138
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2024
138 points (100.0% liked)
chapotraphouse
13785 readers
787 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
If you canot afford to pay your workers a decent wage, then it is irresponsible for you to own a business.
It means you don't have a viable business plan lol
If you can't cover any other cost of doing business, it's "aw shucks that's unfortunate, this is why most businesses go under, better luck next time." But if you can't cover payroll it's supposed to be different?
Yup, cut the woe is me shit. All your employees are hopefully just going to fo somewhere that didn't do all of that.
If you can't figure out how to run a business if you are actually required to pay your employees you shouldn't have a business.
Okay, but then where will I get my Fat burgers?
Up ya bum
And around the corner!
Don’t worry the invisible hand will provide
Bussiness man: i deserve profit because i take risks!
Same dude: i should be completely sheltered from any consequences of the risks i take
Im still processing this. California is a corporatized hell scape. And when large companies can write laws that give them the advantage they will. Creating sudden up front costs is a way larger companies can edge out smaller competitors.
i don't care about the plight of small business owners
Fair enough. But California is a large place with diverse economic situations. And Id hate for every restaurant to be McDonald's. so i guess my concern will come out in the wash. we'll see if this creates a greater monopoly eventually. Also im a small business owner.
diversity is when more borger places and the more borger places the more diverser it is
pay a living wage or sell to someone who can. ideally the state.
Right. I think you're missing my point. Unfortunately we dont live under socialism.
agitating for better workers' comp is how we get there. protecting smol bean business owner profits solves nothing.
But is that what we're doing? Having business owner foot the bill for workers comp is more of the same. We do that already and the actual solution is to have the state perform that function. This solution just cuts out people that cant afford the new regulation. Leaving the large player who can afford it. Furthering wealth disparity.
the business owner risks proletarianizing -- oh no. anyway,
Really??? Im trying to understand and you're not being persuasive. Saying you dont care about someone losing their income just comes off as cruel.
Should we regulate it so that only McDonald's afford to run a restaurant? Should benefits be based on employment?
You're acting like under our system this is a benevolent outcome and there couldn't be a downside.
The downside: Small business owners can no longer force employees to work for poverty wages
The upside: the poorest workers in California get a living wage
Why should we care about a few small business owners who can't afford to not exploit their employees? And why should they be prioritized over the workers?
the business owner can get a job just like his workers. ensuring a capitalist can remain a capitalist is not high on my list of priorities.