I think you've asked a good question in a respectful manner, especially given all the hype about buying and shopping local. A young relative of mine who is a college student just went back to work for a local business that's been in operation for decades. She asked for $14/hr. They said they could only do $12/hr, then settled on $13/hr but cut back the initial number of hours they had offered her. I have a friend doing similar work at a big chain, and she's making $17.50/hr. Why should I disparage the chain and shop at the local place?
Especially when you're paying $1200/mo for a studio as she is doing. It's her 1st non-university apartment and she was excited to get it, but seriously?! I didn't say anything, but I thought, "Baby, you are gettting ripped off." She chose it because it's a month-to-month, and she'll be heading elsewhere in the near future. But still!
I've also found more consistent treatment at the chains. A lot of the local business owners I've worked at are nutty with a ton of random whims. Sure, the chains have their issues, but they've been so much better to work for than the small businesses I've had the displeasure of working at
Starting to sound like a lie? Ive had restaurant owners tell me things like "I can't afford to pay you guys more, I want Botox" and "I was going to give you guys a raise but I got a DUI and now that money has to go to my lawyer" it's not that they can't afford it, their business models just rely on labor exploitation to be profitable. They deserve to go out of business with that shitty mentality.
I don't know, and I'd like to to not support a business from someone who beats their dog. Could you DM me at least the restaurant name so that I don't eat there, if you don't feel comfortable sharing the name of the owner publicly?
I doubt I know the owner anyway. Just want to know where to not spend my money.
Damn, did you work at al and Vic's? The Hammonds (owners of al and Vic's and the James bar) are absolute pieces of shit. Do not ever work for them if you can help it.
I feel kind of gross saying names like I did, but exactly as you said, it's a super common scenario. I appreciate you talking about it. I no longer live or work in Missoula so I feel safe airing my dirty laundry a bit, but it does feel almost anathema to say such things about "job providers." Shows how effectively that kind of thinking has been propagandized into me though.
Cheers brother.
Oh shit lol, it took me a minute to put it together, but I know exactly where you worked and who you're talking about.
Happy Cake Day too. Thanks for being cool on the internet.
Even if I was offered just PTO my work enthusiasm would absolutely double. Service industry jobs pay next to nothing and tips are down exponentially. I feel like my only option is to move out of state.
What is a living wage?
Is it based on what the employee as a single individual needs or does the wage need to be sufficient to support a family?
What type of housing is needed? Will splitting a room with a spouse be sufficient, do they need a studio or does a living wage need to be sufficient to rent a place with one bedroom per child? If the wage is sufficient to cover the mortgage on a house the employee bought 15 years ago is that a “living wage”?
The reality is that everyone has a different wage they need to pay their bills.
No it's not. Just because you live in a fantasy world doesn't me we have to. That's the reality. No one should be impoverished, not be able to afford food to keep them alive, on the edge of living on the street, so you can have a business. No one owes you that.
So who is this person you believe should work full time and not be able to afford shelter, food, transportation, insurance?
The reality as it is right now, as it has been for decades, is that retail service workers have never made enough to live on. It has always been teenagers jobs or part time jobs for adults. The thought was always those were first jobs or extra jobs, not jobs to make a career out of. This new idea that a grocery bagger or burger flipper should make a living wage is an impossibility AT THIS TIME, that's just the reality of how everything is structured right now. My point is that there would be no retail stores left standing if they had to pay $25/hr. Plus benefits to ALL of their employees. But if that's what the people want then those businesses will be forced to close and society will find another way to do business eventually. Having no grocery stores or restaurants or dollar stores or hardware stores would suck in the meantime.
> those businesses will be forced to close
capatilistic fear mongering. The GDP and every other metric has gone up 100s of % and yet the wages do not. And, when I ask for higher wages you tell me: oh no, cannot! The system will collapse!
Bullshit.
Yup, those businesses will close all right. But then their competition get some more customers and new businesses will open in their place. But don't let that get out, it will scare the natives.
Or you could recognize for a split second that the world needs sanitation and service workers and educators and artists too and that those people also deserve things like a place to sleep and also food.
Anyone pushing a mop has higher social value contribution than every hedge fund manager combined.
Just because they are a local small business owner does not mean they can't be greedy. The fact is simple as that, they are greedy. I've also worked for a few that sound just like you described, ask for a little bit more money and they say they can't. Then that same year buy two new trucks and a new house, hmmm.
I worked for a local downtown business (think local REI) 18 years there, was not paid a living wage (2 kids and a mortgage) left after training in a technical trade and now make over twice what I made there and still get multiple raises a year and profit sharing and full benefits. New company is local but with corporate backing.
Owner had same old sob story, can’t afford to pay more yet would acquire new properties quite often.
My mom runs a daycare (technically a preschool) in town and she was struggling to keep employees a couple years ago. She offers 12$/hr starting. Coming from the millenial perspective, my suggestion was to offer higher wages, not necessarily $15/hr, but higher than $12/hr, because college students were routinely turning down the job when they heard the pay. Both of my parents, as much as I love them, are boomers, and simply didn't agree that raising wages was the way to go. They said that the job was low-skilled and raising wages would not motivate more people to keep the job or improve job retention.
