4 ms·

Agreed x100. Another way to think of this would be that if this business can only afford to operate while the state subsidizes its employees dietary, medical,

Agreed x100. Another way to think of this would be that if this business can only afford to operate while the state subsidizes its employees dietary, medical, and transportation costs then maybe it is a bad business. Walmart apparently has the same problem.

VLM 10y ago
The state isn't subsidizing a penny. The taxpayers are paying directly into the parasites profits. What a crook!
- youdontknowtho 10y ago
  Agreed. By the state, I meant the public. Tax money supports his paying people low wages and everyone is supposed to act like he's a captain of industry. Notice that he didn't talk about his profit margins either. He'll be losing 200K out of what exactly?
  - hueving 10y ago
    When someone says a business is operating at a 200k loss, that means it's not making any profits and it's losing money. It's a standard way to talk about a business.
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      That often doesn't show the whole picture. Let's say Viacom operated at a 1 billion dollar loss, does that mean the CEO doesn't get paid? We would have to know how this business is structured to know if that figure means anything. 200k loss after the owners 500k salary could be the case here.
      - hueving 10y ago
        Of course the salaries are part of a business's expenses. That still means the company is going to run out of money though. Basic math...
- hueving 10y ago
  If you don't realize that the "state subsidizing" == "taxpayers paying" isn't the same thing at the state level in the US, I have some bad news for you...
cmdrfred 10y ago
I see so few people who understand this. Years ago I applied for a job at Walmart, during the interview I explained that 30 hours a week wasn't enough for me. They printed out a sheet on all the "benefits they offered". It was simply a list of all the programs available for low income individuals, they weren't offering anything. Walmart alone costs the taxpayers 6.2 billion[0] in grants. Increasing the minimum wage only puts those costs on them as opposed to the taxpayer. [0]http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/#39b417ef7cd8 http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-w...
- youdontknowtho 10y ago
  I agree. It's crazy. Walmart more than makes enough money to shoulder that cost themselves. The business in the article does the same thing, but to a smaller degree.
hueving 10y ago
Raising minimum wage will do nothing to fix that. The state will still be subsidizing the same things it was before.
- youdontknowtho 10y ago
  Does it even have value as a symbolic act to show support for labor against the complete control by capital?

VLM 10y ago

The state isn't subsidizing a penny. The taxpayers are paying directly into the parasites profits. What a crook!

youdontknowtho 10y ago
Agreed. By the state, I meant the public. Tax money supports his paying people low wages and everyone is supposed to act like he's a captain of industry. Notice that he didn't talk about his profit margins either. He'll be losing 200K out of what exactly?
- hueving 10y ago
  When someone says a business is operating at a 200k loss, that means it's not making any profits and it's losing money. It's a standard way to talk about a business.
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    That often doesn't show the whole picture. Let's say Viacom operated at a 1 billion dollar loss, does that mean the CEO doesn't get paid? We would have to know how this business is structured to know if that figure means anything. 200k loss after the owners 500k salary could be the case here.
    - hueving 10y ago
      Of course the salaries are part of a business's expenses. That still means the company is going to run out of money though. Basic math...
hueving 10y ago
If you don't realize that the "state subsidizing" == "taxpayers paying" isn't the same thing at the state level in the US, I have some bad news for you...

cmdrfred 10y ago

I see so few people who understand this. Years ago I applied for a job at Walmart, during the interview I explained that 30 hours a week wasn't enough for me. They printed out a sheet on all the "benefits they offered". It was simply a list of all the programs available for low income individuals, they weren't offering anything. Walmart alone costs the taxpayers 6.2 billion[0] in grants. Increasing the minimum wage only puts those costs on them as opposed to the taxpayer. [0]http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/#39b417ef7cd8 http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-w...

youdontknowtho 10y ago
I agree. It's crazy. Walmart more than makes enough money to shoulder that cost themselves. The business in the article does the same thing, but to a smaller degree.

hueving 10y ago

Raising minimum wage will do nothing to fix that. The state will still be subsidizing the same things it was before.

youdontknowtho 10y ago
Does it even have value as a symbolic act to show support for labor against the complete control by capital?