3 ms·
> One, there are a lot of businesses that operate on margins well under 20%. > > Three, why the differentiation between <=500 and >500 workers? I suspect that
by thomascgalvin 5y ago
> One, there are a lot of businesses that operate on margins well under 20%.
>
> Three, why the differentiation between <=500 and >500 workers?
I suspect that the third point is an attempt to address the first. A company with five hundred employees is (in theory) better able to absorb this cost than a mom-and-pop with ten people on staff. The exact number of five hundred is probably arbitrary, though.
- robbedpeter 5y agoIt favors megacorporations, who can afford to eat any short term losses as new unfavorable conditions drive smaller businesses under, eliminating competition, and then prices adjust upwards when the local market has been sufficiently captured. This is how Wal-Mart and Starbucks and their ilk take over. It's impossible to compete against multi-billion dollar companies regardless of service, quality, or loyalty because small businesses deal with local margins and megacorps have global reserves. Walmart doesn't need to compete with mom and pop, it simply needs to destroy them. In that context, if we see local economies as something to be preserved, better regulations are needed. There might not be a legitimate case for that, since megacorps being massive efficiencies to bear. Deliberately reducing efficiency to placate small business owners might feel justified, but to the consumer, things are pretty good these days aside from shortages and inflation.