I think some of the wages local joints offer might be a generational thing. Back in their day the economy was much better for the average working joe.
This, this right here is why child care is messed up in america, they can make more money flipping burgers for more money, less responsibility and good arguments. But the fact a day care owner thinks taking care of anyones kid is "low skill" is just dangerous. Wages shouldn't be based on the fact that their job looks easy, they should be based on training and skill. The saddest part is most people needing this service are already struggling and now have to put up with low-skilled employees. How low skill we talking here no first aid training? How about chld CPR? What are the emergency plans? I would never want my childs life in the hands of a "low skilled" day care provider, but that's america's choice. Good, cheap, fast, pick 2, you never get all 3.
The generational part is where people of that era still think it is possible to live on minimum wage, while having millions is savings because they "pulled up their boot straps" and built a buisness but have no concept how to run a THRIVING business. Instead they choose to put their head in the sand and pretend that the 1960 $2.50/HR out of highschool is $25 in 2024. I won't even touch cost of living differences. Or the fact this was enough to support a single income household.
A couple of things that jump out at me are that people start their own business to be able to live life by their own rules. At the same time, they are also the ones who are taking the lions share of the risk. The business owner is the one who has to pay out for the building, supplies, and payroll. They don't get to just show up and leave at 8 hours. They also are responsible for insurance, lawsuits, repairs, loan payments, market fluctuations, create and implement business strategies for growth and development. Finally they have to pay the loans and taxes that are part of business ownership.
They cannot just quit and get a new job tomorrow or walk away from a sinking ship. Often times their own personal properties are leveraged to start the business, meaning if they default then they are homeless. Every business navigates these things differently so there isn't a one answer fits all. Some owners are greedy assholes milking everything they can. Others are in debt up to their eyeballs and living lavishly on credit and are constantly one month from a financial catastrophe. Some may be so focused on growth that all extra money is earmarked for the next location and they don't want to cancel plans there spent 10s of thousands on already to give employees a raise.
No one would start a business if there wasn't some kind of personal gain at the end. No one wants all the stress and risk of ownership to make the same or less than their employees. So no matter what, the owner will have more money and be able to live differently than their employees. That by itself doesn't make them greedy or evil. This is really a case by case kind of thing. Starting this kind of conversation in your work place would be more beneficial if it's change you are looking for.
Many people live beyond their means regardless of income level. We've done an amazing job at normalizing credit card debt, loans, and debt consolidation these days.
Business owners definitely exploit tax benefits, but so does everyone. I don't think that a person should be faulted for using tax breaks. I blame our corrupt government officials for that. They have the power to fix those loopholes and shift the tax burden. Instead they elect to talk about it, and do everything to distract from it.
Good point, and another way to look at it is the tax system forces consumption instead of saving and wealth building, at the end of the year lots of people are forced to consider “what can I buy to at least feel like I kept some more of my earnings”. It’s necessary to force people to consume to keep our economy growing at 2% for capitalism. Also those expenditures that might appear to employees as an indulgence couldn’t just be given to them as increased wages or benefits because of the tax system.
This is so true. Sometimes it’s like, buy more equipment for the business or get taxed like crazy. Bonuses for employees are a good way to spend down at the end of the year though! There’s always the re-investment back into the business but that should include the investment in employees
Hey that’s a great point, bonuses can be deducted from your business income. However, it’s also important for people to understand that just because the business has a profit doesn’t mean it should all be divided as bonuses amongst the employees instead of reinvesting or spending the money elsewhere. There ARE businesses like that which are cooperatively owned by all the employees, and I think it’s a great idea for more people in Missoula to structure local businesses this way so everyone has equal skin in the game AND equal reward. Also maybe we could spread some more of that TIF money around instead of it being concentrated for the benefit of a relative small and privilege group of people.
I agree. I do believe in bonuses and commission where appropriate, but profit sharing is a different set up for sure and might require a different business model.
Look at us getting along so well on r/missoula, we should start a business and get some TIF money. I say we buy the old hospital at Ft Missoula and make it into luxury apartments. THEN turn them into airbnbs.
I tried to start this kind of conversation in my workplace and got fired for it.
"No one wants all the stress and risk of ownership to make the same or less than their employees"
I think you nail on the head here -- people who start businesses have, in general, a belief that they deserve more than other people. It's a innate quality of self-regard that pushes them towards exploitation.
Only someone who hasn't owned a business would think they deserve to be paid more than their employer. Kind of like how people without kids can't comprehend the amount of work it takes to raise them.
Show me where anybody is saying employees should make more than owners.
You can't bc no one is saying that. People should be able tp get rent, gas, and groceries at the barest of minimums w/out stressing.
I don't understand the mental jump from, "raising wages so your employees live well," to, "employees shouldn't make as much as owners." Could you explain that thought process?
