4 ms·

Depends on how you look at it. If the owner has 10 restuarants, and is making $750,000 per year, let's say, then he or she does have an unlimited amount of mone

Depends on how you look at it. If the owner has 10 restuarants, and is making $750,000 per year, let's say, then he or she does have an unlimited amount of money, compared to the workers, especially if the workers are making the federal minimum wage of $7.25. If they have a small mom and pop company that cannot pay workers at least $50,000, then they need to go out of business. Then, as more and more shops go out of business, then there will be less of a supply and then the company can demand more money from customers and pay their workers more. Except, the reality is that the owners WILL make more money, but still won't want to pay their employees more, and will give the same line - that that type of labor is unskilled and f-ck them, which means more money for the owner. That's the reality. And if true that the labor is unskilled and the owner shouldn't pay more, then the workers should not come back to work. All the Wall Street journals and pro-business journals and business videos have mouth noises that people don't have to accept the wages and it is voluntary work. But, when it actually happens, the cry like a bunch of little babies and say that the worker is at fault for not wanting to work for no insurance, shitty wages, and not being able to afford housing. Well, let the business owners do all of the work without workers, and get all the money. Sounds good to me. You like your Mexican food, but only want to pay .89 cents for it? Good. You go grow the beans, grow the wheat or corn to make your own tortillas. Buy and milk your own damn cow in order to get the beef and milk the cow to make sour cream, and grow an avocado tree to make your own guacamole. It's ok. Do it yourself. Let all the cheap restaurants go out of business. Deal with it. And that the story. That's the REAL story, not the one that you are making up. However, there might be a solution. If a business shows me all their financials, ALL of them, and the personal financial statements, and if I see that they are not making a lot of money, that's fine, maybe I will work for them. But if I see that they have 10 restaurants and make $750,000 per year, well, f the f out of them. But, business owenrs, show me your financials. You don't want to? Fine. Do it yourself. But I'm not going to work for $18,000 with zero benefits, while you're making $750,000. You say your contributions is worth more? Good. Do it yourself. I, and everyone else, don't accept that wage anymore, so do it yourself and go out of business, and you won't get that $750,000 per year anymore anyways.

fredestine 5y ago
I agree with you and the solution is to have them pay minimal wage + a % of profit sharing.
- France_is_bacon 5y ago
  That does not work for me. The owner can just pay himself a $1.5 million salary that erases any profits, just like the movie industry is so adept at doing. They can also start other companies, and buy stuff from the other corporations in order to suck out any profits. Or maybe suck out enough so that have the smallest profit to share, and then take the money out from the other paper corporation and give themselves that money through that corporation instead. This is pretty basic business stuff. Apple Corporation, for instance, takes all of their profits and puts it into Braeburn Capital in Reno, Nevada, in order to avoid California franchise taxes, and other states as well, which has over the years, been billions and billions that would have gone to those states. California has 8 or 10% business taxes for example. Nevada has no business taxes. I think Braeburn has $150+ billion in it, or something like that. Then, of course, it can take that money and shove it out to countries with no taxes at all, so they pay no federal taxes at all, though techniques like the "double-Irish with the Dutch sandwich", which is an actual name of a scheme that corporations use. IP tax avoidance is another example - you sell all you IP (intellectual property) rights to a coporation set up in the Cayman Islands. The corporation in the USA or other countries then have to pay for the IP rights to sell those products, so they pay out to a legitimate company in the Caymans all their profits. This is why there is a push for a global tax. Anyways, the point is that there are a ton of ways to reduce or eliminate profits. If I was a business owner making $4 million profits, I'd reduce the profits so that each employee made an extra $1,000 to 50 employees for $50,000, they won't be squawking and bitching and are happy, or a little bit better, about the piddling amount.
desmosxxx 5y ago
> If they have a small mom and pop company that cannot pay workers at least $50,000, then they need to go out of business why? if people choose to work there it's consensual, if they don't then sure but they don't need to. and what's wealth inequality look like when we're left with corporations and chains owning everything? when small mom & pops can't compete or even get off the ground.

fredestine 5y ago

I agree with you and the solution is to have them pay minimal wage + a % of profit sharing.

France_is_bacon 5y ago
That does not work for me. The owner can just pay himself a $1.5 million salary that erases any profits, just like the movie industry is so adept at doing. They can also start other companies, and buy stuff from the other corporations in order to suck out any profits. Or maybe suck out enough so that have the smallest profit to share, and then take the money out from the other paper corporation and give themselves that money through that corporation instead. This is pretty basic business stuff. Apple Corporation, for instance, takes all of their profits and puts it into Braeburn Capital in Reno, Nevada, in order to avoid California franchise taxes, and other states as well, which has over the years, been billions and billions that would have gone to those states. California has 8 or 10% business taxes for example. Nevada has no business taxes. I think Braeburn has $150+ billion in it, or something like that. Then, of course, it can take that money and shove it out to countries with no taxes at all, so they pay no federal taxes at all, though techniques like the "double-Irish with the Dutch sandwich", which is an actual name of a scheme that corporations use. IP tax avoidance is another example - you sell all you IP (intellectual property) rights to a coporation set up in the Cayman Islands. The corporation in the USA or other countries then have to pay for the IP rights to sell those products, so they pay out to a legitimate company in the Caymans all their profits. This is why there is a push for a global tax. Anyways, the point is that there are a ton of ways to reduce or eliminate profits. If I was a business owner making $4 million profits, I'd reduce the profits so that each employee made an extra $1,000 to 50 employees for $50,000, they won't be squawking and bitching and are happy, or a little bit better, about the piddling amount.

desmosxxx 5y ago

> If they have a small mom and pop company that cannot pay workers at least $50,000, then they need to go out of business why? if people choose to work there it's consensual, if they don't then sure but they don't need to. and what's wealth inequality look like when we're left with corporations and chains owning everything? when small mom & pops can't compete or even get off the ground.