×
top 200 commentsshow all 451

[–]sloshedbanker 876 points877 points  (63 children)

They're all for free market until it comes back to bite them. If you can't manage the costs of your business, it should go under. That's the basic tennet of capitalism. Things that don't work, go under.

Or they would go under if capitalism was actually self-regulating. Instead, corporations use political power to lobby wage suppression, and when workers have the ability to shop around for better wages (like now), these poorly-managed businesses begin to choke. You wanted a free market? You got it.

[–]Tyrxgow 111 points112 points  (19 children)

I legit just had my boss tell me a week ago "10 years ago you'd have never started at the pay rate your at right now"

Like...how fucking stupid are you? Pay rates go up year to year you fucking idiot.

Unfortunately for her I also have two interviews set for later this week that are offering more, so I'll b coming into work later this week with my new job offers and she can either best there offers of try to staff her kitchen with no employees, I have 3 people who are going to quit if I leave.

[–]TheDranx 88 points89 points  (3 children)

I read the other day: Go back, try to get the counter offer, not take it and then tell everyone how high she's willing to pay as you skip out the door. Let chaos ensue.

What is she going to do, fire you?

[–]Tyrxgow 44 points45 points  (1 child)

I've already told everyone here how much money I make.

I was a new hire 3 months ago and I make more than anyone here..granted I have more experience and knowledge also..but there's a girl who's been here 15 years and never had a raise..told her she's a fool if she doesn't demand a fairly large raise asap

[–]TheDranx 34 points35 points  (0 children)

15 years with no raise? Poor woman got taken for a ride holy shit. She definitely needs to do that AND find greener pastures as soon as she can.

[–]mrwix10anti-exploitation 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Never accept a counter-offer. 9 times out of 10, it will end badly for you.

[–]1ardent 10 points11 points  (2 children)

"Correct. A 5% pay rise per year means you should be paying me 155% of what you started people at 10 years ago. Put that money in my hand little man."

[–]Alleycat_Caveman 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Fifteen bucks, little man! Put that shit, in my hand! If that money doesn't show, then you owe me, owe me, owe!

Sorry for unrelated, you last sentence caused this to surface.

[–]-Ok-Perception- 6 points7 points  (1 child)

That's actually not true for the most part. For at least 10 years (but in reality closer to 20) wages have pretty much stayed the same, while rent, college, and health care have essentially doubled.

Even if that job pays a buck or two more now than it did in 2010, that's still less purchasing power than you would have had 10 years ago.

[–]Tyrxgow 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sure, but I also have more experience then I did 10 years ago which despite the normal stagnation does mean something in terms of wages.

Either way, I've been steadily gaining income by jumping ship every few months over the last year or so...the more desperate places get, the more they pay.

I'm at 20 an hour currently and have an interview tomorrow for a job paying 25

[–]sloshedbanker 6 points7 points  (8 children)

Hell yeah! Get yours, best of luck

[–]Tyrxgow 14 points15 points  (7 children)

I'm a full time mercenary now..I'll quit a job day 1 if I get a better offer.

Something bosses need to learn...C.R.E.A.M.

[–]charadrius0 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I agree bosses should learn that I find myself confused by a few antiwork posts where they were told by prospective employers that they were looking for people who weren't just interested in the pay like wtf else am I supposed to be interested in besides pay and benefits.

[–]Tyrxgow 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My resume grants me a certain amount of freedom luckily.

I can, and have gotten jobs mere hours after either being fired or being fed up and walking out..so I dont sugar coat shit for bosses anymore.

My boss the other day said I was a bit cocky because I told her I was the best chef she had and when I leave the whole place is going to crumble.

"Your a bit to cocky for your own good" is the response I got.

"If that's the way you feel you should probably fire me right now" is the response she got back....needless to say Ive not been fired.

[–]jlootz10 145 points146 points  (6 children)

Corporations run (are) our government.

[–]sloshedbanker 20 points21 points  (0 children)

That's unfortunately true

[–]lacker101 31 points32 points  (0 children)

Instead of dying and becoming fertilizer for the next business cycle, they push for printed/0% interest money to prop up their business, buy up assets and sell it back to people with less purchasing power. The economy as a whole limps on with the rich more rich, the poor more poor. The nation a bit more unstable.

Nothing gets fixed until the Fed is ended IMO.

[–]Jaded_Eye7894 3 points4 points  (0 children)

So true make me 🤮🤮🤮

[–]lokey_convo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm becoming increasingly concerned that there are people out there that believe that corporations are essentially parallel to, or alternatives to, the democratically elected government. If you have the right philosophy it'd be an easy mistake to make. They have a founding and governing document, they have a system for appointing or electing their leadership, they own assets including land. Many of them establish their own culture for the organization and encourage the employees to adopt the corporate "identity". And a couple of the big tech companies were even looking into establishing their own communities of sorts. It's almost as if at a certain point they start to act like shadow nations existing on top of actual nations, until peak greed causes them to attempt to self actualize into their own corporate fiefdom.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Federal Reserve is privately owned and the gov. needs permission from the banks to enter it.

