I love articles like this. I’d happily read a book with each chapter breaking down the unit economics of a given type of business.
Also, I can’t help but recount an anecdote from the last time I was at an all-you-can-eat place… conveyor-belt sushi with my kids.
A pair of guys came in and sat at the table next to us. They said a loud ironic prayer begging indulgence for “the sins we are about to commit” as they sat down… then proceeded to unwrap all the fish rolls, eating the contents as sashimi and discarding the rice and veggies on a tray on their table. By the time we left there was probably 8 lbs of rice on the tray… can’t believe they weren’t kicked out.
Deliberate food wasters are despicable.
It's rice. It's not like they're wasting anything significant, like the meat of an animal that gave its life. But still, the restaurant should have charged them for it at least, like every other all you can eat sushi place would have.
"like the meat of an animal that gave its life." - that's generally not how it works.
Outside of some restaurants in South Korea, we generally only eat dead animals.
I assume the GP takes issue with the word "gave", as it was not given but taken.
Can something be taken without being given?
If I kill you and take your land/stuff/body, did you give it or did I take it?
Both.
A question for the pedants.
No. That is why there is no word or concept for theft
Rice has a significant climate footprint due to the methane produced by the agriculture. It also requires a lot of fresh water to grow. (How much of an issue the latter is depends on the local conditions, of course.)
There's few things in your life that will impact the environment less than not finishing a bowl of rice.
That may be true, if done on occasion rather than regularly. But just because it's "only" rice doesn't make it insignificant, even though rice is such a staple that it may seem so. That's what I commented on.
Food in general is a significant part of our ecological footprint. Rice has a relatively high impact for a crop. Of course it's still in a different ballpark than beef.
Depends on the amount of rice obviously. Rice farming definitely has an impact on the environment in bulk. Now divide that by the amount of rice in a roll and we'll see how significant it is.
I'm guessing it's very, very small.
you're right, but a lifestyle that makes a habit of adding those small things up left and right becomes impactful quickly.
Don't forget as well that it's not only a case of them not eating the rice, they also massively increased their intake of fish by skipping the carbs.
Bit of a tangent, but nearly all foods have an animal death rate per calorie, so there's no such thing as insignificant food.
The exchange rate is usually better for grains than for e.g. chicken or even beef[0], though.
[0] https://animalvisuals.org/projects/1mc/ Note that I'm a little skeptical of the numbers here, particularly those for grass-fed beef. Not that it matters for the purpose of claiming rice has a cost in lives.
Relevant SMBC: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-10-09
Kind of an interesting link. Another thing to keep in mind is that the rice patty being there means a natural habitat is now lost to make way for the farm. In truth there is no guilt free meal or anything else.
I think this is an interesting idea, and people inclined towards veganism might be able to better achieve their goals by going for a suffering-minimizing diet, but the studies this is based on aren't very good. For example:
> 33 field mice were fitted with radio collars and tracked before and after harvest. The researchers found that only 3 percent of them were actually killed by the combine harvester (amounting to one mouse). An additional 52 percent of them (17 mice) were killed following harvest by predators such as owls and weasels, possibly due to their loss of the crop cover. It is unknown how many of these mice would have been eaten by owls or weasels anyway.
That last sentence is key: without a control you can't draw much from this experiment.
Additionally, while they say "animals" many times they're not clear on which ones they're including. The decision on whether to consider insects would be especially important.
Well, we can relatively easily put a dollar value on human lives, too.
So any kind of waste that we can put a dollar value on, also has a value in human lives.
Make of that what you will.
All food waste is significant.
Not really.
Carbohydrates are much cheaper than proteins and fat.
Proteins and fat of vegetable origin are cheaper than those of animal origin, but they come accompanied by excessive amounts of carbohydrates.
The most efficient way of getting food for human consumption for now is to dump as waste most of the carbohydrates from vegetables and retain only the valuable proteins and fat (this can be done at home for instance by making bread but washing the dough before baking in order to remove most of the starch, producing thus a protein-enriched bread, or by removing completely the starch by extra washing of the dough, converting in into gluten a.k.a. seitan).
The high proportion of carbohydrates from vegetable food can be used completely only by those who do hard physical work, but not by those who have a sedentary lifestyle, who must necessarily dump the carbohydrates as waste, either directly or indirectly (by buying food where the carbohydrates have already been wasted in various ways, including as energy sources for animals that have been raised for becoming food).
In the future it might be possible to develop better ways to use the carbohydrates that must be wasted now, by converting them with high efficiency into proteins or fat, by using bacterial or fungal cultures.
