The First Bakery Decision

Huh? How does the market accomplish allowing people to choose either to eat at a certain restaurant or not? Who’s tracking what? Who’s tracking whom eats at a certain restaurant? Who’s spreading the word? Have you ever seen Facebook, etc.? Who’s dispelling false claims about what?

You spoke of a situation where the market doesn’t eat at an establishment that doesn’t freely allow backend inspections. Is that spread purely by word of mouth? If my competitor allows inspections but I tell all my customers he doesn’t to drive business away is there recourse? Are customers to inspect the kitchen every time to make sure access is still allowed?

In the land of hypotheticals, it’d depend on how trust worthy you are and how many people you can convince to not tell the truth.

Ultimately, lies will spread, especially in a competitive market like the food service industry … they gossip worse than sewing circles, there’s heavy turnover for staff and staff tends to bounce around between establishments. I’d be more inclined to frequent a place with low staff turnover and consistent quality - but that’s just me.

Also, keep in mind, if someone gets sick at a restaurant, and it still happens, and will always happen, by word of mouth people will stop going … snowball effect and all of that. These things don’t happen in a bubble.

Not really. There are plenty of restaurants in my town and I couldn’t tell you if anyone got sick at any of them. We don’t all live in Mayberry.

The thing is, the idea that allowing customers in the kitchen will somehow be some guarantee of quality and cleanliness is silly. Also, what about liability? If a customer slips in the kitchen or touches something hot and gets burned, is the restaurant liable or do they have customers sign waivers? Do customers with long hair have to wear hair nets or hats? What about their shoes? Are heels allowed or shoes that don’t have non-slip soles? Again, this is an idea that was not thought through.

1 Like

Actually I pointed out that people bothered by a restaurant that doesn’t allow inspections would not have to eat there.

Is it spread purely by word-of-mouth? Hell, I don’t know. If it’s not a particularly desirable quality, then probably. If it’s extremely desirable, then I imagine it would be advertised as loudly as possible.

If what you do qualifies as libel, then I suppose that would be applicable. Otherwise, they’re free to believe you, or to go check things out on their own.

Customers wouldn’t ever have to check the kitchen. I don’t think a law mandating customers perform inspections would be an improvement.

The idea that customers should inspect the kitchen is ridiculous. Most customers don’t know what to look for, don’t have time to perform the inspections, and allowing customers free access to the kitchen probably makes the kitchen very dirty and germy even if it was pristine to being with.There needs to be an organization that inspects and rates kitchens professionally.

The real question is whether or not that organization needs government power and funding. It’s conceivable that a private organization could certify restaurants to a cleanliness standard. Restaurants could chose to pay for this service or not. Customers could chose to take their chances at restaurants that aren’t certified.

2 Likes

Real question. Do you NOT talk to people other than on here? Are you not aware that people talk to each other? Inside and Outside of Mayberry?

lol - I can’t even take you seriously on this. “Not really” … yea ok bud. Have fun living under your rock

I guess I don’t see how the market replaces a concept like the health department in the real world. Is the replacement just immune to quality control problems in this scenario?

Lot of things come to mind here. Literally any tourist location, any member of society who isn’t connected enough to know the quality of every restaurant in town, the size of metro areas, anyone traveling for any reason.

Zecarlos points all make pretty good sense to me. How does anyone hope to keep up with which establishments have low quality kitchens in this imaginary uneducated consumer inspection run industry when there isn’t a central location for that knowledge, let alone a way to validate it

God forbid private actors figure this shit out without Government involvement.

image

I wouldn’t think so. Anything involving humans is going to have quality control problems. Is the health department immune to quality control problems? Private quality control has an incentive to do the job it’s being paid to do as well as possible. The health department has lots of guns to back it regardless.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but would a private health code entity require the buyin of a very large percentage of the population or it risks being useless?

Do you then have a company with a monopoly on verifying these restaurants (govt)? Do you have a ton of companies where you can now shop around for the answer you need? Do you have a barrier to start your own company of 1 that certifies your business as clean? Is there some type of central database to compile the results of these endless companies that may or may not conflict with one another?

All good questions. For a working example, look at safety standards for electrical equipment. Or credit reporting agencies. Or a bunch of other safety and compliance organizations.

Obviously, there are problems that come up and the systems aren’t perfect. Further, in many cases the government does mandate that third party testing is required for certain safety and environmental impact situations. However, it generally isn’t required for the government to be directly funding and monitoring the detailed ground work.

In regards to your questions, most markets end up with 2-5 major compliance bodies. The barriers to entry are similar to barriers to entry in most industries dominated by a few players. Central repositories are usually unnecessary as every regulatory body maintains its own database.

So the goal of replacing the health Dept with a privatized version would simply shift the funding from a different source? We’re just shifting the burden from the taxpayer to the business owner?

1 Like

Would a self-certification be as attractive to customers as one done by XYZ that has a good reputation for certifying restaurants with healthy practices? The fact that you seem worried you would fall prey to any certification is telling.

I think it was a legitimate question - what do you think is telling about his concern? I’m genuinely asking for my own curiosity.

1 Like

If you so lack the ability to think for yourself that you believe you would regard all certifications as equal, then freedom would not be your friend. What’s stunning is that someone with his apparent inability to think for himself is allowed to vote…which is thinking not only for himself but for everyone else.

I’m more worried about how society knows the difference between legit certs and dummy certs. Maybe it wouldn’t be common. I know in the IT space certs are faked all the time, as there’s very little due diligence done. Maybe I’m just projecting those fears.

Then again, with how uneducated the general populace is, I’d say anyone that isn’t worried by this new system with so many ??? topics is an idiot with no knowledge of human nature (not saying you).

What does thinking for yourself have to do with it? This would be a brand new concept that would require an immense amount of consumer education (and the inevitable fake education). New regs that give oversight ala credit companies, varying levels across state lines, an appeals process that needs hammering out, all spread out amongst 2-5 compliance companies which adds another layer of confusion.

Yes, except that it really ends up shifting to the restaurant goer (businesses always pass through their costs in the long term). Seems reasonable to me that people that don’t use restaurants shouldn’t pay taxes to support a system that benefits those that do use restaurants.

There are meal taxes in most municipalities, that bring in far more revenue than the health inspections cost. Therefore, the people who live in a municipality who don’t eat out and therefore don’t pay meal taxes are reaping the benefit already.

edited for clarity