Hacker News Reader

Comment by morleytj | Hacker News Reader

A similar situation in the US can be seen in Boston. Historically terrible nightlife and for easily explained reasons. Liquor licenses are distributed by the state at a capped amount that can potentially be increased each year, meaning the majority of new businesses wanting to have alcohol sales will need to purchase an existing liquor license from another business, often at an exorbitant price (over 500k USD on average I believe)

This makes it extremely difficult for any new businesses to start, and massively advantages large chain businesses that have the ability to make the initial investment in securing a license, versus small or quirky businesses which just have no chance getting started.

View on HN

This makes so much sense to me. I've always thought Boston's nightlife was terrible when compared to places in Texas. You go to Austin and there are the most random bars, clubs, and restaurants. Most have their own quirks and personality, making it so no one place is exactly like the other.

Unfortunately most people don't seem to understand that over regulation can end up benefitting bigger more established businesses, simply because it raises the barrier to entry.

If this is one of those sought-after business zones in a rich area, there are only X slots to fill, and somehow it's decided who gets them. Take away liquor licenses, and the barrier will be rent instead. If you want lower barriers, there simply has to be more real estate available in that one area.

It's usually like this in other cities, the rich areas have high-investment establishments that play it safe. Maybe that's ok if you want something mainstream and/or high-end.

There are some pretty awesome small, unique bars in Boston, but there could be so, so many more if the liquor license laws and rent prices were more reasonable, though.

Why do you need a liquor license for nightlife. There is more to life than just drinking alcohol.

"Night life" tends to refer to bars and clubs, and regardless of your personal stance on drinking the majority of people going to bars and clubs expect to be able to drink alcohol.

Because the economics of it are such that there's where you get your money. How much cover charge are you willing to pay to go out to a club playing local talent on a random weeknight? A cover charge that would actually cover costs at a venue with no bar would be exorbitantly expensive. This is why many places with cheap cover have a drink minimum.

Yeah, this is actually a problem for venues now that younger generations drink less alcohol.

People will drink a beer every set in a show, but they’re less likely to do that with coffee, soda, THC drink, or any other beverage except water, which most bar venues offer for free.

You can sell other drinks, food, entertainment, services, games, etc. Alcohol isn't the only thing people are able to do at night. There are plenty of activities that are possible.

I've thought the same thing. Would love if other people were into that.

I'd ask you to consider the following thought experiment. If the regulatory barriers are lower to establish a nightlife business establishment without alcohol as an option, and a large number of people want to do activities without alcohol, why do these businesses not exist in significant numbers?

It's certainly not a novel concept to open a cafe or a late night board game location. If they were sustainable businesses economically, which barriers currently exist that prevent them from being present in cities to the same extent as bars?

Alcohol doesn't just make more money because it has huge margins. It has decent margin, high profit per unit, and a magic trick: it makes people less cautious about spending more.

I have no interest in a second coke or a third coffee. I can drink tea for days, but if it feels pricey I probably only have one or two. Real estate is expensive if that's your customer profile

Alcohol is famously super high margin, though. People will pay like $5-10 for a 54¢ shot of Costco vodka or rum at a comedy club and another $5 if you mix 10¢ of cola into it, you simply can't get the same margins out of even very expensive feeling food which usually needs more labor and prep.

In addition, alcohol lowers the bar for entertainment. Comedy, music, dancing, none of it has to be as good to satisfy if people are at least a bit tipsy, which makes the performers happier, and the customers happier.

Businesses that sell alcohol make a lot of money, businesses that don't tend to go out of business.

Wish it weren't so (I don't drink alcohol, personally), but that's the economics of it.

Sure, and offering gambling is another good way to make a lot of money. Yet, we don't see every business offer gambling to its patrons.

Yes, because you won't go out of business if you don't offer gambling, whereas you will if you don't offer alcohol.

Fruit machines aren’t uncommon in pubs and late night takeaway places in the UK.

Plenty of restaurants don't have alcohol. Night clubs are a different story.

Because you can't drink caffeine at night and we don't have any competing depressants.

You certainly can drink caffeine at night. But maybe that's just a sign I am too habituated to caffeine, because I can drink it and have no ill effects on my sleep schedule.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com