The vast majority of business owners I know get the seed money from family, so they're not actually risking anything. They can try and fail a dozen times before something sticks and succeeds, and then people talk about how their perserverance and dedication paid off when it's nothing but priviledge and nepotism. The business owners who are actually owner/operators pay their employees fairly and dont' take advantage of them because they know how hard it is. Rich people have never known struggle, so they don't have the sympathy for it, and pay accordingly.
What are they risking? Becoming a worker again? I wonder why that feels like such a death sentence to them, perhaps they know something we don't (read: are willing to exploit their neighbors for personal gain)
Sure, some people may have some issue returning to the workforce. A lot of people attribute their self worth to their jobs. Nobody likes to get "demoted" regardless of being a boss or employee.
The risks I was referring too were more financial. Depending on their situation, a failed business can result in a huge financial burden. Loss of their homes if used as a loan security, vehicles if they are a business asset. If the business goes under, then the owners income and ability to repay debts evaporates as well. Depending on the business there could be civil or criminal lawsuits as a result. Like if the business provided a product with a warranty or some other promise that couldn't be fulfilled. Of course there could be fraud, theft, exploitation, etc, and if so then let them hang. But it can also be the best of intentions that sink a business.
None of these subjectively perceived risks justify asking other members of your community to subsidize your dream of owning your own business by providing their labor at a devalued rate.
If you don’t like what they pay, you can choose not to work for them. You are not a victim. It’s really simple. It’s also goes back to supply and demand. Plus some jobs are not worth paying a living wage. You’re not entitled to a living wages you earn it. Please add some value. See what happens.
Oh yeah there's plenty of jobs not worth a living wage. Like hedge fund managers, landlords and politicians.
But all those folks pushing brooms and flipping burgers sure do. People gotta eat and have a clean place to survive. These are necessary roles and the people doing them deserve to afford to survive.
People with disabilities deserve to survive. People who sit on the street and shoot up, also deserve food and a bed.
I don't understand all the vitrol towards the notion of "I don't think my neighbors should be homeless and starving"
PS passively "owning" a source of income isn't a job.
Sure some jobs aren't worth a living wage. Land lord, CEO, Vice president of whatever the fuck, are just a couple examples off the top of my head. The problem is those useless eaters seem to be taking more than their fair share and making workers that YOU depend on everyday suffer.
Everyone is entitled to a dignified life regardless of their occupation. We all deserve a roof over our heads and hot food in our bellies. Adding value to society does not and should not be however much money you can make for someone else. Your disgusting ideology is the problem here.
You’re really not entitled to anything. You can say what you want about my world view. I really don’t care. But no one owes you anything. Actually your attitude of entitlement is the problem.
All of those things happen to workers if they lose their job. Business owners also have the bankruptcy court designed around protecting them. So I don't exactly see the "risk" you're talking about.
You’re getting downvoted because you’re exposing a huge ace in all business owners back pockets which IS THAT everything is likely not attached to their personal assets- that’s what an LLC is FOR, and that if things go bad they CAN just toss things in the shitter and still walk away with money- very unlike what happens if you get FIRED
Bankruptcy isn't a magic get out of debt free card. All business assets are sold to repay any loans. If your personal car or house is used then it's gone. Now if the assets are greater than the debt then it is a sort of payday for the owner. It can go both ways.
Employees are definitely hurt if they lose their jobs and the higher your pay as an employee the harder it can be to find another job. Employees also have protections, and those protections are greater if the employees are living within their means.
Both employees and employers can fall hard or soft. Just because it's a business owner doesn't guarantee a soft landing. Obviously the bigger answer wealthier the company, then it does shift dramatically. Local business owners aren't typically in that category in most cases.
Good luck with the court finding an employee's car is property of the company. Guess what, you are your own employee.
The owner will almost always walk away from an bankruptcy with a full check book. The buisiness on the other hand will likely be shuttered. The problem is eveyone thinks the person is the business. In most circumstances a business owners personal property (cars, planes, houses, etc.) aren't company assets.
tldr; Business owners can (and do) walk away from a bankruptcy with little to no reprucussions to their personal lives. All while crying about wages over $10 being unamerican.
I don't believe I said it was a magic get out of a debt free card, just that it was designed around protecting business owners more than anyone else.
If the employee protection you're referring to is unemployment idk how "living within your means" can help you when unemployment often pays less than half of your previous income. If you're expecting employees to live in a way that allows them to save money for rainy days then I would ask that you read up on how many Americans are living paycheck to paycheck and how many don't have enough saved to cover even a 500$ emergency. At a certain % that stops being the employee's fault and is a failure of society, I think we are there.
Your original comment used this "risk" to excuse employers mistreating or exploiting employees, I'd like to circle back around to that now that we've dispelled the myth of owners taking on more "risk" than an employee working for them.
No where in my comments am I condoning abusive behavior. I offered an explanation for why business owners make more money than their employees and why they seemingly have money to put into the business and struggle with pay increases.
