So from your position food has no intrinsic value?
I'm trying to understand the argument. I see it that food has a number of attributes, flavor, dietary compatibility, accessibility, and quantity. And it has a cost. There is an internal 'value' evaluation that is done when the cost is compared to the other attributes which results in a buy/no-buy decision. Sometimes those things are artificially manipulated (like having to buy a $1.50 hot dog at AT&T part for $5 if you want to eat it).
But in all cases the 'cost to produce' doesn't enter into it until you aren't making enough sales to make ends meet. If the food is equivalent between a truck and a restaurant why wouldn't the truck charge a bit more to capitalize on the fact that they are here and if you want it eat it from the restaurant you have to go drive off somewhere to get it?
I see your point and I agree. That's fine and well if they want to match their prices to restaurants. It's their business and I'll probably still eat it. My point was that they have the option to lower their prices and attract more customers so I'm not sure why more aren't doing that. If the food truck craze wears off and they are having to compete on an even playing field with full-service restaurants that also offer quick and more consistent to-go food, can they survive?
Granted, my experience with food trucks have been in locations where they are parked in a block with multiple other food options and the convenience factor has been removed.
It isn't, but usually not in the way you'd think: in my experience food truck food beats most restaurant food in the same price range.
I don't find (most) food truck food overpriced at all - the food truck "revolution" seems to be almost exclusively centered around gourmet-on-wheels, rather than street-meat.
If you're slinging around stereotypical burgers and fries you will get no business - the successful food trucks around here seem to have struck a balance between eclectic taste and broad appeal, and the quality of the fare is always on par, if not better than, B&M restaurants.
I'm trying to understand the argument. I see it that food has a number of attributes, flavor, dietary compatibility, accessibility, and quantity. And it has a cost. There is an internal 'value' evaluation that is done when the cost is compared to the other attributes which results in a buy/no-buy decision. Sometimes those things are artificially manipulated (like having to buy a $1.50 hot dog at AT&T part for $5 if you want to eat it).
But in all cases the 'cost to produce' doesn't enter into it until you aren't making enough sales to make ends meet. If the food is equivalent between a truck and a restaurant why wouldn't the truck charge a bit more to capitalize on the fact that they are here and if you want it eat it from the restaurant you have to go drive off somewhere to get it?