https://www.businessinsider.com/fast-food-operator-kills-vacations-hikes-prices-calif-wage-law-2024-1

    • 420blazeit69 [he/him]
      ·
      6 months ago

      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?

    • Adkml [he/him]
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

    • BurgerPunk [he/him, comrade/them]
      ·
      6 months ago

      Bussiness man: i deserve profit because i take risks!

      Same dude: i should be completely sheltered from any consequences of the risks i take

    • Spongebobsquarejuche [none/use name]
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

      • wopazoo [he/him]
        ·
        6 months ago

        i don't care about the plight of small business owners

        • Spongebobsquarejuche [none/use name]
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          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.

          • silent_water [she/her]
            ·
            6 months ago

            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.

              • silent_water [she/her]
                ·
                6 months ago

                agitating for better workers' comp is how we get there. protecting smol bean business owner profits solves nothing.

                • Spongebobsquarejuche [none/use name]
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  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.

                    • Spongebobsquarejuche [none/use name]
                      ·
                      6 months ago

                      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.

                      • Swoosegoose [he/him]
                        ·
                        6 months ago

                        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?

                      • silent_water [she/her]
                        ·
                        6 months ago

                        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.