Yet they get treated like evil "fat cats" by a certain section of the intelligentsia. Many of whom simultaneously believe global mega corporations who profit from wars and dictatorships, avoid paying taxes, bust unions, use slave labor, and buy politicians and influence elections are noble justice warriors. It's really strange.

Small business that doesn't make much money, doesn't pay its workers much, and requires a lot of exploitation to keep the doors open.

Now the workers are leaving and those businesses are going bust.

It's capitalism at work, but it hurts if you run a not so profitable pizza joint.

A small business can still be exploiting workers with abusive labour and business practices.

If your business model relies on working your employees to death while paying close to nothing then, regardless it's a golden goose or a money pit, then you have no right to complain that you're being held accountable for exploiting and abusing workers. Moreso, you have absolutely no right to complain that the job market rejects your exploitation.

A pizza place in the center of a popular city with high ratings probably can up the prices.

Some people around these parts have ardently defended that 100k USD is poverty wage and that having a net worth of 1 million doesn't make you rich.

So I'm inclined to definitely not believe "working class".

You could have a point if you didn't picked an example from an industry where you count on customers to expense additional charges to subsidize employees' wages in the form of tipping.

This blend of slippery slope argument is all fine and dandy, but the key point of this discussion is that there are operational expenses and revenue and if your business plan depends on a never-ending inflow of cheap labor from people willing to work for below-poverty wages to drive down your operational expense then not only is your business model completely unrealistic but you also have to take a step back and seriously considering your net contribution to society.

I mean, think about it: why is a 1000$ pizza supposed to be a ridiculous idea but 8$/hour to make said pizza is not shocking? Is it reasonable to assume that the person making the pizza should be forced to work about 3 hours making pizzas before he could afford one of his own?

"You could do better if you raised prices a dollar" and "you would do worse if you raised prices a thousand dollars" can absolutely both be true. In fact, in many, many circumstances, they will be.

Perhaps in some cases, but far from always. Down the street from there are 3 'cheap' pizza places within a ~5 minute walk from each other, that all server basically identical quality pizza at essentially the same price. If any one of those where to raise their prices people would almost certainly not pay and just go to one of the other places instead.

There is also a 4th place that serves much higher quality pizza and charges 50-100% more than any of the other places as it is. If they where to raise their price by a buck then people would no doubt still pay since the people who go to that place have already proven themselves less price sensitive.

In terms of total market, the effects are well studied in the field of labor economics.

Big producers can easily absorb the added labor costs. They outsource some elements of their labor (prep work). They simplify menus for better economies of scale. They cut back hours on marginal employees and add hours for high productivity ones.

Small shops without economies of scale struggle and go out of business. A restaurant owner that owns 1 restaurant is likely working full time to keep it afloat. The added time to respond to the current labor market can break the camels back. vs. McMegacorp that has people that sit around and optimize cost all day long.

So the trade off is more McDonalds and Chipotle and less Albertos burrito stands.

They are basically taking the economy of scale that a large chain previously exclusively had and bringing it to the market to street sales (e.g. mom & pop joints). They simply took what they were doing for institutional food service and expanded it because it's substantially more profitable for them than selling the raw ingredients.

EDIT:

Not saying its nothing, good money but to call it a lot would be an overstretch imho

heck maybe by then they can just automate away the jobs too

No. What I am saying is that if you are only earning $5,000 per year, you should go out of business, because clearly, that person is a horrible business person. Maybe he is not doing any marketing. Maybe horrible food with substandard ingredients. Maybe he never heard of the maxim "location, location, location." Maybe he never cleans the restaurant and it is a filthy mess and has a filthy bathroom (I've been to restaurants like this, and immediately walk out - if they can't clean the bathroom, what does their kitchen look like?). Maybe he spending extravagantly on stuff that doesn't make a difference. Maybe he has too many employees.

I used to live in San Francisco, which is a real foodie town. People go out to the restaurants all the time - plenty of people, and lots and lots of small restaurants. And there were restaurants opening and closing all the time, and there were restaurants that have been open for 100 years.