Are you arguing that wasting meat is more significant than wasting vegetation? I agree, but that doesn't diminish the fact that wasting both is significant.
Are you arguing that everyone should be vegetarian? That's a topic I was not even remotely touching on.
Quite the opposite
It was rice but rice is a filler. Don’t know that the ratio is but let’s say 1:4 non-rice to rice. Dumping the rice skews that a lot.
Ironically the word "sushi" refers to the rice, not the topping. Rice properly seasoned with vinegar and sugar is the one essential ingredient in sushi. If there's no rice it's no longer sushi.
The word has a broader meaning in English, though. We'll often refer to things like raw fish alone, ie sashimi, as sushi.
Someone had to plant it, then water it and cultivate it, then harvest it, then package it, then ship it god knows how many miles, then the restaurant cooked it, prepared it, then they just threw it away. Then comes the trash processing chain.
How is that not a completely useless waste of energy, time, money and resources?
It's a safe assumption that such all you can eat sushi was of mediocre quality.
But, when it comes to the real deal. Sushi from a tier one or two Japanese sushi chef then the rice is actually the most important factor in making good sushi.
Discarding the rice would be seen as comparatively barbarian as dunking a freshly made piece of sushi by a good chef into this mixture of soya sauce and ersatz "wasabi".
More despicable than other kinds of wasters? Eating only the part of the food you like can't be that morally different from buying a sporty car that wastes gas, for example.
They hacked the business model.
Kicked out for what? If they want to disincentivize wasting rice, they should charge for leftovers and offer sashimi as an upsell. If they don't, that's on the restaurant.
That line of thinking usually pairs with 'If there isn't a law against it then it must be Ok'. So the world becomes burdened with complex rules and laws to prevent people having to live in a hellscape of Jerks.
I don't eat rice; I've been strictly keto for over a decade. My health choices make me a jerk?
Some people are allergic to rice. Some people are on medically prescribed diets. Maybe there's an obscure religion that forbids eating rice. Some people just don't like rice. Are they all jerks too?
That restaurant wouldn't be my preference, but if I did have to be there for an important reason, I certainly wouldn't be bullied into eating something I didn't want to eat. I'm generally strict about wasting food, but in that situation I wouldn't feel even slightly guilty about it.
Ordering a dish that is mostly rice knowing that you won't/can't eat it is being a jerk, yes. I don't know about that restaurant, but I've never seen a sushi place that didn't also serve sashimi.
"If they want to disincentivize wasting rice, they should [...] offer sashimi as an upsell."
I know, reading is hard.
You could simply eat elsewhere where they sell more suitable fare or avoid negative comments.
"That restaurant wouldn't be my preference, but if I did have to be there for an important reason, [...]"
There simply isn't a case in which you need to eat there unless the nuclear missiles are on their way and you happen to be out front and want a bite to eat before the end.
You have identified an aspect of the person with yourself and even though you yourself presumably don't walk acting like a jerk feel like you need to justify their misbehavior as if you were defending yourself. You don't need to keep defending them.
You're arguing against a straw man. I've actually been to events without food options that accommodated my diet, and I've been served meals on planes that included buns and sweets which ended up in the trash. No nukes involved.
If that makes some strangers on the Internet think I'm a "jerk", so be it.
If it's accidentally becoming a strawman, it's only by virtue of trying to tie it back to the original post. People didn't realize your goalposts were a mile away from those goalposts.
If you're given a single serving without asking, then you have almost no resemblance to the people being criticized here.
Your earlier post said you "wouldn't feel even slightly guilty" about wasting food in a way that implied you would act similarly to the people being criticized here, taking a whole bunch of pieces. If you do that, you should feel guilty. If you weren't trying to imply a similarity, you communicated your point badly.
All I suggested was that they were very quick to demand that people be forcibly ejected based on insufficient information.
I'd rather see the restaurant try to solve a problem than arbitrarily punish people, especially when "people" might include myself under the wrong circumstances. But I guess no one likes to hear nuance.
If you were trying to suggest nuance, you didn't do a great job of it.
"in that situation I wouldn't feel even slightly guilty about it" is jumping to the opposite extreme.
You definitely suggested more than that.
You definitely suggested more than that.
Then you're reading something I didn't say.
If you do that, you should feel guilty.
Guilty of what? It's a business, not a charity. If that's where I happen to be stuck having dinner, and if they're unwilling to accommodate my preferences even at additional cost, I'm not going to go hungry or cheat on my diet purely out of politeness.
They can either solve the problem and increase their revenue, or accept that they've created an edge case situation where some food will be wasted. Punishing their customers would accomplish nothing except loss of business and negative Yelp reviews.
