Martin wrote:I didn't do any editorializing in the original post. The feature article is fairly neutral reporting, and the gov't data surely does not have a "point." After that, posters contribute some interesting (and revealing) comments as they try to make sense of (or take "points" from) of the data.
IMO, patterns in the data reveal much more than a healthy market system that "purges itself of obsolete and poorly run or located businesses." That's quite harsh and you may be attributing to the "system" a dynamic that is more rational and inevitable than it is or needs to be.
Thanks for the clarification. I read the article as being more about neighborhood and RE trends, but less specifically about espresso than you did.
I didn't do a good job expressing my self in my post, and apologize for creating the false impression that I'm any sort of purist market Darwinian or was promoting the outlook. At the same time, free (and I don't mean unregulated) market dynamics do play an important purgative role. When is there not enough regulation? When is there too much? These are very hard questions to answer.
I'm no great believe in system rationality either. As I said earlier, if there's one big takeaway from game theory, it's that human economic behavior and rationality don't often have much in common.
It's a shame to see any charming and loved business get pushed out of its neighborhood. No doubt it was a loss to the business, to its customers and to the neighborhood.
Personally, I found the California numbers in the D of Labor sheet to be so anomalous as to make me question the utility of the numbers from the other states. There's so much information and context the sheet doesn't provide.
But... If your bottom line is that Coffee Shop is a tough racket -- agreed. It's an interesting discussion, and I'm glad you started it.
BDL