Just a small quibble: the article says 211,000 restaurant workers were laid off or furloughed in March, from a base of 261,000 workers in February. That would be an 81% reduction in staff.
In Adam's defense, the MassLive headline says restaurants have cut 93% of staff, but the body of the article says that 93% of restaurants reported staff reductions.
Obviously, I'm not at all trying to minimize the impact of this loss on people's livelihoods. It's a staggering amount of job losses either way.
The statistics in the MassLive article don't support the article's headline, and thus the headline in Adam's piece is also wrong.
The relevant line in the MassLive article is "93% of Massachusetts restaurant operators cut staff in their establishments. The average reduction in staff was by 87%." Nowhere in the article does it give a percentage of total restaurant staff in the state who have been laid off.
One way of estimating that number would be to multiply 93% x 87% [0.93 x 0.87], and you get 0.81 or 81%.
That's still a lot, and it's an alarming number, but it's not 93% or even "nearly 90%."
It's also interesting that 7% of restaurants apparently haven't cut any of their staff, at least as of the date of that survey.
For the restaurants that I've been in, or walked past when they're open for take-out, I see the staff leaning on the counter and chit-chatting at times they're normally busy and running around. In other words, maybe they're hanging on, but nobody seems to be doing very well financially.
The only bright side I've seen is that at least in one local place, the tip jar has been looking pretty full.
Please remember; Order take-out from your local places once-in-a-while during quarantine. And tip well.
I suspect that it is more related to the absence of tourist and business travel into to the city, and the shut down of big corporate, personal, and sporting events than the simple closure of dining rooms.
Who knows but going out of business is not going to be reversed because of a 1200 dollar check.
This is catastrophic to the economy and beyond anything the Government can fix.
Scary times.
The article states that 93% of Mass. restuarants have laid off workers, not that 93% of all workers have been laid off. And according to the story, pre-Covid employment in the industry was 261K, and now it's 50K - which doesn't jibe with any of the percentages given.
Terrible news regardless. But the figures cited aren't clear at all.
Now is when we should get a sunset on the license caps done. There's going to be a ton of bankruptcies so those licenses are going to be owned by banks and commercial landlords anyways.
Comments
Just a small quibble: the
Just a small quibble: the article says 211,000 restaurant workers were laid off or furloughed in March, from a base of 261,000 workers in February. That would be an 81% reduction in staff.
In Adam's defense, the MassLive headline says restaurants have cut 93% of staff, but the body of the article says that 93% of restaurants reported staff reductions.
Obviously, I'm not at all trying to minimize the impact of this loss on people's livelihoods. It's a staggering amount of job losses either way.
A good chunk of the restaurants are never coming back.
And many owners will be saddled with insurmountable debt for the rest of their lives.
I know people are doing take-out but not being able to sell booze im sure makes a lot of these places barely able to keep their lights on.
The high falutin' days of Artisan Cocktails hand crafted by a 1860's cosplaying bearded bro-dude in suspenders are long gone.
Statistics don't match the headline
The statistics in the MassLive article don't support the article's headline, and thus the headline in Adam's piece is also wrong.
The relevant line in the MassLive article is "93% of Massachusetts restaurant operators cut staff in their establishments. The average reduction in staff was by 87%." Nowhere in the article does it give a percentage of total restaurant staff in the state who have been laid off.
One way of estimating that number would be to multiply 93% x 87% [0.93 x 0.87], and you get 0.81 or 81%.
That's still a lot, and it's an alarming number, but it's not 93% or even "nearly 90%."
It's also interesting that 7% of restaurants apparently haven't cut any of their staff, at least as of the date of that survey.
Wow.
Just, wow.
When people 20 years from now wonder how bad it was, that headline should tell them everything they need to know.
and take-out seems slow
For the restaurants that I've been in, or walked past when they're open for take-out, I see the staff leaning on the counter and chit-chatting at times they're normally busy and running around. In other words, maybe they're hanging on, but nobody seems to be doing very well financially.
The only bright side I've seen is that at least in one local place, the tip jar has been looking pretty full.
Please remember; Order take-out from your local places once-in-a-while during quarantine. And tip well.
Huge hit
I suspect that it is more related to the absence of tourist and business travel into to the city, and the shut down of big corporate, personal, and sporting events than the simple closure of dining rooms.
Still ... ouch.
Huh?
It's most definitely related to the closure of dining rooms. What in the world are you talking about?
How many of those jobs are gone forever?
Who knows but going out of business is not going to be reversed because of a 1200 dollar check.
This is catastrophic to the economy and beyond anything the Government can fix.
Scary times.
The #s Are Confused
The article states that 93% of Mass. restuarants have laid off workers, not that 93% of all workers have been laid off. And according to the story, pre-Covid employment in the industry was 261K, and now it's 50K - which doesn't jibe with any of the percentages given.
Terrible news regardless. But the figures cited aren't clear at all.
Now employed by
the State of Massachusetts!
Liquor license cap
Now is when we should get a sunset on the license caps done. There's going to be a ton of bankruptcies so those licenses are going to be owned by banks and commercial landlords anyways.
3 years sounds about right?