’t have a lot of skin in the game at this point so why take on that turmoil? Game over.

OPTION 3: RIDE IT OUT

The developer keeps making their loan payment with three of seven units vacant. It’s not ideal, but it’s stable. Refinancing time comes and the developer can say – and the bank can verify – that the market rate in that building is $10,000 per year.

Yes, there are three vacancies and they're making an effort to fill them, but they will be filled at the $10,000 rate like the four that are currently leased. Please, banker, continue to value the building at $1 million so we can roll this loan over and wait for the market to improve. In the business, this is called “extend and pretend.”

Here’s where the incentives for the bankers get interesting. If this is a local bank financing a local commercial product, the conversation probably gets rather personal. That local banker knows the local market and has a sense of what kinds of rents are possible. They are taking depositors' money—literally the money of their neighbors—and investing it in this commercial enterprise. Hard questions are asked and whatever is finally agreed upon, we can guarantee the developer has some skin in the game.

Unfortunately, that’s not how banking works today. If the local bank has any involvement at all, it is as a broker—getting paid to make the transaction happen and then selling that commercial loan onto a secondary market—and so their main concern is twofold: (1) Getting paid the fees associated with the transaction and (2) making sure the loan meets the underwriting criteria and therefore can’t come back to bite them if and when it goes bad.

So, if the banker can legitimately certify that leases are in place to justify a $1 million valuation, that vacancies are only temporary and that there's a good faith effort underway to fill them at rates that justify the loan, then it’s all good.

This is why you’ll often see commercial space offered with free rent at the beginning of the contract. If the developer lowered the rent by 20%, then they become insolvent and are pushed into default. If they give you 20% of the rent for free—say the first year free on a five year lease—and the rest of the time charge you the elevated price, then they can claim the free months were just an incentive and the real market price is the elevated one they need the bank to certify. It's the same dollar amount just expressed in two different ways.

If you understand these three options, you can start to understand why our federal policy has been to subsidize big banks and large investors through bailouts, artificially low interest rates and money printing (aka: quantitative easing). All of these policies elevate property values—commercial and residential—and give investors more time before there is a reckoning. Optimistically, in time, things may self-correct. This is the view of the central policy makers. Or failing that, those with money can build up enough of a buffer to withstand a severe downturn. Or, at the very least, the current policy makers will be the former policy makers and, well, in the long run we're all dead. So, don't obsess over the future.

UNDERSTANDING THE MARKETPLACE

Is this system a true marketplace? Yes, it is.

Is this system an efficient marketplace? Again, yes, it is.

So how can an efficient marketplace end up with persistently vacant properties and persistently high prices? That seems inefficient.

It is important to recognize what is really going on here, especially if we’re not happy with the outcome. What we have created is a marketplace designed to distribute capital as efficiently as possible under the theory that this will create the greatest amount of growth possible. I believe our system accomplishes those goals. If you are a macroeconomist, your indicators of success all measure positive.

While this system allocates capital efficiently, it does not allocate land or public resources efficiently. It optimizes one variable—the efficient distribution of capital—to the detriment of many others like unaffordable rents, unstable neighborhoods, vacancy rates, strained local government budgets and many more.

I wrote about this last year in my series on Tomas Sedlecak’s book The Economics of Good and Evil. In the Growth Economy that we have created, we maximize growth during the good years at the cost of our stability during the bad years. Right now, commercial real estate markets should be changing—and more generally, vacant retail and office space should be repurposed long before it fails—but that can’t happen because the marketplace we have set up for commercial real estate doesn’t consider this outcome. It’s a marketplace wired for growth. Period.

In the Resilient Economy (or, better yet, the Antifragile Economy,) we create a marketplace that balances competing objectives. Growth is one objective, but so is long term stability. We can have growth, but we can also have buildings that are free to adapt to changing market conditions.

I would argue, in fact, that such a marketplace—which would be far less centralized and corporate and far more localized—is actually closer to an ostensibly “free” market, where participants are freer to optimize the things they find most important, not just the centralized distribution of capital.

Don’t get fooled into believing that the crazy distortions we see in housing and real estate can only be solved by centralized interventions, be they corporate or government actions (or, even worse, combined corporate/government action). Our centralized marketplace optimizes very few variables. Only at the local level do we have the nuance available to us to overcome this limited set of options and start creating something that works for everyone.

