4 ms·

If a company cannot afford to pay a living wage for its full time employees, is it "profitable" in any meaningful sense? The owners of that company are pushing

by scroot 8y ago

If a company cannot afford to pay a living wage for its full time employees, is it "profitable" in any meaningful sense? The owners of that company are pushing the burden onto the rest of society.

scarface74 8y ago
So it’s bad for a mom and pop franchisor to have to operate profitably and pay minimum wage but not for Silicon Valley companies that don’t have to operate profitably and who can afford to pay their workers six figures because of VC funding?
- scroot 8y ago
  The mom and pop are pushing their costs onto the rest of society, ie public money. We at least try not to let people starve in the street, and so provide government services for the poor. The VCs, for all of the faults of that system, aren't.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    And what happens when the VC funds lose money that they got from government run pension funds and the taxpayers have to make up the difference?
    - scroot 8y ago
      What you're pointing out is definitely an important contradiction. Talking about "mom and pop" shops is a bit of a distraction -- a minimum wage gives even large companies an excuse to become some of the worst offenders, which, in part, contributes to the VC-style sytem. Take a company like Amazon. Up until recently, they were known for paying their own warehouse workers low or minimum wage and working them like dogs. This is a highly profitable company. What have highly profitable companies done with their profits, by and large, since 2009? Stock buybacks and other types of security investments. This increases the pool of money that can be used for speculation by the wealthy -- and VCs, who can then "speculate" and keep otherwise "non-viable" businesses afloat. So while I don't necessarily agree with what you say about the small shops, you do have a valid point. These are structural problems.

4 ms·

If a company cannot afford to pay a living wage for its full time employees, is it "profitable" in any meaningful sense? The owners of that company are pushing

by scroot 8y ago

If a company cannot afford to pay a living wage for its full time employees, is it "profitable" in any meaningful sense? The owners of that company are pushing the burden onto the rest of society.

scarface74 8y ago
So it’s bad for a mom and pop franchisor to have to operate profitably and pay minimum wage but not for Silicon Valley companies that don’t have to operate profitably and who can afford to pay their workers six figures because of VC funding?
- scroot 8y ago
  The mom and pop are pushing their costs onto the rest of society, ie public money. We at least try not to let people starve in the street, and so provide government services for the poor. The VCs, for all of the faults of that system, aren't.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    And what happens when the VC funds lose money that they got from government run pension funds and the taxpayers have to make up the difference?
    - scroot 8y ago
      What you're pointing out is definitely an important contradiction. Talking about "mom and pop" shops is a bit of a distraction -- a minimum wage gives even large companies an excuse to become some of the worst offenders, which, in part, contributes to the VC-style sytem. Take a company like Amazon. Up until recently, they were known for paying their own warehouse workers low or minimum wage and working them like dogs. This is a highly profitable company. What have highly profitable companies done with their profits, by and large, since 2009? Stock buybacks and other types of security investments. This increases the pool of money that can be used for speculation by the wealthy -- and VCs, who can then "speculate" and keep otherwise "non-viable" businesses afloat. So while I don't necessarily agree with what you say about the small shops, you do have a valid point. These are structural problems.