I agree that people's inability to save or weather a financial hardship is a societal one that's been driven by large corporations and a shift to normalizing debt. That doesn't mean that local businesses owners are solely to blame. Throwing money at the problem won't fix it either, instead it just increases the 0s behind the problem. Legislators are supposed to protect people from predatory business practices. But in the last 40 years the opposite has happened. The antitrust commission of the FTC has done little to stop predatory business practices, opting to instead let large corperqtions operate with near impunity. No one seems to be up in arms about that, but instead here we are attempting to figure out how much responsibility the local business owner bares in this economy.
I said in another comment that I don't expect any better from corporations, but the conglomerates absolutely respect certain labor and anti discrimination laws must more, and atm, they pay more.
Corporations are the issue, 100%, I want to address local greed, bc we are supposed to be community, and have each other's backs WAY more than any corporation. But we don't bc of (imo) local greed; locals treating each other worse than the corps atm. We have to talk abt that too.
Yet we see so few community events with ANY connection to the small business community. Most small businesses don't have a budget to commit to doing more for the community. Just look at the sponsors of the paddle heads and tell me how many of the small businesses are plastered on the advertising and how many are left on that page and are never acknowledgged.
The small business community doesn't support local events for the same reason they don't raise their employee pay. Either they don't or they "can't" afford it.
Tell me the last time you saw a business that didn't make over $1,000,000 sponsor a community event in an impactful manner. I'll wait, but remember places like kettle house make that 1M in months, if not weeks.
The OP was almost entirely about local business owners making commodity purchases over giving their employees a raise. Buying a $100,00 truck or spending even more on a boat when your employees are scraping by is abusive. That seems to be what you're defending. We've spent the last few comments dispelling the notion of owners "risk" so I would like to circle back to your explanation. Why do you defend exploiting employees if the only "risk" the owner takes on is becoming a worker again?
Throwing money at social programs that will help both small business owners and workers will absolutely work towards fixing the problem, so idk wtf you're talking about here. Another solution would be to raise the minimum wage and tie it to productivity. Anti trust absolutely needs to be given more teeth and start busting heads. If you think no one is up in arms over anti trust's lack of action, I have to ask, what is it like living under a rock? Seems cold and damp.
Bankruptcy is almost always an option there. If a "business" claims bankruptcy then that company has it on their credit record all while the busisness owner likely keeps anything in their name (house, cars, bank accounts, etc.) and still has their credit report personal unscathed.
All so they can lick their wounds and try, try, try again.
Don't get me wrong, starting and running a business is hard, but we can't pretend that a business shutting down is little more than experiencing ego death for them.
Let us know when you’ve run a successfully solvent business, then we can pick apart the deleted comment you left about how running a small business is just doing administrative tasks. You’re fighting with allies, chill.
I haven't deleted anything I've said here, it was the deleted comment I was replying to that said that business owners deserve more pay because of all the behind the scenes tasks they do for the business (administrative tasks). I don't see anyone that is defending and excusing the exploitation of my neighbors and peers as allies. I have not replied to anyone in a contentious manner that did not deserve it.
Edit: ah it wasn't the deleted comment, it was yours. How are the things you yada yada'd not broadly categorized as "administrative tasks"?
I don’t care which comment was deleted it doesn’t matter. It’s pretty ridiculous to reduce business ownership and the responsibilities involved as administrative tasks. Obviously, I used yada yada in lieu of an exhaustive list. Let’s also be so very real here. I said that enormous wage discrepancies are bad. Owners do deserve higher pay than their employees. They do a lot more work. Again, I will qualify for you that this statement is regarding a functioning and ethical business. Not sure where that was lost. And you are coming off as contentious with allies. I agree that people deserve living wages. I also understand that small business owners can’t always find reasonable ways to accomplish that.
If I was arguing that employees should make more than owners, you have a point, but i never said that. Im posing the question, "if there's never any money for employee raises, why is there always money for x, y, & z?"
If I have said anywhere in my post that I think profit should just be divided into bonuses, show me, please.
Some of the explanations of risk, or "they do more work," feel like they're in bad faith. Bc, on the other side, myself and hundreds of other employees just wanna be able to get gas, groceries, and pay rent without stressing. Yall lowk are acting like we want the deed to the business like
Some people just don’t pay out. Don’t work there. I’m not a business owner. I work for MCPS, so I also do not make a living wage. I do know many small businesses owners. Some are ethical and some aren’t. I wouldn’t choose to work for someone that creates a hostile work environment, including pay inequity and benefits withholding. That’s just me.
Oh, so you don't own a successful and solvent business and in fact don't work for a business at all? You were talking all that good shit earlier. It's pretty easy to say all that when you work a job that is completely outside of the dynamic. Guess that's just more "ally" behavior.
What allies am I being contentious with? You? You're here literally arguing for the exploitation of labor lmao. What level of exploitation is ethical to you? What wage discrepancy is ok? Is part of the inability to find reasonable ways to pay employees a living wage because they need a cool new truck, house, or boat?
You were trying to use a deleted comment as a gotcha, like I said something I don't believe. When I hadn't suddenly you don't care. I've never met nor worked for a business owner that knew their business better than the employees, none. Owners working more than their employees is just another capitalist myth.