# ? Dec 30, 2017 15:55

skooma512: Feb 8, 2012; You couldn't grok my race car, but you dug the roadside blur.

blowfish posted:

And in most other places it's true as well, just not quite to such an extreme extent.

Having grown up in areas completely rebuilt after WW2 with comparatively brand new subway systems, my first thought when stepping on both the Paris but especially the London subway/tube was "man it's obvious this poo poo was built several world wars ago and they're having to fit modern tech and several times too many passengers into undersized tunnels".

e: I'm sure 2100 kids will say the same about post WW2 subways

This is pretty much exactly how a Transport for London employee explained why they can�t automate the trains. poo poo is over 100 years old and it�s hard enough keeping everything running smooth without adding extra poo poo on top

# ? Dec 30, 2017 16:22

got any sevens: Feb 9, 2013; by Cyrano4747

Spazzle posted:

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/11/27/the-paradox-of-persistent-vacancies-and-high-prices

Good poo poo, ty
Time for guillotines

# ? Dec 30, 2017 17:28

fishmech: Jul 16, 2006; by VideoGames; Salad Prong

skooma512 posted:

This is pretty much exactly how a Transport for London employee explained why they can’t automate the trains. poo poo is over 100 years old and it’s hard enough keeping everything running smooth without adding extra poo poo on top

New York is doing that with ~100 year old rail lines!

It's just uh, they've only been able to do it for 2 lines so far out of 36 separate lines, after 20 years of work, and probably couldn't go all the way for another century or so.

# ? Dec 30, 2017 19:31

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

skooma512 posted:

This is pretty much exactly how a Transport for London employee explained why they can�t automate the trains. poo poo is over 100 years old and it�s hard enough keeping everything running smooth without adding extra poo poo on top

Yeah and really how would you upgrade?

Either you close down a whole line for a couple of years while the tunnel gets rebored to a large diameter and has modern track/signalling/automation equipment installed (and chances are you'd have to rework a bunch of sewers near the tunnels to make way too) or you just say gently caress it and bore a parallel tunnel before changing anything about the original one :shepspends:

# ? Dec 30, 2017 20:10

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

got any sevens posted:

Good poo poo, ty
Time for guillotines

is that really the sophistication of your takeaway

# ? Dec 30, 2017 20:15

FCKGW: May 21, 2006

https://twitter.com/cbsnews/status/946977423794589696

# ? Dec 30, 2017 20:22

Motronic: Nov 6, 2009

FCKGW posted:

https://twitter.com/cbsnews/status/946977423794589696

If the one in times square is anything like the one in vegas I'm not surprised. It's absolutely fine (as in acceptable) food, but it's marketed in a way that you expect a whole lot more. You don't get it. It's like going to any other generic "nice" fast casual burger place.

# ? Dec 30, 2017 21:10

OJ MIST 2 THE DICK: Sep 11, 2008; Anytime I need to see your face I just close my eyes
And I am taken to a place
Where your crystal minds and magenta feelings
Take up shelter in the base of my spine
Sweet like a chica cherry cola
-Cheap Trick; Nap Ghost

Motronic posted:

If the one in times square is anything like the one in vegas I'm not surprised. It's absolutely fine (as in acceptable) food, but it's marketed in a way that you expect a whole lot more. You don't get it. It's like going to any other generic "nice" fast casual burger place.

https://nyti.ms/SZCqjJ

quote:

Did panic grip your soul as you stared into the whirling hypno wheel of the menu, where adjectives and nouns spin in a crazy vortex? When you saw the burger described as “Guy’s Pat LaFrieda custom blend, all-natural Creekstone Farm Black Angus beef patty, LTOP (lettuce, tomato, onion + pickle), SMC (super-melty-cheese) and a slathering of Donkey Sauce on garlic-buttered brioche,” did your mind touch the void for a minute?

# ? Dec 30, 2017 21:24

Motronic: Nov 6, 2009

exploded mummy posted:

https://nyti.ms/SZCqjJ

Welp. Was not my experience at all in LV as far as bad service, but I don't know how to read through the lines of a critic on the warpath as compared to actual experience either. The menu buzzword thing was totally still there as I recall the amount of eyerolling I did.

I've also been to Giadas in LV, which was superior in every way (as long as we're discussing celeb chef stuff). Absolutely lived up to the hype and they have a great wine cellar. Expensive, but I'd go again if forced to be in LV in the future.