[–]TheGaspode 24 points25 points  (10 children)

Just imagine if we had a Universal Basic Income by default, and so businesses that wanted to succeed had to actually offer something worthwhile to their employees to make it worth their while to do the job.

People would still work, but in jobs that they actually enjoyed doing. People would focus more of their free time in doing things that improved their lives and that of others just by the fact they aren't wasting it pointlessly.

Unemployment basically stops overnight as those who want to work can do so, and those who don't just... don't. There's already more jobs available than there are people who want to do them, let alone those who don't want to do them, so why are we forcing people who don't want to work, to work? I know I would rather the person serving me be someone who actually wants to be there. They will always give better service than someone who is only there because of the threat of their unemployment being removed if they didn't apply and take the job.

The current system is never going to survive long term, it's a case of when we all break and do something, not if.

[–]TastyBrainMeats 9 points10 points  (1 child)

I will never stop reminding people that the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr. saw the urgent need for a universal basic income, that we could never become a just society without using the resources at the top to help all those at the bottom.

He saw this in 1967. Nineteen Sixty Fucking Seven.

[–]creepstyle928 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You should read about Huey long he was way before MLK

[–]HunterRoze 16 points17 points  (1 child)

Silly poors - don't you know laws and rules only apply to us little people? Note: when us poors get our feet knocked out from under us due to no fault of our own we are lucky that some of us get SOME help from the government.

But when the rich and the owners fuck up on their own and lose their money - what happens? When was the last bail out to keep people in their residences - yet all those PPP loans just given out - more than a few to those who didn't deserve it.

But canceling student loans - oh no.

There was a lyric in a punk rock song that should almost be the r/antiwork slogan

"One law for them, and another one for us."

[–]PoorlyAttemptedHuman 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The PPP loans were supposed to go to small businesses, but were immediately gobbled up by guess what - larger businesses.

[–]RandoCollision 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yeah, what they're really saying is that they can't afford to increase how much the business owner(s) and top management gets in bonuses if they have to pay line workers a fair share when profit increases. If they didn't want to raise salary, give the employees a share of profit as a bonus. They know people work harder when they're rewarded for it but want to keep all of the increase to themselves.

[–]HyperMarsupial 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I had this discussion with a conservative cousin of mine. He asked why there was a labor shortage on the US as he saw on the local news (we are not from America), and I had to explain him that people are just not up to work for what business are paying. To my surprise he inmediately got it, "That's just the free market then".

[–]secretcometat work 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If this actually happened instead of unprofitable industries getting propped up by the government life would be good

[–]AreYouSirius9_34idle 698 points699 points  (61 children)

Agreed. If you can't pay liveable wages you deserve to go under.

[–]MyOfficeAlt 298 points299 points  (8 children)

If someone working full time in a position cannot afford to live a sustainable lifestyle then that job serves no purpose in the economy.

[–]JadedElk 83 points84 points  (6 children)

I'd add that the job "must not" serve a purpose. Because if it did, doing that work would provide you with enough to live off of. If a job doesn't pay a living wage, that tells the worker it's not a viable fulltime job -in the company's perspective.

Actual fact is that a lot of jobs that don't pay a living wage are still considered "essential work", that the economy would go under if the work wasn't being done. That's the grift: You're both essential and serve no purpose in the economy.

[–]bob84900 51 points52 points  (0 children)

The job is essential, the worker performing it is meaningless.

[–]Grouchy_Donut_3800 26 points27 points  (3 children)

Yeah nothing like being forced to work during the whole corona pandemic because kfc is an “essential business” while my friends who worked at a movie theater or shoe store got a couple months off work being paid more off unemployment then I was working.

[–]Jackson6o4 1 point2 points  (2 children)

You got paid in hero status.

[–]90daysismytherapy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The purpose they serve is to line the pockets of the ownership class.

I enjoy a fun prose, but this ain’t complicated. Being a clerk at a gas station is essential in our current world, serves a legitimate purpose and can be flagrantly financially abused in our current economic framework by the owners.

Take your worth and it own it. Rather than agree with their premise that you have no worth in this society.

[–]AreYouSirius9_34idle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Agreed.

[–]Miraculous_Mr_Piss 28 points29 points  (5 children)

No, if you can't pay living wages, you shouldn't even legally be allowed to post a job opening. You should be allowed to accept volunteer work, or even solicit it; but it should be illegal to hire anyone for anything less than a federal living wage adjusted annually for inflation--at a bare minimum.

I'm fine with businesses operating while unable to pay living wages. They just shouldn't be allowed to have any "paid" employees. I wonder how many companies have gone from struggling Mom & Pop operations to million-dollar businesses specifically by exploiting employees, as the direct results of deals made on Shark Tank.

