• The_Walkening [none/use name]
    ·
    edit-2
    3 years ago

    I mean if you're going to be the actual owner of a business, it doesn't even make sense to pay your workers like it's a worker-owned place - are they just a pallete-swapped Nathan J Robinson?

    Even if the business does profit-sharing or whatever, ultimately revenues feed into the valuation of the company - if you're the sole owner, then you get to keep all the money when you sell the business .

    • ComradeBongwater [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      the valuation of the company

      Valuation in a lot of small businesses like these is likely little more than the accumulation of assets, assuming they own their storefront or manufacturing equipment. Most potential buyers at that scale are probably looking for the real estate to run some other venture vs continue whatever they're doing. It's not like they're an industrial firm, have tons of land, or legally hold valuable IP. I doubt anyone would be buying them for their brand, especially if it would evaporate upon transfer to more exploitative owners.

      Of course it would be better if it were actual ownership and democratically run, but as far as exploitation goes, this is about the minimum you'll find outside of going full worker co-op.

    • StolenStalin [comrade/them,they/them]
      hexagon
      ·
      3 years ago

      Doesn't look like she's ever planning to sell it. Looks like what she wants to do, she mostly employs people who came from attempted co-ops.

  • jabrd [he/him]
    ·
    3 years ago

    Is her math wrong or am I high? $250 a day times 4 days a week times 52 weeks in a year equals out to a salary of $52k, not $72k or whatever she said.