# ? Dec 30, 2017 21:31

Neo Rasa: Mar 8, 2007; Everyone should play DUKE games.

I never ate at the NYC one but it's legendary among some friends of mine who did for how bland it is vs. the price and the dishes from his various shows they're based on. They also echo the bad service comments. I mean it's a Time Square celebrity/institution kind of place, it's may as well be frozen food but hilariously overpriced stuff being assembled and served by overworked, underpaid people who very understandably don't give a poo poo. That Times review seems right on the money with their sentiments.

# ? Dec 30, 2017 21:40

got any sevens: Feb 9, 2013; by Cyrano4747

GreyjoyBastard posted:

is that really the sophistication of your takeaway

I could elucidate and expound further but it would be pointless. I prefer to be blunt and direct.

# ? Dec 30, 2017 22:42

Reveilled: Apr 19, 2007; Take up your rifles

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

I think it's more that a pizza is made out of like 8 ingredients total and all of them are basically the cheapest things that exist. You can make a pizza to feed a family for like 2 dollars of ingredients. some sort of pizza was always going to end up being super cheap.

I have a cousin who owns a pizzeria/chip shop. He once told me that every day he gives thanks that Pizza Hut and Domino's managed to convince people that a large pizza should cost �15.
Meanwhile, a pizza place opened up right across the road from my local Domino's which does traditional sourdough wood-fired pizzas for �7, and honestly I don't think I'll ever get a Pizza Hut or Domino's at my house ever again, the difference in quality is staggering and it's practically half the price.

# ? Dec 30, 2017 22:52

Cheesus: Oct 17, 2002; Let us retract the foreskin of ignorance and apply the wirebrush of enlightenment.; Yam Slacker

I live in a small town with no pizza chains, but the capitalist story still works.

Local "Italian" restaurant should be killing it for nearly a 10 mile radius. Instead, they are staffed by self absorbed teenagers who must be related to the owners as they often ignore customers. And they manage to ruin product either by insanely long waits (1+ hours), or under/overcooked pies. I'd rather buy a frozen pizza at Shaws than their poo poo.

A local bbq joint started making pizza a month ago and they found themselves unable to keep up with the demand. $17 for a 16 inch pie with pulled pork from the smoker outside? gently caress yes.

# ? Dec 30, 2017 23:45

skooma512: Feb 8, 2012; You couldn't grok my race car, but you dug the roadside blur.

Not even a Dominos?

# ? Dec 31, 2017 00:21

Owlofcreamcheese: May 22, 2005; Can't post for 9 years!; Buglord

Reveilled posted:

I have a cousin who owns a pizzeria/chip shop. He once told me that every day he gives thanks that Pizza Hut and Domino's managed to convince people that a large pizza should cost �15.
Meanwhile, a pizza place opened up right across the road from my local Domino's which does traditional sourdough wood-fired pizzas for �7, and honestly I don't think I'll ever get a Pizza Hut or Domino's at my house ever again, the difference in quality is staggering and it's practically half the price.

The business model of fast food pizza seems to have settled on some sort of weird coupon and deal based thing where a medium sized pizza costs 13 dollars but a large pizza costs 8 dollars (but two medium pizzas also 13 dollars). I have no idea if it's some "people like deals" or "we don't really want to sell all these sizes but we have to for some reason so we will hyper steer what gets bought" or if there is some secret time they don't have the deals and having deals literally every day is a secret way to raise the price on certain dates or what.

# ? Dec 31, 2017 00:31

FCKGW: May 21, 2006

The �$10 large pizza� is the dollar menu of the fast food world. The cheap item to bring people in and hope they spend another $8 on breadsticks too.

# ? Dec 31, 2017 01:50

DR FRASIER KRANG: Feb 4, 2005; "Are you forgetting that just this afternoon I was punched in the face by a turtle now dead?

Once a month the local pizza chain (Zeeks) teams up with the pub next door to offer $10 pizza night when you have it delivered to the pub

I took advantage of it last month and when I called and asked what the $10 pizza offer was and he was like "any pizza you want. $10." and then I said "what size?" and he just repeated it.

These pizzas are normally like $25-28 for a large. It blew my dang mind.

# ? Dec 31, 2017 02:27

Owlofcreamcheese: May 22, 2005; Can't post for 9 years!; Buglord

FCKGW posted:

The �$10 large pizza� is the dollar menu of the fast food world. The cheap item to bring people in and hope they spend another $8 on breadsticks too.

