I mean, I’m guessing this is just the gross profits for one day with no factoring in overhead costs, as in insurance, rent, power/water bills, taxes.
Truth is once you factor in all that the pay bump you’d get from collecting profits directly instead of paying your boss isn’t that much. This is a fact that bosses like to exploit, but it ignores a couple of factors. One, that bump is split between a number of people, so the boss is still taking a pretty penny. Two, all that shit I listed above is shitty rent seeking that shouldn’t exist under socialism. Three, at the end of the day socialism isn’t about getting paid more, it’s about worker control of the economy, the workers taking over one business doesn’t mean much if they still pay for rent and groceries to capitalist. If the workers control most/all of the economy the fact you don’t personally take that much in doesn’t matter because you’ll have better
Yep, even a worker owned co-op still has to pay rent to a commercial landlord or at least property taxes for "services"/protection money (cops, and really insurance is this too as you said)
I mean, I’m guessing this is just the gross profits for one day with no factoring in overhead costs, as in insurance, rent, power/water bills, taxes.
If that's the case then it's not the restaurant's profit that was shared, but its revenue.
But yeah, I guess it's not that unlikely that the person who wrote the post used the wrong term. That much surplus value would be insane, especially for a restaurant.
I mean, I’m guessing this is just the gross profits for one day with no factoring in overhead costs, as in insurance, rent, power/water bills, taxes.
Truth is once you factor in all that the pay bump you’d get from collecting profits directly instead of paying your boss isn’t that much. This is a fact that bosses like to exploit, but it ignores a couple of factors. One, that bump is split between a number of people, so the boss is still taking a pretty penny. Two, all that shit I listed above is shitty rent seeking that shouldn’t exist under socialism. Three, at the end of the day socialism isn’t about getting paid more, it’s about worker control of the economy, the workers taking over one business doesn’t mean much if they still pay for rent and groceries to capitalist. If the workers control most/all of the economy the fact you don’t personally take that much in doesn’t matter because you’ll have better
imagine we do the revolution but accidentally let all the landlords keep leeching.
Yep, even a worker owned co-op still has to pay rent to a commercial landlord or at least property taxes for "services"/protection money (cops, and really insurance is this too as you said)
If that's the case then it's not the restaurant's profit that was shared, but its revenue.
But yeah, I guess it's not that unlikely that the person who wrote the post used the wrong term. That much surplus value would be insane, especially for a restaurant.