8 ms·

> Louis Vuitton aside, it is well understood that even wildly successful businesses haemorrhage money for the first 5-10 years before reaching profitability. W

> Louis Vuitton aside, it is well understood that even wildly successful businesses haemorrhage money for the first 5-10 years before reaching profitability. What? You mean VC backed businesses only? So like 0.0...1% of all businesses? and btw LV is not one of them. You think that successful restaurant owner "haemorrhage money for the first 5-10 years"? He would be out of business 10 times by then. > He did pay them more. Said workers went on strike last year because they wanted more, and shortly thereafter he responded by paying them more... Ask and you shall receive, as they say. In France, after strike. What about Asia? where there are no unions and strong labor laws, did he pay them too? No he didn't. > What are you expecting, exactly? Is it that you are appalled that workers have to make it known how much they expect to be paid? Do you want Bernard to walk the streets and surprise offer $100 bills to random passers-by? > If so, what about you? Everyone on HN can spare a a few hundred dollars (you couldn't afford to be here otherwise), and more likely, given how much the audience is generally worth, can spare tens, even hundreds, of thousands of dollars. How many $100 bills did you unsolicitedly hand out today? Or are you one of those people who never pays more than the asking price even though you can afford to pay more? Sorry but what the hell are you talking about? Do you remember the topic of conversation still? Because I'm replying to what you said "Not having enough revenue to pay the workers a sufficient rate is just a symptom of that.", which I proved is not the case in my specific example (because THERE IS ENOUGH REVENUE to pay workers more, he did it in France where labor laws and unions are the strongest on this planet) and it's also not the case in software industry and you talk about me handing out 100$ to random people on the street??? What? I don't really know on which world are you living, but the reason most of businesses do not pay workers more is not "not having enough revenue" but because they choose to hoard money to themselves out of greed. I have many business owners in my family and they are driving porsches while paying their staff minimum wage, I assure you that they have enough revenue to pay their workers more. I'm not here to offer solutions, I was writing this to show that the problem exists and that what you wrote is not true in majority of cases.

randomdata 3y ago
> What about Asia? What about it? Are the workers there currently off the job while they wait for more money? > Because I'm replying to what you said "Not having enough revenue to pay the workers a sufficient rate is just a symptom of that." Oh? Are you sure? You have offered nothing to suggest Louis Vuitton is struggling to find workers. The closest we got was me mentioning that their workers were on strike last year, which was followed with more pay to compel the workers back. That shows that Louis Vuitton is, in fact, quite prepared to pay more when they can't find the workers they need. Here I was convinced you were just going on some mindless "workers are victims" rant, not realizing that workers don't show up when they are not paid enough. If you don't believe in that, you need to go back to the original comment in this thread – the one before my first – and reply to it instead. As you know, as you surely read all the words before replying (haha), my comment merely followed the premise established there. > Sorry but what the hell are you talking about? It was suggested that head of Louis Vuitton is too greedy to randomly pay people more than what they asked for. I then asked if you go around randomly paying people more than they ask of you. If not, it would be strange for you to expect others to do so. Everyone here has money to spare.
- lossolo 3y ago
  > What about it? Are the workers there currently off the job while they wait for more money? No they aren't because it's Asia? You don't work then you starve. There is so much poor people there that you can pay whatever and you will find workers, no labor laws, no unions. So he pays them pennies because as you said "THERE IS SHORTAGE OF REVENUE"? That's not the reason and everyone knows that. Just admit that they are not paid because of greed and we can finish this discussion instead of framing it like poor business owner would need to charge higher price or they would be starving. That's NOT the case. > Here I was convinced you were just going on some mindless "workers are victims" rant, not realizing that workers stop showing up when they are not paid enough Ye, all of these people without education can choose to do whatever they want.. so they can just quit and then they eat air and pay for rent and their children school etc with air, with almost zero savings (because cost of living eats everything) especially in Asia without labor laws and unions. But ye live in your alternative world where workers can choose whatever they want, but it's not only Asia where its really bad or Africa, lets look at the richest country in the world where 57% of Americans can't afford a $1000 emergency, I guess these people with kids can't wait to just quit their jobs and be homeless. > It was suggested that the guy at the head of Louis Vuitton is too greedy to randomly pay people more. I asked if you randomly pay people more as well. If not, it would be strange for you to expect others to do so. Everyone here has money to spare. Difference is that these are not random people but people that do work for him, see the difference? It's the fruit of their labor. That's why again, WTH are you talking about?
  - randomdata 3y ago
    > as you said "THERE IS SHORTAGE OF REVENUE" I would never say such a thing as "shortage of revenue" is completely nonsensical. A shortage occurs when an external mechanism, such as government regulation, prevents price from rising. Revenue may be impacted by a shortage, but revenue fundamentally cannot be in shortage itself. The original comment that set the stage for the thread stated that certain businesses are struggling to find workers because they don't pay enough to attract workers. That is true, but the reason they aren't able to pay enough to attract the workers they need to keep going is because the customers aren't interested enough in their product to want them to keep going. Not everything is worth doing. It is not clear how you think Louis Vuitton fits into that. They seemingly have no trouble hiring workers, and when the workers do leave over concern of not being paid enough they demonstrably offer more to win them back. They have sufficient customer interest. > Difference is that these are not random people but people that do work for him, see the difference? No. You also have people working for you. Everyone, save those who have gone completely off grid (which you clearly have not), does. That is how an economy functions. The question stands: How often do you pay your workers more than they have asked of you?