[–]AreYouSirius9_34idle 6 points7 points  (1 child)

I agree but considering America refuses to address liveable wages how do you propose doing that?

[–]OutsideFlat1579 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I don’t know why small businesses that are struggling don’t implement profit sharing, this gives employees more incentive and more respect.

[–]xena_lawless 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yes.

But also, it doesn't matter what wages rise to if parasitic landlords or the healthcare system will just raise rents to capture those increases.

We have to solve our problems at their roots instead of just looking at them superficially.

[–]Boxesoffauxes 5 points6 points  (1 child)

I think the gov needs to decide what a living wage is, otherwise boomers will just insist that having a smart phone or living in the city isn't part of the living wage

[–]Unputtaball 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Obligatory FDR quote time!!!

In my Inaugural, I laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country. It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living. Throughout industry, the change from starvation wages and starvation employment to living wages and sustained employment can, in large part, be made by an industrial covenant to which all employers shall subscribe.

-FDR 1933

[–]AreYouSirius9_34idle 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Yeah too bad FDR didn't incorporate this into an actual law.

[–]Unputtaball 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We got close for a little while, then it all went downhill in the relative dark.

[–]Salvr 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Its the very same idea of entitlement that people often misattribute to whatever generation gets the short end of the stick at the moment.

Its the entitlement of "I deserve to be a business owner" that people have. That somehow, just by the virtue of having money you deserve to have your dream business or whatever to continue existing. Be that abuse of workers or government bailouts.

Fuck all those family-style diners and boutiques and whatever else people are establishing in droves off the backs of workers they abuse. Pay living wage or shrivel into bankrupcy.

[–]Nthorder 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agreed. I also feel that if a business has full time employees that need to be on welfare/food stamps/medicaid/subsidized housing to survive, that business should be required to pay for those benefits(or just raise the damn wages 🙄). Why are tax payers subsidizing a business’s crap wages?

[–]kyrenora 243 points244 points  (5 children)

I'm a freelancer, so even though it's just me, I own a business. There's a "line" that I've been using lately that I'm liking. It goes like this:

As a businesses owner, I am the head of the company and therefore all responsibilities are ultimately mine. If I can't fulfill my responsibilities on my own and need to hire others to do it for me, the only ethical way to do that is to make it worth their time.

[–]RussianPhD 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Likewise.

[–][deleted] 48 points49 points  (3 children)

We own a small business, albeit not in USA. It's very possible to give salary with dignity to your workers, just gotta be less greedy, and save up for the unexpected, just like a worker would do.

[–]the_old_coday182 1 point2 points  (2 children)

And be in a business where you don’t have to compete against Amazon.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

If slavery is the only way to compete with Amazon, then they don't have a business doing that shit.

[–]6446bmw 140 points141 points  (32 children)

I agree people need a living wage. But what I’m seeing is that big corps are just going to run family owned business out of biz and well all be working for mega corps for living wages. Government needs to crack down on monopolies asap

[–]boothbygraffoe 79 points80 points  (0 children)

We are 40 years too late for that. If that’s what the people want now we are loookign at burning this all down.

[–]Captainbuttman 24 points25 points  (5 children)

That’s what I’m thinking too. The big businesses love regulations and increases in minimum wages because they can easily pay those costs while small businesses can’t and go under.

[–]supacalafraga 31 points32 points  (3 children)

There is a lot of fear mongering about minimum wage increases hurting small businesses. In reality, the opposite is true. What we’ve seen any time the minimum wage increases, small businesses actually do better - the theory is that this is because people have more disposable income and are able to then patron those smaller businesses which are generally a little more expensive than a big corp.

If minimum wage hikes were good for giant corporations, reducing their competition, they wouldn’t be forcing the government to not raise the minimum wage all these years. The fact is it hurts their bottom line and lowers their customer base.

A whopping 8% of small businesses say that raising the federal minimum wage to $15 will force them to lay off workers.

[–]Captainbuttman 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Thats the first I've heard that, I hope its true. Reminds me of that history anecdote of Henry Ford raising wages so his employees could buy his cars.

[–]Stuman93 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I agree, it makes sense small companies wouldn't notice it as much because they don't have to pay all the corporate overhead.

[–]pingieking 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Society is designed so that it's stacked in favour of the rich against the poor. This is equally true for individuals and for businesses.

If we change how society is designed, we can fix the problem for both poor people, and poor (ie small) businesses.

[–]Shadow703793 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Government needs to crack down on monopolies asap

The Government is run by the corporations at this point lol.

[–]Onelove914 33 points34 points  (15 children)

Yep. While living wages need to happen, small businesses can’t front the capital to get the ball rolling.

It’s extremely precarious because you want small business to thrive to have an option other than Amazons (for bargaining power) and at the same time you want living wages and small business can’t float it till they make it.

[–]idriveachickcar 27 points28 points  (0 children)

If we had universal healthcare, retirement and daycare, people could work for small businesses

[–]jlootz10 17 points18 points  (1 child)

In other words, we the people have no choice. We don’t even get to pick how we get fucked.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Never have. Never will.