I am sure they would like people to also buy breadsticks but the joke is always that the most expensive ingredient of a pizza is the box. Fast food pizza is probably less than 3 dollars of ingredients and labor.

# ? Dec 31, 2017 05:17

StrangersInTheNight: Dec 31, 2007; ABSOLUTE FUCKING GUDGEON

Neo Rasa posted:

I never ate at the NYC one but it's legendary among some friends of mine who did for how bland it is vs. the price and the dishes from his various shows they're based on. They also echo the bad service comments. I mean it's a Time Square celebrity/institution kind of place, it's may as well be frozen food but hilariously overpriced stuff being assembled and served by overworked, underpaid people who very understandably don't give a poo poo. That Times review seems right on the money with their sentiments.

It should be proof of our sadness as a nation that people travel to one of our greatest metropolises, but then get too scared to eat anything except overpriced American chain comfort food. All of Times Square is this crap. The Applebee's & TGI Friday's are also insanely priced. Pretty much any restaurant there has to account for the crazy overhead, and it comes out in the food pricing.

Why would you travel so far and pay so much to EAT THIS poo poo.

# ? Dec 31, 2017 05:25

Reynold: Feb 14, 2012; Suffer not the unclean to live.

StrangersInTheNight posted:

It should be proof of our sadness as a nation that people travel to one of our greatest metropolises, but then get too scared to eat anything except overpriced American chain comfort food. All of Times Square is this crap. The Applebee's & TGI Friday's are also insanely priced. Pretty much any restaurant there has to account for the crazy overhead, and it comes out in the food pricing.

Why would you travel so far and pay so much to EAT THIS poo poo.

I remember there being a Mike Pence photo thing going around some time ago about how you couldn't see his reflection in the mirror from where he was sitting at a booth in Chili's, when he was visiting NYC. All I could think was "You went to one of the largest cultural centers in the world, with access to virtually any and every cuisine on the planet, and you went to a loving Chili's, you piece of poo poo."

# ? Dec 31, 2017 05:31

Owlofcreamcheese: May 22, 2005; Can't post for 9 years!; Buglord

StrangersInTheNight posted:

It should be proof of our sadness as a nation that people travel to one of our greatest metropolises, but then get too scared to eat anything except overpriced American chain comfort food. All of Times Square is this crap. The Applebee's & TGI Friday's are also insanely priced. Pretty much any restaurant there has to account for the crazy overhead, and it comes out in the food pricing.

Why would you travel so far and pay so much to EAT THIS poo poo.

Going to other countries then eating their crappy chain restaurants is really fun. (eating at mcdonalds in other countries is also very fun if you do it exactly one time then spend the rest of your meals eating real food. The mcdonalds take on a bunch of cultures is really wild)

# ? Dec 31, 2017 05:41

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

There is a not insignificant segment of the population that only eats meat fish and starches prepared blandly.

This does not always have to be bad... a real steak with good mash and creamed spinach is wonderful.

It is however almost always bad.

# ? Dec 31, 2017 05:44

Haifisch: Nov 13, 2010; Objection! I object! That was... objectionable!; Taco Defender

StrangersInTheNight posted:

It should be proof of our sadness as a nation that people travel to one of our greatest metropolises, but then get too scared to eat anything except overpriced American chain comfort food. All of Times Square is this crap. The Applebee's & TGI Friday's are also insanely priced. Pretty much any restaurant there has to account for the crazy overhead, and it comes out in the food pricing.

Why would you travel so far and pay so much to EAT THIS poo poo.

Some people are completely terrified at not knowing exactly what they're getting, even if what they're getting is mediocre garbage.

BrandorKP posted:

There is a not insignificant segment of the population that only eats meat fish and starches prepared blandly.

Mostly because of this. And they raise children who are never exposed to things outside of "chunk of meat, starch, & vegetable, all with minimal seasoning", so the cycle continues.

# ? Dec 31, 2017 05:50

fishmech: Jul 16, 2006; by VideoGames; Salad Prong

Haifisch posted:

Mostly because of this. And they raise children who are never exposed to things outside of "chunk of meat, starch, & vegetable, all with minimal seasoning", so the cycle continues.

Yeah well thats most of the world for most of history. It's not really a big deal.