The restaurant business is one of the most unforgiving industries that one can get into. But, there is no reason at all to go out of business, unless one needs to go out of business because they are a shitty business person, or if tastes and mores have changed, whatever.

Only chains and large corporations /s

What frustrates me about economics (with my one intro class level experience) is that they could only talk about equilibrium. The dynamics of things changing like this is what would be really interesting.

Your restaurant doesn't have a right to be in business and I am not obligated to work for you.

If they have a small mom and pop company that cannot pay workers at least $50,000, then they need to go out of business. Then, as more and more shops go out of business, then there will be less of a supply and then the company can demand more money from customers and pay their workers more. Except, the reality is that the owners WILL make more money, but still won't want to pay their employees more, and will give the same line - that that type of labor is unskilled and f-ck them, which means more money for the owner. That's the reality. And if true that the labor is unskilled and the owner shouldn't pay more, then the workers should not come back to work.

All the Wall Street journals and pro-business journals and business videos have mouth noises that people don't have to accept the wages and it is voluntary work. But, when it actually happens, the cry like a bunch of little babies and say that the worker is at fault for not wanting to work for no insurance, shitty wages, and not being able to afford housing. Well, let the business owners do all of the work without workers, and get all the money. Sounds good to me.

You like your Mexican food, but only want to pay .89 cents for it? Good. You go grow the beans, grow the wheat or corn to make your own tortillas. Buy and milk your own damn cow in order to get the beef and milk the cow to make sour cream, and grow an avocado tree to make your own guacamole.

It's ok. Do it yourself. Let all the cheap restaurants go out of business. Deal with it.

And that the story. That's the REAL story, not the one that you are making up.

However, there might be a solution. If a business shows me all their financials, ALL of them, and the personal financial statements, and if I see that they are not making a lot of money, that's fine, maybe I will work for them. 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.

wow, this site really does skew toward coastal cities in the US doesn't it? $50k a year is a high end white collar salary enough to buy a (often significantly) better than median home on a single salary and enough to be considered in the upper 25% income for most of the places I have lived.

I think one of the biggest problems in politics in the US is that we have such a diversity of experience and needs in this country and most politicians (and perhaps voters) think that the solutions that are best for their local area are actually good for the whole country - when in most cases the experience across millions of people and thousands of miles from rural to dense urban is so different that almost no nation wide solution is very good.

Sure, not everyone lives in a major city. It doesn't make a lot of sense for a line cook to make $50k in Victoria or Amarillo. But in these places, they are not being paid the ~25-30k which could be equivalent to about $50k in the city (which still isn't enough to buy a house). They are being paid $7.25 an hour and the tips aren't so good.

You totally miss the parents point, which is that most restaurant workers are barely paid enough to rent and eat, to make the point that the US has a diversity of CoL.

First thing: let me ask you this...are you a business owner and have a vested interest in keeping wages down? Or maybe your parents or friends are business owners and you sympathize with them?

This is not about whether it is a coastal or rural issue. It is about a fairness issue.

No matter what city, rural or urban, if a business owner owns 10 locations and is making $1.5 million per year, let's just say for example, and he or she is paying $7.25 per hour for a total of $14,500 per year, and with zero health insurance, only offering 30 hours per week in order not to provide benefits that they do have for full time employees, and treat employees like sh-t, F them. I don't care if $14 is a lot in a rural area. That's not the point. I know you want it to be the only point to argue, because maybe it in your best interest to argue only that point.

However, even if it is only politically/philosophically your point, like maybe you are a libertarian or something, your viewpoint is probably that employers are free to offer any wage, and employees are free to accept it or not. Well, what is happening, is that employees are not accepting in droves. And this is causing business owners to say, "No, we don't mean free offer and acceptance, what we means is we say that in order for us to not seem like the total c-nts that we are, but now that people are taking us up on that and not accepting our offers, we want to cry like the whiny b-tches that we are and complain about how people that should be working for us, are not, and now we can't make $1.5 million while paying them $14,500 per year." That's what this is really about.