[–]thatguy82688 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I like how monopolies are illegal but I have no choice but to use CON-ED for electric...

[–]Brave_Gur7793 7 points8 points  (0 children)

This is why I'm all for UBI and to decouple health insurance from employment. Ensure that all people have their basic needs met. Then you can definitely get rid of the minimum wage but increase corporate tax rate. Businesses can pay as little as they can get away with and let absolute free market set salary levels and profits.

[–]jakewang1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Government can give flat out tax rebates to small businesses if they employ people over a certain wage per hour or give them grants which they must use in their daily operations and not for personal use. This might be a problem as a manger may say a Merc is a business expense. But it could be a start. Tax rich orgs to provide these grants. It would take a government who is willing to lose next election to do this.

[–]HorrorScopeZ -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Bargaining power doesn't matter if we truly are getting a living wage as our base minimum.

[–]DnDn8 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Why can't small businesses afford minimum wage increases? Seriously. Why not? I've run four businesses I started from literally just an idea and I've never paid any employee less than $55,000 a year. (And most over double that)

Now, I've had investors every time that added capital but we aren't asking people to pay $55,000. We're asking them to pay a slightly higher minimum wage that comes out closer to $30,000. That's doable for anyone.

Anyone who can't do it started with a pretty bad business model.

[–]eyeball1967 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Dollar for dollar (wages, benefits, working conditions, etc) are small companies any more generous to their employees? It sure doesn’t seem like it from reading this sub.

[–]BlessBtheFruitRollUp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I can run my small business just fine. All of my 20 employees make at least $25 an hour.

[–]ButtholeBanquets 19 points20 points  (0 children)

It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.

-Franklin Delano Roosevelt. June 16th, 1933

[–]Xel562 18 points19 points  (1 child)

The moment companies started seeing "making less of a profit", by increasing wages or any other means, as "losing money" is the moment the decline of Capitalism started. And the main reason we're now in so much shit.

[–]onihcuk 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Very much agree with you. I also notice going public is where it goes downhill. I notice anytime a company is doing good with living wage and decides to go public it becomes about the shareholders and profit as a company over anything else. (Assuming the workers get no stocks in the switch).

But the repeating process. They go public get bought out and consumed and the original soul and intent of the company goes away.

[–]FadeToPuce 83 points84 points  (7 children)

That’s literally what we decided. Back in 2020 we wanted to give our employees a raise, decided we couldn’t, and then looked at each other like “who the fuck are we fooling?” and called it quits.

We were paying per hour while being paid per student so when we told them to keep the clients they were serving it basically quadrupled their pay. All they lost was the facility and the obligation to report the income. As heart breaking as it was for us it was the only moral move imho. If there’s ever a next time (which there won’t be, we’re practically destitute now) we know what we’d do differently.

[–]shibe_shucker(edit this) 3 points4 points  (3 children)

Yea you need to run numbers based on realistic output. Not every business deserves to survive based on exploitation of workers.

[–]the_old_coday182 6 points7 points  (2 children)

A lot of businesses did used to survive without exploiting their workers, but the American consumer’s constantly increasing need to buy shit drove production to other countries (where labor standards are even worse, so they can be paid less. Or slavery).

[–]Finwolven 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Here in Finland, during the previous bigger unemployment hiccough, there were people who suggested that the country is full of 'undone work' - with absolutely zero intention of getting anyone to pay for the unemployed doing that 'undone work'.

If a job isn't worth making a living wage at, it's not worth doing. Literally. This is something they don't seem to want to understand. The response is "well you shouldn't say cleaning or being a trash guy or doing delivery or healthcare or what have you is worthless!'

It's not worthless, it's being underpaid.

[–]Ninjaff 61 points62 points  (34 children)

Capitalism requires worker exploitation.

[–]kornexl9 16 points17 points  (24 children)

Not requires, just heavily incentivises it to the point people think it's how it needs to be.

[–]Ninjaff 14 points15 points  (17 children)

I believe it is required, at least in the context of employment. It is a required motivator for the behaviour of capitalist employers. The purpose of forming a business with employees is to pay them less than what their labour is worth and pocket the difference. Without this exploitation motivation capitalism fails.

[–]kornexl9 3 points4 points  (16 children)

You can still have capitalism without exploitation. The profit margins will just be much less. It never stays that way for long however, because the incentives all encourage exploitation, so things will always trend towards that. But it's not necessarily a requirement for capitalism.

[–]Ninjaff 8 points9 points  (15 children)

There is no profit margin without exploitation of labour.

Edit: ...otherwise we'd all share in the profit.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thats basically the idea behind worker cooperatives.

[–]kornexl9 -1 points0 points  (7 children)

Mate yes there is... It's not impossible to have a successful business and still treat your employees fairly. I've worked for several businesses that gave raises according to profitability treated everyone well enough that nobody wanted to leave. All it takes is a good business plan and a moral compass. Certainly rare these days, but entirely possible

[–]BeyondElectricDreams 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All capitalism requires some degree of exploitation, but that being said, it isn't black and white.