randomdata 3y ago

> What about Asia? What about it? Are the workers there currently off the job while they wait for more money? > Because I'm replying to what you said "Not having enough revenue to pay the workers a sufficient rate is just a symptom of that." Oh? Are you sure? You have offered nothing to suggest Louis Vuitton is struggling to find workers. The closest we got was me mentioning that their workers were on strike last year, which was followed with more pay to compel the workers back. That shows that Louis Vuitton is, in fact, quite prepared to pay more when they can't find the workers they need. Here I was convinced you were just going on some mindless "workers are victims" rant, not realizing that workers don't show up when they are not paid enough. If you don't believe in that, you need to go back to the original comment in this thread – the one before my first – and reply to it instead. As you know, as you surely read all the words before replying (haha), my comment merely followed the premise established there. > Sorry but what the hell are you talking about? It was suggested that head of Louis Vuitton is too greedy to randomly pay people more than what they asked for. I then asked if you go around randomly paying people more than they ask of you. If not, it would be strange for you to expect others to do so. Everyone here has money to spare.

lossolo 3y ago
> What about it? Are the workers there currently off the job while they wait for more money? No they aren't because it's Asia? You don't work then you starve. There is so much poor people there that you can pay whatever and you will find workers, no labor laws, no unions. So he pays them pennies because as you said "THERE IS SHORTAGE OF REVENUE"? That's not the reason and everyone knows that. Just admit that they are not paid because of greed and we can finish this discussion instead of framing it like poor business owner would need to charge higher price or they would be starving. That's NOT the case. > Here I was convinced you were just going on some mindless "workers are victims" rant, not realizing that workers stop showing up when they are not paid enough Ye, all of these people without education can choose to do whatever they want.. so they can just quit and then they eat air and pay for rent and their children school etc with air, with almost zero savings (because cost of living eats everything) especially in Asia without labor laws and unions. But ye live in your alternative world where workers can choose whatever they want, but it's not only Asia where its really bad or Africa, lets look at the richest country in the world where 57% of Americans can't afford a $1000 emergency, I guess these people with kids can't wait to just quit their jobs and be homeless. > It was suggested that the guy at the head of Louis Vuitton is too greedy to randomly pay people more. I asked if you randomly pay people more as well. If not, it would be strange for you to expect others to do so. Everyone here has money to spare. Difference is that these are not random people but people that do work for him, see the difference? It's the fruit of their labor. That's why again, WTH are you talking about?
- randomdata 3y ago
  > as you said "THERE IS SHORTAGE OF REVENUE" I would never say such a thing as "shortage of revenue" is completely nonsensical. A shortage occurs when an external mechanism, such as government regulation, prevents price from rising. Revenue may be impacted by a shortage, but revenue fundamentally cannot be in shortage itself. The original comment that set the stage for the thread stated that certain businesses are struggling to find workers because they don't pay enough to attract workers. That is true, but the reason they aren't able to pay enough to attract the workers they need to keep going is because the customers aren't interested enough in their product to want them to keep going. Not everything is worth doing. It is not clear how you think Louis Vuitton fits into that. They seemingly have no trouble hiring workers, and when the workers do leave over concern of not being paid enough they demonstrably offer more to win them back. They have sufficient customer interest. > Difference is that these are not random people but people that do work for him, see the difference? No. You also have people working for you. Everyone, save those who have gone completely off grid (which you clearly have not), does. That is how an economy functions. The question stands: How often do you pay your workers more than they have asked of you?