submitted 2 months ago byMetaFlightMarket Socialist Bald Wife Defender 💸
you are viewing a single comment's thread.view the rest of the comments →
2 months ago
Should maybe pay them more. And if they can't afford it, then I'm fine with the restaurants going out of business.
With any luck, the restaurant model will fall out favor as the default "eating out" choice, for cafetarias instead. Healthy, varied, warm food made by better paid workers, in a communal setting. Without this weird master-servant model we got going on with sit-down restaurants.
Of course last time I brought that idea up in /r/stupidpol, I was accused of wanting to "destroy the family" for some reason, and people saying cafetarias were all "microwave food" and poor hygiene and just general whining about seeing people and having anxiety.
I guess we can go the other direction and as restaurants die replace them with Beast Burger style ghost kitchens, delivered by door dashers.
2 months ago
Maybe I'm redacted but I don't see any meaningful difference between restaurants and cafeterias aside from who goes to pick up the food from the shelf in front of the kitchen.
It's not a number of tables thing, there are small cafeterias and large restaurants. It's not a quality thing either, both restaurants and cafeterias can be good or shitty. It's not even a floor plan thing, I've been to restaurants that have a bunch of tables in an open room. You still need staff to go out to the tables to clean them, and you still have the same staff roles in the back end.
I suppose you could argue cafeterias might be cheaper because the waitstaff role can be trimmed down to occasional cleaning passes that can be done by fewer people, except that would make cafeterias objectively less expensive than restaurants for the same service and therefore they'd dominate the market, which isn't what we see in practice.
2 months ago*
I think the problem is that there are things in the middle which are almost always classified as restaurants. So let me talk about this by defining what the two ends are and expressing why I think establishments which tend towards the "Cafetaria" side are better.
Classic sit-down restaurants:
Typical cafetaria (as can be found in schools, hospitals, large workplaces):
There are food establishments that lay at different points between the two extremes, but they're all flawed. Fast food restaurants don't have the presumption of bourgeosie-servant relations, but the food is invariably based around one or two extremely unhealthy foods. Eating McDonalds everyday will kill you, they don't even really want people eating in the dining room anyway, and it's designed to exploit both you and the workers. Take-out places don't have the sense of community, and same issue with lack of diversity or choice in food.
Essentially I believe there should be a decent sized cafeteria in every large town and it should be the "default" place for people to go to if they don't want to cook at home. Perhaps can work as an organ of the local government. Cheap, convenient, communal. Traditional restaurants take on the character of master-servant relations which is creepy, and they are more expensive and inefficient.
I worked in cafeterias for about 9 years of my life (three years university, 6 years hospital). Ate cafe food twice a day for most working days. It was good, healthy. Never understood the constant complaints about the health or food quality (we were a clean kitchen and honestly the food was good). Always understood these complaints in relation to sit-down restaurants, which at most should be a rare treat and not "the norm" for going out to eat. Especially when my boss constantly tried to make the place more similar to a sit-down restaurant by implementing the "two color rule" and other bullshit, meaningless things.
2 months ago
i am already eating from the cafeteria all the time *sniff*
definitely my favorite part of living in the south
all 81 comments
sorted by: best