It's not politeness.
If we distill "all you can eat" down to the basics, you take a small amount, you eat it, only then do you get more.
It's generally fine to reorder those actions, such as by getting more food upfront, but the outcome needs to be the same as the basic version. That's the business deal being made. If you make a deal with the intent to break it, you should feel guilty, outside of exceptional circumstances.
If they're not willing to serve something acceptable to you, that's bad of them, but it doesn't mean you get to break the rules. Even if you "had" to be there for some external reason.
Also ejecting someone, or cutting off their supply, is probably nicer than charging them for eight pounds of extra food.
And again, this only applies to all you can eat situations. Not other restaurants, not plane meals.
I've never agreed to that specific deal at any ACYE place. If that's what they want to do, and they're clear about it up front, that's fine. If they're willing to charge a premium for waste, that's less ideal than a broader menu which avoids the waste, but at least it's an option.
What they shouldn't do is arbitrarily add new terms to the deal after the fact. Customers should be allowed to make an informed decision. If I know that they'll kick me out for eating, I can decide whether to leave or stick around and eat later. If they just kick me out without warning in the middle of my meeting/event/whatever, no one is happy and they look like assholes.
In practice, these are questions I would ask before paying and sitting down, but that shouldn't be expected. The business should either state its terms up front, or provide an early warning when they notice the behavior and offer a full or partial refund. Waiting until someone has eight pounds of rice piled up and then suddenly kicking them out is a ridiculous escalation, and they'd only lose more money when the customer rightfully disputed the charge.
All of this isn't to say that the guys in the story weren't necessarily in the wrong. What I am saying is that we simply don't know. Demanding they be kicked out is making an awful lot of assumptions. We have no idea why they were there or what their interactions with the staff may have been. As other comments have pointed out, there's a good chance that they were in fact charged for the leftovers.
You're probably focusing on the wrong thing if you're jumping to the defense of people who leave things on the plate for any reason.
The actual controversy here is that the folks in the story clearly thought they were cheating the system, and people are responding without questioning that, and some people are questioning that.
That's certainly a possibility, but none of us have enough information to say for sure.
The sins thing is about as clear as you can get.
Unless you're going to call the entire story fake, then yes we have enough information.
You could always speak with the staff about your dietary restrictions as is standard practice for the allergic, intolerant, and such.
If they can accommodate your request, and they typically will, you’re golden. If not, you may need to patronize a different business. It is, after all, a reciprocal relationship. If your basic needs aren’t met, and they have a stiff policy on substitution - then yes, you are a jerk for ignoring them.
That's exactly my point.
That's actually precisely the problem. People abusing the system make things more difficult for people who have legitimate reasons to be the exception to the rule (e.g. people with allergies).
That's a problem, but it's not the problem. I'm not sure why you guys are acting like it's an unreasonable suggestion for a sushi restaurant to serve sashimi.
Because living in a world where every bad behavior is prevented through enforcement mechanisms and bureaucratic procedure sucks ass, compared to a world where people generally speaking follow a social contract. If you can't understand why then you might not be thinking about it hard enough. It introduces friction, especially on those who would already have behaved well.
This is the internet after all.
Sushi restaurants also selling sashimi is "bureaucratic"? That's a strange take.
Why? Charging for leftovers and offering sashimi as an upsell is certainly one mechanism the restaurant can use. And so is reserving the right to refuse serving customers they don't like, and making use of that right every once in a while.
It's up to the market (ie patrons and restraunts) to decide which mix of policies they prefer.
They're free to use that mechanism, but it shouldn't come as a surprise to the customer. That accomplishes nothing other than wasted food, upset patrons, and credit card disputes.
Ultimately depends on the restaurant - we had an AYCE sushi, hibachi restaurant we loved with a style different than a conveyor belt that gracefully handled the issue.
The restaurant had a to-go by-weight option. For the dine in patrons, you would check boxes on a menu slip with your order, quantity, etc.
Their menu included a simple request that patrons reasonably finish each plate before submitting a new order, that being honest kept their prices reasonable, and that patrons wasting entire orders would be charged on a per-weight basis for the wasted order at their discretion.
Why should they be? It's likely that the restaurant still charged them for the full price of the plates that were removed from the belt, regardless of whether or not they ate everything that was on said plate.
If they're otherwise quiet, respectful and paying customers, what about picking apart their food warrants kicking them out? As another user suggested, what happens if you don't eat the crust at a pizza joint?
Edit: Since I'm getting a lot of similar replies here, I'll point out that OP has since clarified that the conveyor belt sushi joint that they went to, contrary to how they are usually run, did in fact charge a "flat fee" for access to the sushi train. Hence my confusion - this is a deviation from the norm.
