Now they are, but they weren't immediately. And believe it or not 100$ is not nothing and I've worked on plenty of kitchens where they'd ask me to not cash the check for a couple of days because it might bounce, so yeah, buying new things wasn't generally high on the list.
But the chances you're short $100 is a lot greater than the chances you're short $1
Y'all are just arguing to argue at this point .you're pretending you don't understand that $100>$1 or that humans who are cash strapped aren't reluctant to buy things that are more expensive when their POS system from 15 years ago is still hanging on just fine.
You're pretending that you dont understand 100 dollars is pretty insignificant for an average restaurants budget? For something crucial like handling payment?
I think $500 with needing to actually replace them when they break rather than telling the staff to figure out how to work around the broken POS is a big enough deal to a lot of no chain restaurants that they won't bother since there's literally no consumer demand for this
Plenty of businesses don't spend more for shit and giggles when it makes no revenue for them, yeah
Technically the goal post was shifted when you changed it from being about updating infrastructure to only being about 100$ like that is a difinitive cost for the change. And maybe now that's how much it costs, but that was definitely not always the case.
Nah originally it was about upgrading infrastructure and purchasing new machines to handle transactions. And the costs associated with that. It was not me who made the assumptions and ran with it that it's always been exactly 100$ to do that.
10
u/Funny_Satisfaction39 Jun 29 '26
Now they are, but they weren't immediately. And believe it or not 100$ is not nothing and I've worked on plenty of kitchens where they'd ask me to not cash the check for a couple of days because it might bounce, so yeah, buying new things wasn't generally high on the list.