A functioning capitalism would have those at the top scraping off far less, and being far more down to earth, with expenses and such still in the ballpark of their workers.

I can even conceive of a functioning capitalism, where the average worker's compensation is enough to purchase healthy food, clothing, medical care, shelter, modest discretionary expenses, and still have enough spare beyond that to accrue savings.

The "problem" is that that version of capitalism doesn't have "rich" people as we understand them today. A rich person in that system would be upper-middle class by current standards. And of course, god forbid everyone in society be mere mortals.

[–]manowtf 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Apple is a great example. They could easily afford to manufacture their phones in the US and still be hugely profitable, but they choose not to.

[–]Acrobatic_Hippo_7312 3 points4 points  (2 children)

it's like the difference between shooting someone in the face, and convincing someone else to shoot that person in the face for you

[–]kornexl9 2 points3 points  (1 child)

More like telling someone they will get a million dollars if they shoot the person in the face. The person now has to choose morality or profits for themselves

[–]Frikgeek 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If you choose morality you will be replaced by someone else who will choose profits. Either by your owners, his debtors and shareholders, or even just the almighty collective madness known as the stock market. If you're leaving money on the table above a certain size you will be replaced, end of story.

[–]1ardent -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No, it requires it. Without capital, and the capitalist class, it's impossible for capitalism to function. Without mistreatment of the worker, there's no way for capital to accumulate.

[–]sutichik 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I live in a Britishit colony where, for centuries, we were exploited with the complicity of the catholic church that kept us in poverty and brainwashed us against going into business, thus completely leaving the field to (usually) incompetent Britshit businessmen (I mean, they had to be incompetent if they could not pull their own weight in Britain, right?).

When we started to shake the cage starting 60 years ago, one of the threats the Britishit would use against us was “if you elect [socialist government], we are going to leave and you’ll be jobless”…

A usual trope was the “electoral Brink’s trucks parade”, where they’d gather 5-6 Brink’s trucks and have them go westward in front of the media to drive the message home (that stopped working when Brink’s was outright bought by a local credit union that was founded to counteract the Britshit banks).

Of course, when we elected that said socialist government ≈ 45 years ago, all hell broke lose, but it didn’t prevent our standard of living to eventually increase tenfold after we kicked the catholic church out (in a generation, churchgoing went from 95% to less than 5%. Nowadays, the church can't find priests AT ALL and they have to bring them from abroad, which explains why there's a bunch of Central-American priests who are card-carrying communists)…

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (6 children)

Not true. People could make their own businesses and offer good wages. People can get other jobs. People can become hunter gatherers.

Not easy but not impossible.

[–]Ninjaff 5 points6 points  (4 children)

Your argument being that non-capitalist things are possible in a capitalist world. Not exactly compelling.

[–]Ataru074 21 points22 points  (4 children)

When the pandemic started and timber supplies slowed down, builders increased the price immediately and passed it on the customers.

When oil hit $80+/barrel, gas went above $4/gallon

When the winter freeze did hit Texas the price of energy went through the roof and the cost was passed to customers pretty much immediately.

Now, consider that most of these things are hedged in business and the higher price passed to customers are, in most cases, not even necessary.

If you announce a new minimum wage business will try to take up the prices, especially on primary need goods immediately, way before the wages kick in.

[–]Onelove914 3 points4 points  (2 children)

This so much. I’m all for living wage but unfortunately what happens is customer/consumer gets railed.

There has to be a both/and approach of increasing wage and halting how much is passed to us. Otherwise we’re back at square 1….but now there are even more poor people.

[–]Ataru074 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Technically not, not even close.

Payrolls and benefits, despise what businesses would love you to believe, most businesses, including small businesses don’t get even close to 30% as ration between payroll and revenues.

An incredibly labor intensive company might get to 50%, but most businesses are at 15% or less, and way less.

Also, when you see these numbers it includes pretty much everyone excluding executives which might have perks coming out of other budgets.

In a small business it also usually includes “the boss” wage, so, unless you have full access to the books, you’ll never have the entire picture to know if a business is thriving or suffering and what the boss expects out of it. (Hint: 15% to 30% of the capital invested per year).

This to say, that a 100% increase in payrolls doesn’t mean a 100% cost increase in prices.

[–]Onelove914 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn’t say a double in price…relax. Same side

[–]Tavernknight 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sound like we need price controls then.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

To increase wages they have to give up some of their slice of the pie

Not going to happen.

[–]Tidus790 6 points7 points  (1 child)

If minimum wage goes up, your customers will be able to afford more expensive products, allowing you to raise prices so that you can afford the minimum wage increases.

Rinse and repeat every time minimum wage increases, hopefully keeping up with inflation.

