Maybe, but the strong implication of…
…is that they actually managed to reduce costs so they aren’t losing money, just not making the profit other places do off of selling them at “market value”.
I could be mistaken though, maybe it really is a loss leader and “fair return” is actually “gets enough people to come shop at CostCo/is a major factor in people deciding to renew $100ish yearly memberships” or something like that.
That makes employees into full time employees which triggers a ton of extra regulations that have enforcement costs in and of themselves and many also have direct costs (like a health care requirement). So I expect that 50 cents to a dollar is a significant underestimate. Or at least maybe since Starbucks does pay insurance (I think after a year’s employment maybe), and while they have high prices they sure aren’t sky high.
Yeah, you can feel the difference if you go to CostCo or Starbucks. Or more obviously compare Starbucks inside a Target store (which gets staffed by Target employees) v. a “real” Starbucks store.
I generally prefer the place with the employees that actually give a crap (which tends to have higher prices, but doesn’t always), but as you say they don’t always exist.
I thought the $1.50 includes a drink, it is the $1.50 hot dog and soda combo. The soda doesn’t add much to the cost, but it does eliminate the possibility of selling $0.20 of sugarbird water and cup for $1 and adding $0.80 profit to the transaction.