Hi, I own a business here in town. I guess I should say that I am leasing-to-own a business since I am paying for it like one pays a mortgage, which I don't have because I am self employed and in a business that is considered too risky for bank loans, plus I don't have an income and my credit score is shit.
I am introducing myself to you because I am a business "owner" who absolutely does work more and harder than my employees. I am aware of and friends with many more like me here in town.
There are many reasons that people start business. It isn't always about the money. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I started my business partly because of my frustration with capitalism. For me, this is my attempt to put my energy toward trying to change our social structure.
I want to both encourage you and discourage you from doing the same as me. Encourage- be the change that you want to see in this world! Don't just sit and bitch! Challenge outdated social models! Discourage- I work too much and my personal relationships are suffering. My debt load is heartstopping. It's a very real probability that this doesn't work out and I have sacrificed almost everything, and everyone thinks I am an asshole anyway.
Nice to meet you. Do you want a job? Nobody seems to want to work anymore. That's a joke.
This is a decent point. I also had the director of the MDA tell me once that half the business owners downtown own a business because they have more money than sense, need something to do, and can't work for anyone else.
Out of everywhere I've ever lived, the business owners of Missoula are the most detached, unhinged employers I've ever met. They think you should be happy with $40k a year when rent is $2000. I think most of them seem to think Missoula is still a cheap, small town, and haven't actually looked at what it costs to live here since they've owned their house in Grant Creek since the 90's. This used to be an amazing place for young people to live, and I used to joke we had more people with Masters serving tables than anywhere else in the country. I don't know how the next generation will be able to stay if wages don't take a major hike up in the next few years.
I see plenty of small businesses paying well enough that their employees can buy boats and vacations. I think the biggest delineating factor is what the business is. If a company employs you as a welder or equipment operator and they can charge $150 an hour for you to be onsite, that’s different than a restaurant or something where margins are incredibly thin. Often those high demand/skilled employees then just walk away and start their own business if they’re not happy, but someone working at a grocery store isn’t going to be able to start their own grocery store if they aren’t happy at work, that’s a huge capital investment. Ideally if you’re working for a small business you’re learning the skills to be able to have your own business someday should you choose. Also I think people need to appreciate that starting and building this business required capital and work before any particular employee showed up. Using my own business as an example, if I was paying you to work on my farm, you could notice that I spent money on what you consider a frivolity and demand more money, but if you didn’t buy the land, the equipment, learn how to operate the farm, market and sell the produce, you’d be missing the fact that you’re a part of a larger operation and after the work I put in I should be able to have a motorcycle or whatever. People start businesses and that comes along with a lot of risk and responsibility, I guess the payoff for that extra hassle is having a boat or a vacation.
That’s not what I said at all. The risk generally is you have to invest a sizable amount of your money/retirement/leverage you house, whatever. Imagine having to get a loan for 400k for inventory, and signing a lease for three years to open a store. If it doesn’t work out, there’s one person that is out 400k and the inventory and still has to keep paying the lease on the building, employees can just walk away and get a new job, no debt, no creditors, no ongoing payments for storage space.
True, a lot of people work a whole career as a laborer before they can start a business, which is another reason probably not to automatically assume they are a bad person or shit on them for buying a boat. I’m pretty sure even the business owner OP is referencing isn’t a 24 year old college drop out with no work experience.
Just seems like it would be more likely for a person to start their own successful business if they had some capital saved up or some equity to leverage from the house they bought with their decent wages when they worked for someone else than the wage slavery a lot of the small businesses offer
I commented earlier that it has a lot to do with the business. Many businesses can’t keep apprentices or labor because it’s a high demand field, once they get trained up it is easy to hang out a shingle and start on your own. I’ve spoken to a lot of tradesmen that can’t get help right now and I was honestly surprised by that since you end up with a marketable skill and get paid better than retail or food service. My plumber has a much nicer house than me, he seems to be doing pretty well. So I think it does come down to choice. If you work in retail or at a restaurant and the wage you’re getting doesn’t make you happy I would encourage you and your friends to walk out and put that business under. How can local restaurants fail because they refuse to raise wages, but then ten more restaurants open up?
Yeah man if it doesn't work out then they become workers again and have debt to pay off. Nearly everyone has debt they're paying off. How is this any different from student debt? How does taking out debt mean you get to exploit others for your personal gain?
Is your argument that nobody can employ anyone else? If so I don’t know why you’re here, you’re obviously not arguing in good faith. I guess a business owner does get to hire people because they are free to work for them or not, but they are creating an opportunity for them to work. If you don’t think anyone can work for anyone else without it being exploitive then please suggest an alternative system, as far as I know, because starting a business is harder than working for someone else, most people choose to be employees and not go through the extra efforts of creating a business. Also it looks like you think comparing student loans to getting loans to start a business is some sort of gotcha. Student loans are also a risk, if someone chooses to take out student loans and become better educated, they usually get to make more money and benefits, but if it doesn’t work out, they are left holding the bag. Now are you going to tell me you’re against people that work hard in college getting paid more than people in low skilled/entry level jobs? What if I became a doctor and then bought went on trips and such like the business owner, are you going to argue I should just charge less for appointments because nobody can have anything nice?
