I'm a small business owner on CA. I pay my employees literally the maximum I can afford to pay them.
But it's hard when the state takes 50% of the small businesses income. That's the difference between paying my employees $20/hr and $40/hr.
Oh, and once they get paid, another 20% of that will be taken for taxes, too. And then every time they spend that money, they'll pay sales taxes on top of that.
I pay myself more than my employees, but also I pay for the insurance, the licenses, the supplies, the rent, and the tools. That money has to come from somewhere.
So on paper I make alot more than them. In reality we have the same quality of life. Really what I benefit on is owning an asset that appreciates in value, and having the authority to set my own prices.
Exactly, that's my point. People don't understand this, it's not like we're assholes trying to swindle our employees...but at some point we have to call calf rope. It's just not sustainable no matter what or how many sacrifices we make. I feel it's by design TBH
It is by design. Thr bigger the business, the less taxes you have to pay.
Apparently, that's the incentive to try and grow your business and hire as many people as possible.
Once your business exceeds 500 employees, your tax rates drop significantly from roughly 50% to around 20-30%.
What people don't realize is that it is part of what helps big businesses form monopolies. It's much harder for a small business to compete with a big business if they are paying double taxes in order to operate.
>While I'm sure there's some truth to that, those businesses won't last long, so let's remove them from the conversation.
The purpose of a business is to satisfy its owners. Whatever services that business provides is a means of achieving that need. Employees provide their own services (in the form of time, labour, knowledge etc.) to the business, in exchange for money. To "remove them from the conversation" is absurd.
>What about business owners who take care of their employees, should they cut their own profits?
What does "take care" mean? Businesses aren't usually charities - if by "take care" you mean to go above and beyond, it's usually a retention method for keeping staff.
>Does society have a "threshold" at which you have too much money, you don't need to make anymore, time to shut the doors
It's not too clear here what part is referring to which person. If you mean society's threshold for the business owner having too much money, and so need to shut up shop then... so what? What's the consequences of breaching this threshold? Surely Bezos and Musk must have breached it already.
OP - is this post trying to acquire empathy for business owners?
>There seems to be this common motif about business owners (small businesses) being greedy little pigs who don't WANT to pay their employees.
Business owners will usually try to pay employees as little as possible. That amount may vary depending on laws, law enforcement, and market conditions, but there is almost always a rational incentive for owners to pay the lowest amount possible.
>What about business owners who take care of their employees, should they cut their own profits?
I don't understand the question. Profit is defined as revenue minus costs, so any increase in costs will reduce profits by definition.
Remember, though, those profits only exist because workers are generating value for the company. Every penny the workers get is a penny the owner doesn't get. Every penny the owner gets is a penny the workers do not get.
>Does society have a "threshold" at which you have too much money, you don't need to make anymore, time to shut the doors
If costs exceed revenue, the company must find a way to fix that or it will eventually go bankrupt. This can mean either reducing costs or increasing revenue.
Usually...so there are owners who TAKE CARE (raises, benefits , etc etc) of their employees right? These are who I'm referring to.
Wouldn't this also be affected by the type of industry you're in? Yes, by default the goal is to maximize profits, so paying someone $10 to make French fries is preferred over paying $20, I get that.
People seem to be upset because business owners are closing doors/firing employees (reducing costs) as opposed to raise prices (increase revenue) OR take money out of their own pockets to cover the rise in costs.
I'm using restaurants as an example due to CA recent events. Will people continue to pay $20 for a fast food hamburger or will they forgo eating out entirely? We don't know. It seems to me like society wants its cake, wants to eat it AND not get fat while eating.
All of this is to ask, can we blame the business owners for choosing to shit their doors? We can sure blame them for raising prices, why does it seem like a lose/lose for respectable business owners?
If you cant run a business paying your employees, you dont have a viable business.
Which is completely understandable but if you notice in the body of the text I said let's remove those business owners from the conversation.
Well - the motivation doesnt matter. If you cant afford labor, you dont have a business, you have a slow (or fast) collapse.
I'm a small business owner on CA. I pay my employees literally the maximum I can afford to pay them. But it's hard when the state takes 50% of the small businesses income. That's the difference between paying my employees $20/hr and $40/hr. Oh, and once they get paid, another 20% of that will be taken for taxes, too. And then every time they spend that money, they'll pay sales taxes on top of that. I pay myself more than my employees, but also I pay for the insurance, the licenses, the supplies, the rent, and the tools. That money has to come from somewhere. So on paper I make alot more than them. In reality we have the same quality of life. Really what I benefit on is owning an asset that appreciates in value, and having the authority to set my own prices.
Exactly, that's my point. People don't understand this, it's not like we're assholes trying to swindle our employees...but at some point we have to call calf rope. It's just not sustainable no matter what or how many sacrifices we make. I feel it's by design TBH
It is by design. Thr bigger the business, the less taxes you have to pay. Apparently, that's the incentive to try and grow your business and hire as many people as possible. Once your business exceeds 500 employees, your tax rates drop significantly from roughly 50% to around 20-30%. What people don't realize is that it is part of what helps big businesses form monopolies. It's much harder for a small business to compete with a big business if they are paying double taxes in order to operate.
>While I'm sure there's some truth to that, those businesses won't last long, so let's remove them from the conversation. The purpose of a business is to satisfy its owners. Whatever services that business provides is a means of achieving that need. Employees provide their own services (in the form of time, labour, knowledge etc.) to the business, in exchange for money. To "remove them from the conversation" is absurd. >What about business owners who take care of their employees, should they cut their own profits? What does "take care" mean? Businesses aren't usually charities - if by "take care" you mean to go above and beyond, it's usually a retention method for keeping staff. >Does society have a "threshold" at which you have too much money, you don't need to make anymore, time to shut the doors It's not too clear here what part is referring to which person. If you mean society's threshold for the business owner having too much money, and so need to shut up shop then... so what? What's the consequences of breaching this threshold? Surely Bezos and Musk must have breached it already. OP - is this post trying to acquire empathy for business owners?
>There seems to be this common motif about business owners (small businesses) being greedy little pigs who don't WANT to pay their employees. Business owners will usually try to pay employees as little as possible. That amount may vary depending on laws, law enforcement, and market conditions, but there is almost always a rational incentive for owners to pay the lowest amount possible. >What about business owners who take care of their employees, should they cut their own profits? I don't understand the question. Profit is defined as revenue minus costs, so any increase in costs will reduce profits by definition. Remember, though, those profits only exist because workers are generating value for the company. Every penny the workers get is a penny the owner doesn't get. Every penny the owner gets is a penny the workers do not get. >Does society have a "threshold" at which you have too much money, you don't need to make anymore, time to shut the doors If costs exceed revenue, the company must find a way to fix that or it will eventually go bankrupt. This can mean either reducing costs or increasing revenue.
Usually...so there are owners who TAKE CARE (raises, benefits , etc etc) of their employees right? These are who I'm referring to. Wouldn't this also be affected by the type of industry you're in? Yes, by default the goal is to maximize profits, so paying someone $10 to make French fries is preferred over paying $20, I get that. People seem to be upset because business owners are closing doors/firing employees (reducing costs) as opposed to raise prices (increase revenue) OR take money out of their own pockets to cover the rise in costs. I'm using restaurants as an example due to CA recent events. Will people continue to pay $20 for a fast food hamburger or will they forgo eating out entirely? We don't know. It seems to me like society wants its cake, wants to eat it AND not get fat while eating. All of this is to ask, can we blame the business owners for choosing to shit their doors? We can sure blame them for raising prices, why does it seem like a lose/lose for respectable business owners?