And there are a lot of other false arguments. That "the owner took the risk and is entitled to the reward." Fine. Ok. Great. Do the whole thing yourself then. Perfectly fine. Go to it dude, or dudette. Knock yourself out.

Or, sometimes people say that the money is "all on paper", another shitty argument. Jeff Bezos only takes an $80K salary, and is taxed only on that. Most of his wealth is "all on paper." So, you (not you you, but those who say it is paper wealth, I don't know if you do) are telling me, seriously, that if Bezos goes into a bank, and the banker knows it is Bezos, and Bezos applies for a loan to buy a $10 million home, that the banker says, "No, you only have a salary of $80,000." That is because the "paper wealth" is actually collateral, as are all the equipment, inventory, real estate, etc. Same as any business owner.

Another fallacy is "the business owner can't re-invest if they pay out larger salaries and provide more jobs." Yeah, right. With their multi-million homes, and vacations to Gstaad, Switzerland and safaris to Africa. I haven't seen Jeff Bezos do one god damn thing with his $200 billion, except keep trying to drive his employees wages down and trying to keep them from unionizing. Yet, HE doesn't want to keep HIS salary down, and recently bought a $150 million home in Los Angeles.

And, yet another fallacy, "business owners pay 80% of taxes." Who give a fluck? They should pay a lot more. You think this is ridiculous and communist? You have been brainwashed by the all-pervasive media. If one is into MAGA - Make America Great Again - or a libertarian, or whatever, you have to realize that if you turn back the clock, for most of the 20th century, tax rates on the wealthiest in the highest tax bracket was from 70% - 90%. It changed in 1986, when Ronald Reagan got it reduced to about 35%. And that is about the exact time that the rich started getting richer and poor started getting poorer.

In 1965, CEOs in the US earned 20 times more than the average worker but by 2015 it had risen to 300 times.

The issue is a lot bigger than just what the pay is. It is about income inequality. If you don't like it to be on that topic, and how it should be only about what is 'affordable', hey, that is just your opinion, as well as the business owners, too, conveniently.

But, employees are entitled to their own opinion, and that is that business owners who don't share in the wealth can go f themselves.

And, for the little place that goes under because can't afford to pay, well, raise your prices to cover it. If that means that you have to raise the price of pasta in your restaurant from $15 to $40, then do it. But, that is hilarious, because the owner would want to just take that as well, and not pay the employees a dime of it. And if they can't raise prices to cover costs, including investing in employees, then it is the capitalist way - go the f out of business. You suck at business. You are not providing a great dining experience that customers will pay more for.

And, the more mid-sized business owners who ARE making millions per year, they also won't pay the increased prices and increased revenue to employees, in order that they can buy their yacht or whatever. Or a bigger house so that their vain spouse can brag about it at cocktail parties.

But again, let the owner do all of the work himself. That's fair enough, if employees won't work for those low wages any more, be they in rural or urban areas, whether or not they can buy a low-end house or not. Business owners can just suck a big one if they are greedy, like most are. Tax them at 90% at the top tax rate. AND, that includes wealth, like stock. Let them sell it off to pay 90% taxes, so Bezos would owe taxes of $160 billion. And again, this is not me being a socialist or communist, but what actually happened when America actually was great, from the 1918 to 1985.

why? if people choose to work there it's consensual, if they don't then sure but they don't need to. and what's wealth inequality look like when we're left with corporations and chains owning everything? when small mom & pops can't compete or even get off the ground.

I say that employees should not go to work for corporations and chains, either. F them all.

I have some sympathy if the mom and pop if they barely make any money, but there are some mom and pop places out there where the mom and pop own 10 locations, which is not huge, compared to chains. But they are making $1.5 million in income per year, all the while they are making sure that employees don't work more than 30 hours per week so that they don't have to pay benefits, no health insurance, treat them like crap and not dignity. I know that all businesses don't do this, but probably 95% do, even though I have no citations for this. But I rarely read about those companies who do. And don't say many do, but nobody hears about them. No way.