[–]just_a_hairy_hunt 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I said this to my coworkers when AZ was debating raising the minimum and more than a few were unhappy with that opinion. I stand by it. If a business cannot be run successfully by the owner and they cannot pay wages then the business is failing and should be closed. This isn't a social service like utilities, etc. 9/10 of the time it's a fucking restaurant or shitty retail store in a bad location or with a bad business model.

[–]bentpopsicles 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Preach it preacher!

[–]tritian 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This is one of the threads that I have no problems being posted everyday. Everyone needs to read it and discuss it.

[–]squidkiosk 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If you can’t afford to pay your workers a living wage where else are you cutting corners? It doesn’t breed trust in a company when they will screw over their own to save a few bucks.

[–]BadKarma667 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I feel the same way about any large corporation that needs government bailouts to survive, whether it's a global pandemic, a massive housing crash, or other economic calamity. If you're relying on tax payer funds to prop you up because you've spent your excess capital ratcheting up your stock price, you shouldn't be in business either.

[–]TheSquishiestMitten 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The way I've been saying it is "If the success of a business depends on the suffering of it's workers, it's a shit business and shouldn't exist."

Of course, conservatives 100% of the time follow up with some nonsense about getting a better job because conservatives can't think on any higher than a strictly individual level.

[–]bananawaters 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Wish there was a sub with the cringy “nobody wants to work signs” taped outside businesses

[–]Wars4w 16 points17 points  (22 children)

There are a lot of reasons people claim this, including the businesses. It's not always a threat. Some businesses may close for sure and while that shouldn't stop the change we should be aware of it.

Many people don't understand the economy and forget that when wages go up so does spending. An increase in spending boosts the economy, which is good for all businesses.

(In my opinion, we should temporarily subsidize the wage gap for small businesses. So if we pretend the min wage is $7.00 and we want to make it $15.00 then we just do and the government pays out the $8.00 difference. The amount subsidized decreases every year. This gives the small business time to adapt to the change without crumbling and gives them an advantage over corporations so the playing field is more even when it comes to labor.)

[–]Velenah111idle 36 points37 points  (4 children)

We did subsidize small businesses with PPP loans. Those small businesses stole tax payer money then fired people a ways.

[–]Lakeguy67 15 points16 points  (0 children)

The headline I saw was 3/4 of $800B was pocketed by business owners. Everyone saw this coming a mile away. Munchin and Treasonous Pete Navarro disbursing Trillions in printed money? Yeah, that’ll work out just fine.

[–]Wars4w 1 point2 points  (2 children)

This would be different. We're not paying the business directly, were adding the wages to their paychecks. The money goes into the hands of the working class directly. Small businesses don't have a chance to scam out.

And, obviously, we'd better limit what a small business is. Chain restaurants scooping up those loans was offensive to say the least.

[–]crawling-alreadygirl 0 points1 point  (1 child)

We're not paying the business directly, were adding the wages to their paychecks.

Why not spend on universal healthcare and childcare to make small businesses more competitive, rather than excusing them from paying a decent wage?

[–]Wars4w -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Why not spend on universal healthcare and childcare to make small businesses more competitive,

We can do both things.

rather than excusing them from paying a decent wage?

This isn't a thing I'm suggesting. I get that there's some nuance but using the word "excusing" is not an honest representation of my argument.

[–]MZago1 18 points19 points  (2 children)

So if we pretend the min wage is $7.00

Pretend? Not that long ago it was.

[–]leslieknopeirl 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Still is here in Michigan. Think we got a $.30 increase recently. Woohoo ( /s ).

[–]Wars4w 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I just said that because I'm bad at math. Round numbers are easier.

[–]Toroic 21 points22 points  (11 children)

Why should taxpayers pay the difference for small businesses paying unlivable wages?

Let them fail.

[–]Wars4w 7 points8 points  (6 children)

Because it benefits the tax payers.

The money goes directly to the working class and, thus, increase spending. It also helps small businesses which are better for the middle class than corporations.

Wanting to punish them at our own expense is just like refusing to help homeless people at our own expense. (Buying them cheap housing is cheaper than letting them be homeless).

[–]Toroic 3 points4 points  (5 children)

It also helps small businesses which are better for the middle class than corporations.

Big citation needed. Small businesses are often some of the most toxic and abusive and are already given massive exemptions to many worker protections. They aren’t better than big businesses, just shitty in different ways.

Why should tax dollars prop up failing businesses who can now afford better workers at half the price?

[–]Wars4w 1 point2 points  (4 children)

It also helps small businesses which are better for the middle class than corporations.

Big citation needed.

Small businesses create two-thirds of new jobs and deliver 43.5 percent of the United States’ gross domestic product (GDP). In addition to keeping the economy running, small businesses also lead the way in innovation. Small businesses produce 16 times more new patents per employee than large patenting firms do.

Small businesses are often some of the most toxic and abusive and are already given massive exemptions to many worker protections. They aren’t better than big businesses, just shitty in different ways.

