So the owner must have enough $$$$ to retire. Must be nice.
If you own a business, you know 60-80% of your expense is payroll. Not just what the employee gets, but other taxes you pay on what you pay employees. You just doubled payroll expense. It isn’t about retiring. It is about bankruptcy.
The owner can move to another state and start a new business. Californicating is not a place I would want to be in business. until the populace wakes up and realize what they have been voting for, I won’t visit or conduct business there. In my business I could take on projects there, but I refuse.
That’s not your call to make. Businesses exist for one reason and one reason only. To make money for their owner or shareholders. They are not in business to provide jobs. That’s a side benefit.
More than most, I have been the recipient of that. Twice I’ve lost career level jobs due to the economy slowing down and the business having to trim staff. I had to move 600 miles and be apart from my family for eight months when I got a new job after being unemployed for six months. It is what it is.
The owner probably scrimped and saved for years even decades building up the business and hopefully a decent income only to be destroyed by the dictates of a clown show of economic illiterates who with the stroke of a pen destroyed her company and many others. I hope they choke.
Envy.
Resentment.
Not good.
I doubt that. He’s gotta do something with the $20 min wage to stay afloat. Many food places have reduced the portion size and quality of their menu items, and I suspect this guy has already done that. What’s left is to raise prices to pay for the wage increase, which will drive customers away.
The best way to keep from going under is to close the doors now. If the place is paid for, at least he can sell it and save something. To keep going he risks losing all.
I was thinking along those lines, too.
The owner may not have retired but pulled his investment in the restaurant to invest in something else.
That, or decided to set up shop in another state.
Because that's what victims do when a pfascist regime targets them.
So the owner must have enough $$$$ to retire. Must be nice.
No, they’ll just end up selling the business quickly at some loss and move away from California to make up for the loss.
Maybe. And maybe they don't have nearly enough $$$$ to operate at a loss.
I think the real tragedy here is all of the laws that prevented you from doing the same thing they did. /sarc. Well ... either that or warped assumptions. But one of those two is a tragedy for sure.
Where was that claim in the article?
“So the owner must have enough $$$$ to retire. Must be nice.”
Could be, or he’s SMART ENOUGH to get out before he goes broke trying to comply.
Retirement is better than foreclosure or bankruptcy.
If he’s retired, he might have enough money to give to the food pantry.
A failed business benefits no one.
Or knew it was going to cost some money to go to work everyday he can get a better job doing something else than having it cost him money to be in business
Negative cash flow is bad if you are rich, middle class or poor.
“Cold equations”
It’s clear you’ve never run a business.
Wow. You make a lot of dumb ass comments, but his one is up there.
Look at the replies!
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4229142/replies?c=9