And again, for the person making $5,000 per year, who cares if they go out of business. They are NOT doing it right. It is only logical that they should get a janitorial job, or work in a stock room for $30,000 per year. It's just logical. And, with making $5,000 per year, their restaurant is probably filthy, bathrooms filthy, substandard ingredients, dirty kitchen, sh-tty chairs and tables, indifferent wait staff and cooks. Again, not every single one. But if you're making $5,000, that sure is the way to bet.

Furthermore, if there are only companies like Amazon making all the sales, then that is a monopoly, and it should be broken up. Monopolies are the bad part of capitalism, and is why the government should break them up. That is what they did with AT&T in the 1980s and telecommunications really took off after that.

You are using a straw man argument.

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.

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".

Or alternatively, fine, do it that way, but look at the owners' financials and wealth (not just income). If they are making $1.5 million per year, then lower that to $100,000 per year and get gold health insurance for employees, have employees work 40 hours per week instead of jaded sh-tty owners only scheduling less than 30 hours so they don't have to pay benefits and employees have to work 2 jobs, have them not treat employees like sh-t. That also works for me.

In 1965, CEOs made 20 times (2,00% more) the lowest paid worker. Now it is 300 times (30,000% more) than the lowest paid worker.

For most of the 20th century, the tax rate for the wealthiest was 70% to 90%. And this was NOT only during the war years. It was around there from 1918 to 1985, when the top rate was lowered to around 35% and stayed there since. That is about the exact time that the rich got richer, and everyone else stayed about the same, or went down, due to inflation.

And if you say that the owner took all the risk to start the business, fine, cool. Let them do all of the work without employees. I'm good with that.

What you say is yet one more specious argument to pay employees less so that owners can buy more yachts and bigger houses. But fine. Do all the work in 10 locations, all by yourself. Good. And good bye.

This is why there is a push for a global tax.

Anyways, the point is that there are a ton of ways to reduce or eliminate profits. If I was a business owner making $4 million profits, I'd reduce the profits so that each employee made an extra $1,000 to 50 employees for $50,000, they won't be squawking and bitching and are happy, or a little bit better, about the piddling amount.

Not true.

>While Chipotle raised wages from $13 to $15 an hour, or 15.4%, menu prices, on the other hand, were hiked between 3.5% and 4%. Price increases are generally quite small relative to the increase in workers' wages.

>he knows it, and he made the calculation and decided there's no way to pay all his costs, charge the price that people would be willing to pay, and make a profit.

How does he know for certain? He never even tried raising prices.

We were talking about a single shop owner which usually doesn't measure revenues in billions and runs everything out of his own pocket and bank loans usually backed by the same pocket. If you don't understand the difference, maybe giving advice to businesses shouldn't be your primary pastime.

> How does he know for certain? He never even tried raising prices.

Sure, such a thought would never come to his mind without your help. And surely, a business owner would never know a thing about his own business and his own pricing without you instructing him on it with such a sage advice as "just try it!". Maybe tons of people would line up for $50 tacos and only the stupidity of business owners - which, as one, for some reason, choose to ignore your advice to just try it, which would make them billionaires - prevent it from happening. Seriously. How much disdain one must have for people actually living the thing...

I'm not talking about literally $50.00 for a taco. I am talking about business owners who I'd assume know their business a bit better than a rando from the internet. And about the necessity of not thinking everybody but you missed a completely obvious solution like "just raise prices" because they don't understand anything about their business, but you do. It's usually not that simple.

It really isn't. Either your wage is enough to allow you to cover the cost of living, or it doesn't.

By definition, any job which depends on supplemental income such as tipping to allow a worker to make ends meet is quite obviously not a living wage.

By that meager definition a lot of restaurants don't pay a 'living wage'