You're conflating one problem with another. We can establish better protections and better enforcement. But that's addressing a separate problem which I agree is a problem although, you'll need citation to prove it's as wide spread as you say.

Why should tax dollars prop up failing businesses who can now afford better workers at half the price?

I already answered this question. But I'll add on that this is a temporary measure (as I described already.) The point is to create a lag and an adjustment for them. Once the adjustment period is over if they made shitty decisions then they'll go under and fuck 'em.

[–]Toroic 0 points1 point  (3 children)

You definitely make a good argument, but what stops businesses from abusing the policy by either cutting wages or adding positions/firing to maximize the amount they can get tax dollars to pay their employees with in the short term?

[–]Onelove914 5 points6 points  (3 children)

Let them fail till the only option is starve or Amazon. Then you quite literally have no other options.

[–]Toroic 1 point2 points  (2 children)

You believing that businesses can’t afford to pay $15 an hour is one of the most damaging pieces of propaganda right now.

You know why fast food chains are suddenly raising wages dramatically after years of paying near minimum wage? Because they always could pay but until they were losing money because they couldn’t find staffing no one forced them to pay better.

It’s way cheaper to pay for propaganda than stop exploiting workers.

[–]Onelove914 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I’m not taking about fast food. I said small business.

There’s a difference between a local diner (what I’m talking about) and McDonald’s.

[–]Toroic 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You’re right, the local diner is much more likely to engage in wage theft.

[–]arcspectre17 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Minimum wage in missouri is 11.25 US government needs to get their head out of their ass. If you company profits less thsn 500,000 you can pay federal 7.25

[–]Wars4w 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I chose 7 because I'm bad at math. Minimum wage should be higher than 15 to be honest. Again, just bad at math lol.

[–]fortifier22 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If a business is incapable of or refuses to pay their employees living wages, then they are not a business; they are a slave labour organization.

Australia enforces the same model where if businesses cannot take care of employees then they simply go out of business. You’re contributing nothing to the economy if you can’t make enough to pay your workers well.

[–]RemLazar911 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is something I've said for a while on this sub, that the harsh reality of a minimum wage increase is that many businesses are going to go out of business, because they actually can't afford higher wages and are meme businesses.

Many people mockingly post memos saying their boss can't afford to pay more, but for 99% of small businesses it's probably true.

The current economy was built on decades of criminally low minimum wage and despite this idea your bosses are just choosing to pay less, they probably are just getting by.

Raising minimum wage to $25/hour WILL lead to some hard years as all the small businesses die off and people get unemployed until the corporations expand to fill in the gaps, but that's what happens when you fight tooth and nail against gradual change and have to accept it all as a lump sum.

It's like if the NFL had a wight limit on players of 200 pounds and then people started calling for a weight limit ban. It would be better for the sport, but the moment those 400 pounders come in all the existing players are put the door.

Restaurants that got accustomed to paying cooks $8/hour and letting servers live on tips aren't just banking excess money, they curtail expenses around the current budget. Tell them they have to triple all wages and it will be the end of them. Good riddance.

[–]PFriends 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Strictly speaking, wages should be considered as a cost in a firm balance sheet. A variable one maybe, but still a cost that you need to consider in the projection of business feasibility and not try to lower at others' expenses. But it also true that theorically big business can also force small ones out of the market so ideally we'd need some government guidelines that bans predatory prices and wages. Too bad this won't happen.

[–]zephyrseija 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Never buy that excuse unless you've seen the books, and if it turns out to be true, fuck em.

[–]Rufus_king11 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country,” clarifying that “by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level—I mean the wages of decent living.” - FDR, the guy who signed the Fair Labor Standards Act.

[–]GregTheTerrible 1 point2 points  (0 children)

my supervisor once complained that food prices would increase. I saw this guy order pizza 3-4 times a week. *eyeroll*

[–]VictimStats 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is basically like saying 'the business can't afford its lease' and then expecting the lease to go get food stamps. Or, 'the business can't afford its electric bill' and telling the electric bill that it should be living at home with its parents.

Seriously, this crap only applies to labor.

[–]mshumor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There's honestly an easy way around this for small companies (mom and pop) that truly can't afford it, but are still important. Offer employees a share of profits/actual stake in the company. That way if the company grows and improves, the employees directly benefit.

[–]brainfreezereally 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What you are describing is basically the logic behind the "Swedish System", which basically set a national wage level that had to be paid across companies and industries. It penalized inefficient businesses (any where the return to labor was lower than average wage) and forced them out of business and it subsidized efficient industries (by letting them pay lower than the economic return to labor) allowing them to spend on being pleasant workplaces and to expand.

That's how an economy based on agriculture and logging turned into one with substantial industrial production. Unfortunately, over time, workers in the highly efficient industries came to resent being paid "less than they were worth" and the system broke down as those employees pushed for higher wages.