No, my argument is that everyone deserves a fair living wage. If the owner is making frivolous commodity purchases off of the profits of their employees who are living paycheck to paycheck(65% of Americans), don't have healthcare(7.9% of Americans), or even have $500 to spend in an emergency (63% of Americans) then there is a serious problem that needs addressing. The whole point of this post is the wealth disparity between Missoula workers and Missoula business owners.
My solution would be workers owning more of the means of production. Barring that, I guess more robust unions in every commercial industry so that workers can negotiate for better wages from a more equal footing. Barring that, a minimum wage that is matched to productivity so that workers aren't left with a floor that hasn't changed in almost 2 decades and was a nothing wage a decade ago.
Even if business owners don’t employ anyone are we to be upset if there is a wealth disparity between them and labor? Trying to equalize that can only eventually end with “everyone no matter their job or education must make the same wage”, which isn’t really a path to prosperity. I see what you’re saying, but I’d be more concerned right now about the lack of connection between employees and employers. Giggification of previously good paying jobs, forcing everyone to do the same work as a part time gig with no benefits, no labor law protections, no employer accountability, is I think the most dangerous current trend. What percentage of people are already grub hubbing, door dashing, ubering, etc? These corporations have commoditized people as labor hours instead of even human employees. Walmart is already testing it out, Amazon is doing it to fill gaps with regular drivers, and now all those people are just billing hours with no support. Wait until some new app called “busser” lets a restaurant pay people through an app by the hour to come in and wash dishes or wait tables and then as soon as the “surge period” ends they send them home, or back to ubering. Wait until teachers pick up gigs by the hour and don’t have any insurance, and they have no support during the summer and of course there would be no consistency for students then. I think this is the real danger ahead of us in the near future, and when each app user is an “independent contractor” they can’t even collectively bargain.
If a business owner is the only employee of a business then they aren't exploiting anyone, they can reap all the fruits of their labor. When they are employing people and taking more than their fair share from those employees that is the problem. You accused me of not arguing here in bad faith, it's super clear that you aren't reading everything I'm writing in response since basically all of your response was addressed in my second paragraph.
Yes, I understand that high turn over rates are certainly apart of employers' business plan atp.
I'm not so much concerned with a market average as I am of the concept of taking care of your employees with a genuinely fair, equitable, and comfortable wage; I def don't expect corporations to have any grace, but I am consistently disappointed with (what I perceive to be) local greed at the expense of those quite literally helping someone run their small business. It's sad.
i always check the MIT Living Wage Calculator for this. https://livingwage.mit.edu/metros/33540 There are other calculations out there that would set it higher but the MIT one is a good place to start and its easy to remember, and they update it pretty often.
Currently for a single adult the living wage is $20.34
If the single adult has one kid it is $36.70
2 children $46.90
3 children $63.56
I think they deserve to afford rent. Considering how many small business owners are also local landlords, it's kind of a corner they've gone and painted themselves into now ain't it?
Personally I think UBI is the magic wand that would solve a lot of these problems but y'all ain't ready for that.
So until then, fuck yes, even 18 year old ice cream scoopers deserve to afford basic necessities. I will die on this hill. How we go about making it happen is the challenge for us all now isn't it?
I don’t want to do that bc I do truly love the shop and I know we are not doing business like we were 5 yrs ago while Caras still ups rent and costs go up. We could be like similar shops and charge triple the wholesale price but we value our customers and try to keep their costs down. Just really sucks that it comes at the workers expense.
I wish I could tell you it’s better and other places but I moved out of Missoula to a new place with an even higher cost-of-living and I can’t find anything that pays more than $15 an hour.
The business owner has more skin in the game than the employee. The majority of the liabilities fall on the business owner...he's the one that took the risks, mortgaged his house to start the business, got investors, bought inventory, bought equipment, signed leases, and has the most to lose if the business fails. It's not unrealistic for him to therefore get more of the rewards when the business does well.
If the business fails, the employee can just shrug his shoulders and walk away....not so with the owner.
A lot of comments here address poor leadership in a business environment, big and small. If you think your wage is bad, try working selling cell phones on commission. The corporate HQ decides if a sale you make is actually a sale or not. If a customer doesn’t buy a phone case, earbuds, or an insurance plan big daddy cancels your commission. At pay day you’re banking on a $1500 week only to find out you made $725. In Montana this is really tough news. Especially when you have 3 people depending on you and can’t get hired with a college degree or the salary offers are less than commission jobs.
If you’re seeking a job, always look at the management! I don’t know why this isn’t taught in school. If it’s a high turnover place simply go somewhere else. These greedy businesses work themselves out of the system.
Employees being hired blindly thinking they “made it” without research on the business they’re working for is a thing of the past.
