4 ms·
> 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 wan
by cherrycherry98 5y ago
> 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.
How did the owner get 10 restaurants? They likely started with one and carefully scaled up over time as they could afford to, each time taking on risk that they fail and wind up with less than what they started despite all the effort. The business exists to benefit them, not to provide a place for people to work, that's a consequence. One reason employees make less than owners because there's less risk involved. They show up and do a job in exchange for money. Most employees have no equity in the business.
If you want to become a big shot owner making hundreds of thousands then you need to do it yourself and put your capital at risk, become a partner, or get a loan. There's no guarantee it will pay off but there's incentive to, which is why people do it. If there's no incentive or it's not great enough and the risk won't be taken. That means less people opening or expanding businesses, which leads to less opportunity for workers as there are less demand for their labor, and less wealth for society as there is less stuff to spend money on.
If you're not comfortable with the risk of being an entrepreneur and someone is willing to pay more for the same labor you're well within your rights to work for someone else.
- rualca 5y ago> How did the owner get 10 restaurants? They likely started with one and carefully scaled up over time as they could afford to, each time taking on risk that they fail and wind up with less than what they started despite all the effort. I don't know what point you tried to make, but it's completely irrelevant if the business owner scaled things very carefully, blew all his YouTube money on restaurants all at once, or inherited his family business. How the business came to be is totally irrelevant. The only relevant point is how employees are treated, and if it is fair or not. If not, and this is the key point, why should anyone continue working for a business that abuses and exploits them? Are they paid fairly or a slave wage? Can employees live on their paycheck or do they need food stamps to get by? And are employees expected to endure hardship just to finance their bosses' careful or reckless expansion strategy? What we're seeing is people answering those questions with a resounding "no". There are far better things in life than work yourself to death to feed a "very carefully scaled business" that earns the owner a small fortune. People exist for reasons other than validate someone else's business model, and there is more to life than working shifts for peanuts at a "carefully scaled business".