Edit 2: Kinda interesting watching the up/downvote progression in this thread. My initial post, despite being incorrect, was decently upvoted. Now that I've clarified that I was wrong and tried to correct myself, I'm getting downvoted. Neat!
At all-you-can-eat buffets, customers are charged a flat rate, not per plate.
Obviously this breaks down if people are taking plates of food and chucking them in the trash.
EDIT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ro2_bQkaG5U&t=84s
OP specifically specifies that this was a "conveyor-belt sushi" restaurant. Those are only "all you can eat" in the sense that you're welcome to pull as many plates as you'd like off of the belt, but each plate is usually priced at one of a few different levels, and you will be charged for the total value of the plates you removed from the belt.
Eg, if yellow plates are $1, blue plates are $2, and orange plates are $3, and you pulled two orange plates, a blue plate and a yellow plate, your total would come out to $9 even if you didn't clear your plates.
So either that isn't all-you-can-eat, or I don't understand the definition of all-you-can-eat.
The confusion, as clarified elsewhere between GP and I in this thread, lies in the fact that you don't usually see an actual "all you can eat conveyor belt sushi" restaurant - they traditionally charge by the plate but you're welcome to order as much as you want. In point of fact, the restaurant OP went to bucked that trend and was actually a flat-fee conveyor belt joint.
As far as I can tell, most conveyor belt sushi places charge by plate.
But most all-you-can-eat sushi places use a conveyor belt.
“All you can eat” rarely means “you can eat as much as you can afford” but rather means “you pay one price and can eat as much as you like for that price”.
That a conveyor belt is involved doesn’t change the offer.
Correct. The confusion, as noted elsewhere in this comment chain, lies in the fact that most conveyor belt sushi joints are not all you can eat, and the format of the restaurant that OP went to is rare.
They clearly said it was all-you-can-eat and the behavior and reaction are very much fitting the context. Why are you assuming you know better than them the restaurant they went to?
Yes, flat-rate sushi conveys exist.
OP clarified, and I thanked them for clarifying and acknowledged I was wrong. I've further mentioned as much in additional comments[1, 2, 3], and I've edited my original post to clear things up. Care to continue being snarky despite my attempts to correct myself?
And are, by and large, less common than per-plate joints, hence the confusion.
[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38562397
[2]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38563087
[3]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38563030
I've visited two conveyor-belt sushi locations - one in Japan and one here in the US. The one in Japan followed the colored plate system, however the US one just worked off a flat $20 fee.
That's not how this place works, and clearly it would have been less offensive behavior if it was.
No this anecdote is about conveyor belt sushi, which in my experience is pay by the color coded plate
No, in this case, it was a flat rate up front.
Basically 100% a buffet except the table moves to you (which, to the point of the original article, waiting for your preferred sushi to come around probably slows down consumption and improves the economics)
Obviously if people want to buy food and waste it that's on them. But this was a pretty clear abuse of the restaurant's business model as well.
This place charged a flat fee at the door, then everything inside is all-you-can-eat.
Interesting, I've never seen that at a conveyor-belt sushi joint before. That's not how they traditionally operate.
There's a conveyor belt hot pot by me which does it both ways. You choose whether everyone at the table will do the normal method where they count up your plates and price based on the color, or pay a flat rate for however much you wish to eat. In the case of the latter, they reserve the right to tack on a fee if you're wasting food.
it sounds like it was an all you can eat place, the few one I go to has signs up saying if you don't eat what you take you may be charged an extra plate (I've never seen them actually enforce it, I assume it's more for people who go make a giant bowl and then eat almost none of it).
Conveyor-belt sushi does not charge the same way a traditional "all you can eat" buffet restaurant charges. See my comment here[0].
[0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38562309
This one does/did.
Most all-you-can-eat places I've been to have rules against food waste.
Because people didn't know you were wrong before, and it's usually good to make factually incorrect comments be gray.
I've toyed around with the idea of doing an article where the spreadsheet gets progressively more complicated with how to model major business types.
Maybe I should do it!
Please do. I for one would be interested!
Seconded!
Thirded
I'm sure you get the idea, but I'll go forth as well.
(Pun intended)
In my opinion you could teach both economics and common spreadsheet usage. Just please do not make it Excel-specific, many people here use Linux desktops. I would suggest LO Calc as it runs everywhere, or maybe Google Sheets as a distant second.
Thanks for the suggestion!
I was planning Google Sheets, since I'm on Linux and don't have excel.
I am hoping for something I can embed in the actual article.