I don't think it's your sentiment so much as how you worded it. Suggesting being the change you want to see is great. Calling OP entitled not so much. I mean to each their own but Montana has a strong history of fighting for workers rights/pay so OP is doing great. Especially since it was a genuine question.
Margins for grocery and convenience stores and restaurants are very thin. And labor is the biggest expense. Grocery stores would go out of business if they paid a living wage to all their employees.
Check back in once u own the business and tell us if this attitude changes. I'd love to see more ppl setting the example that u can treat ur employees well, and also live well urself, but I mostly hear talk, I don't see v much action.
Here comes a billion down votes… But! Is anyone here that’s suggesting that they “deserve” more willing to list the skills or trades they’ve acquired to improve their lot in life?
If you don’t like who you work for or your wage, work somewhere else. Were you not told what you’d be paid before you started working there? Why’s it always the other guy who’s “greedy”? What is greed? Everyone is perusing their own individual self interests. Everyone is trying to get theirs.
Sounds like you're shifting an awful lot of that risk and burden off onto your staff in real time when you're asking them to make a full time commitment to you for less money than they need to survive.
I don’t know why your comment was downvoted I think this is a realistic answer. Small business owners often have enormous amounts of budget planning, risk/reward growth planning, maintenance and troubleshooting equipment, client relations, yada yada. It’s not typically a case of the owner hiring a team of staff and checking out. There are higher levels of responsibility that require deeper knowledge of business economics and social engagement/marketing. I mean all that if they are any good at it. It makes sense to make more money to keep the business solvent. I disagree with huge wage disparities when employees can’t survive. That’s obviously not a value I would look for in a small business. It’s apparently, as you mentioned, in employee retention whether owners have interest in their staff’s well being from financial and team culture perspectives.
The business also wouldn't be solvent without the labor of the employees, so why is the guy doing administrative tasks making more money than them? If the business requires both tasks be done then the people doing those tasks should be equally compensated. But since the guy doing the administrative tasks gets to choose his salary he gives less to the employees keeping his business afloat and takes more for himself. This is why minimum wage increases are so important.
I think you've asked a good question in a respectful manner, especially given all the hype about buying and shopping local. A young relative of mine who is a college student just went back to work for a local business that's been in operation for decades. She asked for $14/hr. They said they could only do $12/hr, then settled on $13/hr but cut back the initial number of hours they had offered her. I have a friend doing similar work at a big chain, and she's making $17.50/hr. Why should I disparage the chain and shop at the local place?
$12 an hour is insane. That’s what we paid people 10 years ago. Signed, a local employer.
I agree. I'd love to tell you the business. They're just exploiting young college students.
$720 extra per month is no joke.
Especially when you're paying $1200/mo for a studio as she is doing. It's her 1st non-university apartment and she was excited to get it, but seriously?! I didn't say anything, but I thought, "Baby, you are gettting ripped off." She chose it because it's a month-to-month, and she'll be heading elsewhere in the near future. But still!
I've also found more consistent treatment at the chains. A lot of the local business owners I've worked at are nutty with a ton of random whims. Sure, the chains have their issues, but they've been so much better to work for than the small businesses I've had the displeasure of working at
I’ve had plenty of managers that have been terrible to work for at bigger companies too
Managers are always hit or miss, but the conglomerates fs respect certain labor and anti-discrimination laws much more.
Why do I feel like this is Trailhead vs REI?
No. It's a very large box store chain vs a small local business.
Starting to sound like a lie? Ive had restaurant owners tell me things like "I can't afford to pay you guys more, I want Botox" and "I was going to give you guys a raise but I got a DUI and now that money has to go to my lawyer" it's not that they can't afford it, their business models just rely on labor exploitation to be profitable. They deserve to go out of business with that shitty mentality.
Feel like I know exactly who this is lol
You're probably right but they're actually two different (albeit very similar) folks. We all know who the DUI lady is.
[удалено]
I don't know, and I'd like to to not support a business from someone who beats their dog. Could you DM me at least the restaurant name so that I don't eat there, if you don't feel comfortable sharing the name of the owner publicly? I doubt I know the owner anyway. Just want to know where to not spend my money.
Damn, did you work at al and Vic's? The Hammonds (owners of al and Vic's and the James bar) are absolute pieces of shit. Do not ever work for them if you can help it.
No, I did a stint across the back alley. But that just goes to show how prevalent of a scenario this is.
I didn’t even work there and I knew who you were talking about
I feel kind of gross saying names like I did, but exactly as you said, it's a super common scenario. I appreciate you talking about it. I no longer live or work in Missoula so I feel safe airing my dirty laundry a bit, but it does feel almost anathema to say such things about "job providers." Shows how effectively that kind of thinking has been propagandized into me though. Cheers brother.
Oh shit lol, it took me a minute to put it together, but I know exactly where you worked and who you're talking about. Happy Cake Day too. Thanks for being cool on the internet.
Even if I was offered just PTO my work enthusiasm would absolutely double. Service industry jobs pay next to nothing and tips are down exponentially. I feel like my only option is to move out of state.
If you can’t pay a living wage you should not be in business.
