TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
You understand the difference between revenue and profit, right?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Pizza hut lays off all its drivers just because minimum wage was increased.
- Thread starter Twilight Hue
- Start date
State laws in California now give Pizza Hut an "out" to help them maximize profit at the expense of delivery drivers.
App-based delivery services don't have to pay their drivers for time not in transit. That's it; that's the big savings. The driver is still unavailable to do other work while they're on standby waiting for an order to come in, but now they get paid nothing for that time.
I don't think it's fair to expect workers to work - or even be on standby - for free. Do you?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I used to be one of those entitled complainers.
And then I started a business for myself.
3 years later I emailed my old boss to apologize for the pain in the behind I was to him.
He laughed.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
OR....
If they can't pay their workers a decent wage, it means they have to many employees and let go some of them so that there is enough money to pay the rest a decent wage, instead of going bankrupt in a scenario where EVERYBODY loses?
People really need to stop thinking that businesses are money factories.
What if they have just enough employees to do the necessary work but still can't pay them decent wages?
Not all (or perhaps even most) businesses are, of course, but I think it's safe to say that multibillion-dollar corporations are money factories far more often than they're not.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
The mysteries of this religion called Unbridled Capitalism.
That is, a Capitalist invests 100,000 euros in a business, and thanks to the work of 4 employees who cost him 100, 000 euros a year, he gets a 2 million euros revenue a year.
But he gets the 2 million. The employees just 25,000 each.
Very nice
Mystery of Faith. Amen.
Which companies are these, where employees apparently repay their own cost a hundred-fold?
Could it be that you pulled these numbers out of your behind?
A manager could pay an employee the wage but yell at them or speak to them disrespectfully for being slightly late to work, be abusive or rude in general, etc. I think both the employer and employee owe each other respectful and humane treatment, not just wages and work, respectively. Do you agree or disagree with this?
It stands to reason that if a business has an employee on staff, it's because the business extracts more value out of that employee's labour than the business pays for the employee (not just wages, but taxes, benefits, training, etc.).
There's generally going to be a gap - maybe a sizeable one - between what the company pays and the value the company gets in return. Within that gap, there's room to negotiate a different arrangement that is more in the employee's favour.
It also stands to reason that, because of the unbalanced bargaining positions of an individual employee and their employer, most worker's wages are set at a level that favours the business owner... unless there's a union or strong labour laws in place to help restore balance.
They have been mentioned as causes of business failures, but they don't really complain about it in the way they complain about high taxes or minimum wage laws. It's almost as if there's some kind of unwritten commandment, "Thou shalt speak no ill will of thy business community."
I only point this out since I have seen many people in business speak of what they do in coldly rational terms, as if there's some sort of logical, practical rationale behind the decisions they make - such as a company laying off part of its workforce and openly proclaiming that it's because of a government-mandated minimum wage increase. There was ostensibly no malice in their decision, it was nothing personal, but strictly business, as the saying often goes. At least, that's what they want the general public to think. However coldly impersonal it might come across, the bottom line is "business is business."
Of course, if all of that were true, that would negate the possibility of any kind of favoritism, nepotism, or anything that it isn't solely and rationally tied to the practical best interests of the business itself. But since a lot of this does go on, then maybe business really isn't "business," as they say - at least not all the time.
Similarly, such perceptions tend to paint the business community as rational, practical, and objective, while it's the government, or State, which is portrayed as naturally incompetent, impractical, inefficient, wasteful, corrupt, etc. It seems clear that such perceptions are fostered within the context and intent of political persuasion - but not something that's a "strictly business" kind of decision. I just wanted to point that out.
These Pizza Hut franchises were able to pay their drivers a decent wage. The change here wasn't a decrease in their flexibility; it was new minimum wage laws for app-based delivery drivers. Suddenly, there was a more exploitative but lower cost option for deliveries, but only if they outsourced deliveries to Uber Eats or similar companies.
The businesses were profitable and doing okay, but the owner wanted to bump their profitability up a bit more.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Then they are in trouble and would have to look at why that is the case.
There can be any number of reasons. Perhaps they don't have efficient workflows - that would be best case scenario as they can then optimize.
Worst case is that the market simply doesn't want their product.
And there's a whole range in between those two also.
A struggling business that can't turn things around is doomed for bankrupcy off course.
Don't be so sure of that. When people say of a business that it is a multi-billion dollar corporation, they mean that it has a revenue that goes into billions.
