Saturday, March 12, 2005
Would that more job advertisements read like this:
"The Britain section is looking for a summer intern. Age and station immaterial. Pay negligible. Applicants should e-mail an article they think could appear in the Britain section to britain_intern@economist.com by March 15th." The Economist 56 ( Feb. 26, 2005).
"The Britain section is looking for a summer intern. Age and station immaterial. Pay negligible. Applicants should e-mail an article they think could appear in the Britain section to britain_intern@economist.com by March 15th." The Economist 56 ( Feb. 26, 2005).
Monday, March 07, 2005
Save the carts!
Had the local news on in the background the other night when I heard something about street vendors, New Haven, burritos... The fight is on again, with Broadway's restauranteurs challenging the street carts on the corner of Broadway and York that provide Thai food, Ethiopian food, and the burritos that sustain many a law student. (See also this older Yale Daily News article.)
I should first note that the person being interviewed on the news that night was of but dubious credibility; as one of the owners of a burrito joint about a block up from the carts, he is in direct competition -- and, if the frequent name changes are any indication, said burrito joint has been having some trouble. His main argument was that the carts are competing unfairly because they are not required to meet the obligations and provide the public goods that traditional restaurants must. The carts don't have to pay property taxes; they don't have to stay open 'til 9 (as Yale requires of its business tenants near campus); they don't have to offer seating or nice window displays or service beyond food preparation. Thus their costs are lower, and no one can keep up.
Hmmm, unfair competition argument -- I've heard that before... What the interview guy failed to note is that most of these things are not public goods. The carts are at a disadvantage in dealing with the customers who want to sit down, or have a burrito or some noodles after 8 pm; and I'm guessing the cart owners have to pay something more than minimum wage to convince the amazing Franco to stand outside for 7 hours a day wrapping burritos at well-below-freezing temperatures (without warm gloves!). The article also makes the point that these carts are run by big-time restauranteurs rather than the struggling hard-working individuals we tend to think of -- but that only undercuts the unfairness point, since these people are subject to all the requirements for traditional restaurants on their major sources of business. The burritos at the sit-down place are roughly the same price -- a dollar more maybe, nothing big (can't remember since I'm a cart devotee and never order them there) -- and they have a greater variety of fillings, plus tacos and quesadillas and other stuff. It's only a block away, right next to the always-packed Ivy Noodle. But we law students continue to flock to the cart, through rain and snow, even though it means we have to battle undergrads for seats in our dining hall afterwards. Simply put, the burritos from the cart are better -- much better. And that's competition in the best sense -- not unfair, but pushing onwards towards a higher standard.
Had the local news on in the background the other night when I heard something about street vendors, New Haven, burritos... The fight is on again, with Broadway's restauranteurs challenging the street carts on the corner of Broadway and York that provide Thai food, Ethiopian food, and the burritos that sustain many a law student. (See also this older Yale Daily News article.)
I should first note that the person being interviewed on the news that night was of but dubious credibility; as one of the owners of a burrito joint about a block up from the carts, he is in direct competition -- and, if the frequent name changes are any indication, said burrito joint has been having some trouble. His main argument was that the carts are competing unfairly because they are not required to meet the obligations and provide the public goods that traditional restaurants must. The carts don't have to pay property taxes; they don't have to stay open 'til 9 (as Yale requires of its business tenants near campus); they don't have to offer seating or nice window displays or service beyond food preparation. Thus their costs are lower, and no one can keep up.
Hmmm, unfair competition argument -- I've heard that before... What the interview guy failed to note is that most of these things are not public goods. The carts are at a disadvantage in dealing with the customers who want to sit down, or have a burrito or some noodles after 8 pm; and I'm guessing the cart owners have to pay something more than minimum wage to convince the amazing Franco to stand outside for 7 hours a day wrapping burritos at well-below-freezing temperatures (without warm gloves!). The article also makes the point that these carts are run by big-time restauranteurs rather than the struggling hard-working individuals we tend to think of -- but that only undercuts the unfairness point, since these people are subject to all the requirements for traditional restaurants on their major sources of business. The burritos at the sit-down place are roughly the same price -- a dollar more maybe, nothing big (can't remember since I'm a cart devotee and never order them there) -- and they have a greater variety of fillings, plus tacos and quesadillas and other stuff. It's only a block away, right next to the always-packed Ivy Noodle. But we law students continue to flock to the cart, through rain and snow, even though it means we have to battle undergrads for seats in our dining hall afterwards. Simply put, the burritos from the cart are better -- much better. And that's competition in the best sense -- not unfair, but pushing onwards towards a higher standard.