# ? Dec 31, 2017 06:07

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

I wouldn't say it is most of the world fishmech. Most of the western world sure.

# ? Dec 31, 2017 06:15

Panfilo: Aug 27, 2011; EXISTENCE IS PAIN😬

People also have allergies, which can affect what foods are safe for them to eat. Typically chain restaurants are pretty explicit in allergen warnings and the product tends to be consistent.

If you had a really bad peanut allergy, I couldn't blame you for wanting to avoid Thai or Chinese places, for example.

# ? Dec 31, 2017 06:19

boner confessor: Apr 25, 2013; by R. Guyovich

Haifisch posted:

Some people are completely terrified at not knowing exactly what they're getting, even if what they're getting is mediocre garbage.

yeah. there's a lot of folks who are terrified of taking a risk and losing, even if that risk is spending a few dozen monies on some food they may not like or may be disappointingly prepared

# ? Dec 31, 2017 06:21

crazy cloud: Nov 7, 2012; by Cyrano4747; Lipstick Apathy

actually, eating taco bell while on vacation to a city with amazing food from like eight dozen different cultures is woke now y'all

# ? Dec 31, 2017 06:23

crazy cloud: Nov 7, 2012; by Cyrano4747; Lipstick Apathy

did you know if you slip the drive thru guy a $20 you can just have one of their big vacuum sealed bags of reconstituted beef slime / oatmeal porridge mix they call "taco filling"

not only does it have GREAT macros, because you have the whole bag you can defrost it overnight and then take it with you all day. boba tea straw that poo poo up and you have a mother loving 2.5 lb protein/fiber capri sun, my dude

# ? Dec 31, 2017 06:25

withak: Jan 15, 2003; Fun Shoe

Panfilo posted:

People also have allergies, which can affect what foods are safe for them to eat. Typically chain restaurants are pretty explicit in allergen warnings and the product tends to be consistent.

If you had a really bad peanut allergy, I couldn't blame you for wanting to avoid Thai or Chinese places, for example.

Lol if you think a chain restaurant employee has any incentive to not use the peanut spatula on your vegetarian sliders.

# ? Dec 31, 2017 06:26

crazy cloud: Nov 7, 2012; by Cyrano4747; Lipstick Apathy

eating taco bell is practically like being vegan because their "meat products" are so adulterated by fillers you're only killing like 1/5 as many sentient beings as if you went to Burger King^TM, the "home of the whopper", where you are encouraged to "have it your way", unless you are a cow, in which case, lardroom

e: ha ha I just noticed this was a D&D thread and not a C-SPAM one this whole time, I will take this derail elsewhere

# ? Dec 31, 2017 06:28

Justin Godscock: Oct 12, 2004; Listen here, funnyman!

Haifisch posted:

Some people are completely terrified at not knowing exactly what they're getting, even if what they're getting is mediocre garbage.

Mostly because of this. And they raise children who are never exposed to things outside of "chunk of meat, starch, & vegetable, all with minimal seasoning", so the cycle continues.

Hey, raising a kid is a literal full-time job so maybe there isn't enough time in the evening to prepare an exquisite meal hence the fish sticks and fries with milk.

# ? Dec 31, 2017 06:29

boner confessor: Apr 25, 2013; by R. Guyovich

withak posted:

Lol if you think a chain restaurant employee has any incentive to not use the peanut spatula on your vegetarian sliders.

they take that poo poo real seriously, it's Lawsuit Town. which is why it's so incredibly annoying for foodservice workers when someone says "I'm allergic to..." when what they really mean is "I don't like..." because having an allergen on a ticket includes extra work to have fresh pans etc. which is infuriating when someone says they're allergic to tomatoes, please leave tomatoes off the burger, then they put ketchup on the loving thing. or how a kajillion people somehow became allergic to gluten in 2007 and suddenly they're all concerned about the carb-soaked pasta being gluten free. if you can't eat gluten, dont come to a loving pasta joint aagh people

# ? Dec 31, 2017 06:32

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 12, 2024 16:50

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Justin Godscock posted:

Hey, raising a kid is a literal full-time job so maybe there isn't enough time in the evening to prepare an exquisite meal hence the fish sticks and fries with milk.

I am so tired and am ready for death. Why have I done this again?

Amazon gets it.

# ? Dec 31, 2017 06:48

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Retail Collapse 2019: Bezos realized that marriage is a form of union

«‹›367 »