Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Aristosus t1_izkm71b wrote

I don't think so, not when you're hungry at 2am and your only choices are crappy $1 slices or McDonald's in the city that's supposed to never sleep

30

oreosfly t1_izkqn61 wrote

> refused to go back to their old schedules.

This tells me that the 24/7 model was never sustainable in the first place.

Businesses exist to make money. If there was good money to be made during the overnight hours, businesses would stay open. Clearly that is not the case. Businesses closed during lockdown, reopened with reduced hours, then realized "hey, I'm not actually making that much more money staying open 24/7, so I'm just going to close at 10pm now".

2

Simmangodz t1_izkr6u3 wrote

Well, it's a catch 22. Now that restaurants close early, no one wants to go out at night. Since no one is out and about late night, restaurants close early.

29

Aristosus t1_izkwhcz wrote

I have no problem understanding the economics behind their decisions—it makes sense—but that doesn't contradict what I said. It's just a shame that most would rather cut their losses and stay closed than take advantage of any late night demand or even encourage it. People won't go looking for food if there aren't any options.

4

Rottimer t1_izl9y12 wrote

It was sustainable pre-pandemic because a lot of infrastructure and services revolved around workers traveling into the office. If I stayed past 8pm at work, my job paid for my dinner and paid for a cab ride home. Obviously that wasn't them being generous. It was encouraging late hours onsite in the office.

Now I still may have to work way past 8pm - but I do so in my pajamas and raid my own fridge and I don't have to commute once I'm done - I shuffle over to my bed and fall asleep. The result of that though is a lot of places that might stay open late and employ delivery people in Manhattan, no longer do so if they're even still in business.

3