4 ms·
The takes in this thread are so funny. Oh no, what if they have too much money and there aren't owners siphoning it off disproportionate to their value? People
by magicalist 3y ago
The takes in this thread are so funny. Oh no, what if they have too much money and there aren't owners siphoning it off disproportionate to their value? People might fight over it! Or they might have to plan on steady operating income, but how can they do that if they didn't go through the rigorous schooling that the ownership class does?
- hot_gril 3y agoNon-employee owners vs employee owners taking extra profits, same problem. Difference is the un-democratic owners can more easily reinvest to expand the business instead, and in many cases they do.
- charlie0 3y agoIf the business is doing very well, why not just raise prices? Most restaurants simply don't scale or lose alot when they do. They are great because it's the team and leadership that work there that makes it awesome. Not every single restaurant has to become the next franchise in order to be considered a success.
- hot_gril 3y agoSometimes they do raise prices, sometimes it'll scale to at least an expanded set of tables next door, and rarely they'll just let the line get really long (usually cash-only ramen shops). Unless the restaurant benefits from exclusivity, it's usually more profitable to expand if the owners are capable of managing that.
- __loam 3y agoIt's incredible to see the unironic take here that we need undemocratic do nothings to actually make business decisions. Some of the oldest and most successful companies in the world are worker owned and operated. Just look at the Mondragon Corporation in Spain, which has been around since 1956, has 12b in yearly revenue, and has 80,000 employees. The idea that a co-op wouldn't be capable of investing in the business is ludicrous.
- hot_gril 3y agoYep, unironic taking is what I do.