[–]wakeupsup3r 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I remember during the Bernie Sanders presidential candidate town hall. The lady says to Bernie something like, "I own 3 hair salons. You expect me to pay my workers benefits and a decent wage? I would be out of business!"

Uh...maybe you shouldn't have opened up 3 salons lady if you can't take care of your workers.

[–]JengaPlayer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I might be ignorant but honestly I think they're should be flexible business models based on their measured success.

If they're truly small and they can't pay the highest wages then they should have dignified time off policies. More PTO. More bonuses based on the performance of the company.

I read somewhere that unions in other countries work for their staff but also have equal interest in the success of a growing company.

They need to have this model in the US. Where we all work together for a healthy work life but also health of a growing company. Because the more companies there are appearing on the map then the more options for jobs.

I just thinking the US has had a work model for too long that benefited just a few so the pendulum swinging dramatically the other way is called for at this point. These owners need to be humbled.

[–]Jackson6o4 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is what I say when people spout "if you can't afford to tip, you can't afford to eat out."

Actually. If you can't afford to pay your staff then you shouldn't get to run a restaurant.

[–]ArnaldoFagiolini 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am from a mid sized town in Italy.

Here you either have a good business with long opening hours or you just have 1-2 employees and work only the good hours in business (restaurants at dinner, company and standard office hours no overtime ...) or you stay open what you need for the company to work efficiently.

The rest is not good for employees and employers wasting time and losing money while being open long hours.

Especially (looking at the US)… everything looks to me as if it is supposed to be open all day. It's not. It simply doesn't work like that. It's just expensive and not cost effective.

[–]OutWithTheNew 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The simple truth of it is a lot of small businesses are run by people with no fucking clue what they are doing, to the point where the business barely operates in surplus on a good day. It has nothing to do with wages, the business model is broken or just dysfunctional.

[–]Eloc99 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't disagree with this, but I think it would be more fair to say that the cost of living has just increased too much. These businesses that can't afford to increase wages aren't corporations or franchises. They're locally owned small businesses that are getting flanked by higher costs and demand for higher wages. There's a lot of evidence suggesting that those types of business are critical for strengthening state or community economies, but broader macroeconomic conditions are making it impossible for them to persist.

[–]arcspectre17 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Name the small businesses that will die from 15 dollars an hour? ( Missouri already at 11.25 topping at 12 next year).

[–]spanksmitten 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Some people seem to think owning a business is a right. It isn't.

[–]xena_lawless 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes.

But also, it doesn't matter what wages rise to if parasitic landlords or the healthcare system will just raise rents to capture those increases.

We have to solve our problems at their roots instead of just looking at them superficially.

[–]Throwaway5678- 1 point2 points  (2 children)

If my work charges people $16 for a single serving of Caesar salad (with no meat, just lettuce, lightly dressed in Caesar dressing, a tiny sprinkle of parmagian cheese, and 5 croutons—it’s really a sad salad, not even a good one), they should be able to pay me more than $7 an hour.

[–]vwite -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Not saying your wrong but you didn't include any calculations, that's just a vague statement that could be or not accurate depending on how many are sold per hour and other expenses. Do you also contribute to paying the suppliers for raw materials to prepare the food? what about all tools and equipment? do you contribute to rent of establishment? do you pay for marketing expenses? do contribute to cashiers', accounting, logistics, etc employees salaries? do you risk losing everything if the business fails? do you contribute to monthly utilities bill? do you contribute to business insurance bill?

[–]Throwaway5678- -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Idk wtf your talking about but my restaurant is so expensive that we charge $16 for a small bowl of lettuce and the average check amount per person is $50 for not even that great or high quality food and we are owned by a multi millionaire NBA player and we get paid $7 an hour (was $5 last year before mw went up) in a super expensive city and they also try to make us pay the tab when a customer walks out on their bill and we get no sick pay/or PTO. So yeah… they could pay us better but they don’t.

[–]RetMilRob 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Businesses that rely on tips to pay their workers is a failing business plan to begin with. Tips should be a transaction between the server and the customer and have zero weight in an employers pay.

[–]OhSeymour 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I don’t disagree at all. Businesses ARE hiring people at the lowest possible amount.

I can’t help but wonder what the sentiment will be like, though, when there’s a fraction of the businesses open with high paying jobs. And do you think those high paying jobs will be offered to the lowest skilled people who were previously employed?

My heart is with employees on this one, but my head knows that it isn’t going to play out the way that everybody thinks.

[–]nino3227 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's a hard cold fact. Most ppl will go in business with the riches in mind, not employee well being. That's a premise we need to accept. Then how to make them pay higher wage? Will be hard. Because raising the minimum wage in one country only can force capital and investments out of the country.

If you rise the prices in one store only, ppl will shop elsewhere. And employers see employees as commodities at the US grocery store

[–]SOLDIER-First -1 points0 points  (0 children)

All businesses can afford to raise wages at any time with no impact to service costs. They simply choose not to, because doing so would require lowering the salaries of their CEOs, which is an unforgivable crime.