That doesn't mean it makes a profit. Not all companies are like Apple or Microsoft you know.
Take Spotify for instance. It's been around for years and for most of that time, it has done nothing but take losses running in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
The vast majority of companies start out taking nothing but losses the first years. And then they either gradually get into black figures OR it remains to be seen if investors are willing to keep it on life-support by continuing to put money into it.
In any case, I was talking in general.
I see it around me all the time. Our company is a small company. We are 3 partners / founders and we have 4 employees currently. Whenever it comes up in social conversation with non-enterpreneurs that I own a company, they instantly assume that I swim in money.
The thought that running a business is very hard work (MUCH harder then being employed by a company) and that succes is all but guaranteed, doesn't even cross their minds. It's quite annoying, tbh.
Just the other day there was talk about doing a group event somewhere and I didn't want to participate in what was on the table because it was too expensive for me. "you're self-employed right, you can just pay yourself whatever you want..." as if my company is a bottomless pit of money that I can use like a withdrawel machine.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
That's not really what the point was about.
This is not about how you treat people in social situations.
This is about how I "owe" them a job.
If tomorrow I have no more use for employee X or if my business would be better of without employee X, why would I keep him/her and throw money out the window?
I am not a charity.
Increased rent has caused many businesses to go under
or move. I've no research on it. But I've observed it.
BTW, I've never done that to my commercial tenants.
(I would if I could, but it's never looked profitable.)
Agreed, on all counts.
Thanks. This is both informative and interesting to read. It is similar to some of the things I've heard from other business owners, although those live and operate their businesses in my country.
I agree on the importance of distinguishing between revenue and profit. I was mainly thinking of large corporations that consistently generate billions in profit but have a poor reputation of overworking or underpaying employees, having an inhumane or abusive work environment, etc. Amazon and Tesla come to mind as especially notorious offenders, although I haven't been keeping up on whether either has reformed those issues.
I wish you success with your business!
If we strictly focus on financial aspects, I generally agree: a business is not a charity that is obliged to provide jobs.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
That's the theory. That's the goal. It's not guaranteed that this is so.
And if it is so, it's not guaranteed that it stays like that tomorrow.
The world and the market can change. Authorities can vote in laws that upset that balance also.
Then there's also the scenario where the loss of the employee (and the value that employee generates) might actually mean a net gain in value for the company.
So there's all kinds of factors to take into account here.
So does that also work the other way round?
What if there is no gap and the employee costs more then he gains in value? Can we then also negotiate a different arrangement that is more in the company's favour?
As an employer, I say "yes". But then all of a sudden unions and employees will scream "SHAME" and "GREED" and "DISGUSTING".
It works both ways imo.
Yea off course. I started a business to make money after all. The employee will try and take as much from the company as he can and the company will do the same in reverse. The employee wants a high wage and I want a high profit. Isn't that normal? I say it's the same. We both want to make money.
And when it comes to high value employees, if I don't pay them market grade wages, they'll leave for the competition and then that's bad for me also.
I just think it's always weird that as an employer in such conversations, it's almost as if I have to apologize for trying to make money.
As if it's a bad thing that I try to maximize my profit. The employee gets to maximize his wage and I am supposed to simply comply, but when I try to maximize my wage (= my profit) it's somehow a bad thing.
Some advocate that if a business can't pay a decent
(in their view) wage, they should go out of business.
Is that best for the employees, who must now seek
work elsewhere in a job market with all the low wage
jobs gone?
I haven't read enough about the possible nuances of either of the above scenarios to make an informed comment about it, so I won't comment.
From this comment, I thought you were familiar enuf to make claims....
"Not all (or perhaps even most) businesses are, of course, but I think it's safe to say that multibillion-dollar corporations are money factories far more often than they're not."
In business, the wolves are always at the door.
It might not seem like it when times are good,
but if they aren't continually watching both the
bottom line & the future, any company can fail.
Even Apple & IBM almost went went under at times.
WeWork, Rite Aid, Bed Bath & Beyond, Tuesday
Morning, SmileDirectClub, & Lordstown Motors
went bankrupt this last year. They were big &
well known.
I drive I-80 past the gigantic Lordstown facility
regularly. Parking lots once full are now empty.
Last edited:
I'm familiar enough with the fact that most mega-corporations do tend to generate massive profit far more often than they lose money, but your question touched on a different topic than that.