I didn't even know about LO Calc. I'll check it out.
I would subscribe to this too!
Please do. That would be great. Thanks
I would love to know about the economics of theme parks. They require huge amounts of land, a massive upfront capital investment in the rides, and require a ton of logistics to coordinate the many workers required to run a place that often isn’t open year round (thinking Carowinds or six flags, not Disney). They also have to advertise continuously and serve an extremely elastic industry (people will cut theme park visits before cutting down on grocery store visits).
Like when do operators decide to invest in a new ride and what’s the payback cycle like?
The Park Database has a great 3-park blog series on the business of theme parks. This is part I, the others are linked from there: http://www.theparkdb.com/blog/the-business-of-theme-parks-pa...
They have a really interesting blog overall.
This is amazing. Thanks for the link! If someone else reads this comment please upvote this person.
There's also this video from Wendover Productions on that topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oESoI6XxZTg
Of course, elasticity goes in both directions. Demand that can be cut quickly, can also expand quickly.
Toilet paper is almost the opposite. And the extremely inelastic (and thus stable) demand means that competition is sharp and everything needs to be hyperoptimized for your business to stand a chance. There's almost no slack in the system, because that would be a needless expense.
I believe I once read a quip in The Economist about golf courses being a good investment for the second owner (the first usually going bankrupt).
Have pondered slurping down pizza toppings and discarding the crusts...
I had an acquaintance about a decade ago who did this on the grounds that they were “gluten sensitive”. It was weird.
My cousin who has Coeliac disease used to do this every so often. We also made pizza with a non-wheat base for her.
Can't really fault her for this weirdness, she has it rough enough.
People eating “low carb” also do this. It’s recommended in the Atkins book IIRC.
I'd be interested in seeing a study on different health outcomes for crust-eaters and crust-avoiders in their 30s and 40s. Do crust-avoiders (or hambuger-bun avoiders) suffer less from obesity or type 2 diabetes due to getting that much less intake of carbs?
Pizza meats are incredibly high in fat, the cheese is very high in fat and sugar, and the sauce is high in sugar. It's possible the bread is the least calorie dense part of the pizza per unit of satiety.
Not 100% on-point, but check out Roadside MBA, [1] which was written by a trio of MBA professors. Instead of using the case study method with examples from huge companies, they do a deep dive on small businesses that they visited on cross-country roadtrips. Very entertaining and accessible.
1: https://www.amazon.com/Roadside-MBA-Entrepreneurs-Executives...
The hardcover costs $5. I think it's the cheapest brand new hardcover price I've seen.
Edit: It's $5 for a used edition. Then my comment is now moo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62necDwQb5E
The author (Paul Oyer, Yale MBA) also has some entertaining videos, and a book, on the economics of online dating.
I actually reached out to him to see if he would sign a copy of the book for my daughter, with whom I read the book during COVID. He was happy to do so, and did the same for his new book on the economics of sports.
I don't plan to read the book about online dating with my daughter, but perhaps she'll read it on her own someday!
Sometimes NPR's Planet Money podcast does this but it's generally 10-15 minutes at a pop coverage of a specific theory or news item for general audience, they covered buffets recently in a different way
https://www.npr.org/2023/10/27/1197954459/all-you-can-eat-bu...
I find NPR Planet Money to be the shallowest and most unsatisfying of takes possible on pretty much every issue they take on.
It’s often the starting point for me to investigate something further, even This American Life might mention something and I have to look it up for proper context.
Any better recommendations? I used to listen to 99% invisible, but the quality is not always sustained. Planet Money is rather entertaining still.
I've never been to an AYCE sushi joint that didn't charge for the leftovers described in this example, for what it's worth.
Yeah every conveyor belt place I have been to just charges by the plate.
The closest thing I could think of was the economics of everyday things.
https://freakonomics.com/series/everyday-things/
Available as a podcast
Check out a book called Growth Units, which dives into unit economics across different business types.
The profit calculator from NYMag was a great series of articles about the economics of business from investment banks, to drug dealers, to yoga studios. https://nymag.com/news/features/2007/profit/
I mean, they are perfectly within their right if that behavior is not explicitly disallowed.
Over here, all-you-can-eat Asian shops generally operate on one of two principles (sometimes combined):
1. You can only order 5 things per person per 10 minutes
2. For every X amount of weight left over you pay a penalty
Sounds like a category error, confusing the sadism of extracting oversized value from restaurateur with the deliciousness of food.
At least, I've never had a hankering for a water and a half pound of tiny slivers of sashimi.
The prank of taking the same amount of sushi and leaving it in a neat stack would be closer to enlightenment.