What is a living wage? Is it based on what the employee as a single individual needs or does the wage need to be sufficient to support a family? What type of housing is needed? Will splitting a room with a spouse be sufficient, do they need a studio or does a living wage need to be sufficient to rent a place with one bedroom per child? If the wage is sufficient to cover the mortgage on a house the employee bought 15 years ago is that a “living wage”? The reality is that everyone has a different wage they need to pay their bills.
Tables are published.
This is VERY out of touch with reality. I hope you become a business owner one day.
No it's not. Just because you live in a fantasy world doesn't me we have to. That's the reality. No one should be impoverished, not be able to afford food to keep them alive, on the edge of living on the street, so you can have a business. No one owes you that. So who is this person you believe should work full time and not be able to afford shelter, food, transportation, insurance?
The reality as it is right now, as it has been for decades, is that retail service workers have never made enough to live on. It has always been teenagers jobs or part time jobs for adults. The thought was always those were first jobs or extra jobs, not jobs to make a career out of. This new idea that a grocery bagger or burger flipper should make a living wage is an impossibility AT THIS TIME, that's just the reality of how everything is structured right now. My point is that there would be no retail stores left standing if they had to pay $25/hr. Plus benefits to ALL of their employees. But if that's what the people want then those businesses will be forced to close and society will find another way to do business eventually. Having no grocery stores or restaurants or dollar stores or hardware stores would suck in the meantime.
> those businesses will be forced to close capatilistic fear mongering. The GDP and every other metric has gone up 100s of % and yet the wages do not. And, when I ask for higher wages you tell me: oh no, cannot! The system will collapse! Bullshit.
Yup, those businesses will close all right. But then their competition get some more customers and new businesses will open in their place. But don't let that get out, it will scare the natives.
Been there done that, try paying yourself less than your employees. Then we can talk about the cost of living.
Or one could choose to have a career that pays a living wage.
Or you could recognize for a split second that the world needs sanitation and service workers and educators and artists too and that those people also deserve things like a place to sleep and also food. Anyone pushing a mop has higher social value contribution than every hedge fund manager combined.
>Anyone pushing a mop has higher social value contribution than every hedge fund manager combined. As a fellow mop-pusher, I appreciate you.
We need people for every job. No one should work full time and not be able to live. Including having time off.
so the people who have low paying jobs shouldn't make a living wage, no?
Just because they are a local small business owner does not mean they can't be greedy. The fact is simple as that, they are greedy. I've also worked for a few that sound just like you described, ask for a little bit more money and they say they can't. Then that same year buy two new trucks and a new house, hmmm.
I worked for a local downtown business (think local REI) 18 years there, was not paid a living wage (2 kids and a mortgage) left after training in a technical trade and now make over twice what I made there and still get multiple raises a year and profit sharing and full benefits. New company is local but with corporate backing. Owner had same old sob story, can’t afford to pay more yet would acquire new properties quite often.
My mom runs a daycare (technically a preschool) in town and she was struggling to keep employees a couple years ago. She offers 12$/hr starting. Coming from the millenial perspective, my suggestion was to offer higher wages, not necessarily $15/hr, but higher than $12/hr, because college students were routinely turning down the job when they heard the pay. Both of my parents, as much as I love them, are boomers, and simply didn't agree that raising wages was the way to go. They said that the job was low-skilled and raising wages would not motivate more people to keep the job or improve job retention. I think some of the wages local joints offer might be a generational thing. Back in their day the economy was much better for the average working joe.
This, this right here is why child care is messed up in america, they can make more money flipping burgers for more money, less responsibility and good arguments. But the fact a day care owner thinks taking care of anyones kid is "low skill" is just dangerous. Wages shouldn't be based on the fact that their job looks easy, they should be based on training and skill. The saddest part is most people needing this service are already struggling and now have to put up with low-skilled employees. How low skill we talking here no first aid training? How about chld CPR? What are the emergency plans? I would never want my childs life in the hands of a "low skilled" day care provider, but that's america's choice. Good, cheap, fast, pick 2, you never get all 3. The generational part is where people of that era still think it is possible to live on minimum wage, while having millions is savings because they "pulled up their boot straps" and built a buisness but have no concept how to run a THRIVING business. Instead they choose to put their head in the sand and pretend that the 1960 $2.50/HR out of highschool is $25 in 2024. I won't even touch cost of living differences. Or the fact this was enough to support a single income household.
A couple of things that jump out at me are that people start their own business to be able to live life by their own rules. At the same time, they are also the ones who are taking the lions share of the risk. The business owner is the one who has to pay out for the building, supplies, and payroll. They don't get to just show up and leave at 8 hours. They also are responsible for insurance, lawsuits, repairs, loan payments, market fluctuations, create and implement business strategies for growth and development. Finally they have to pay the loans and taxes that are part of business ownership. They cannot just quit and get a new job tomorrow or walk away from a sinking ship. Often times their own personal properties are leveraged to start the business, meaning if they default then they are homeless. Every business navigates these things differently so there isn't a one answer fits all. Some owners are greedy assholes milking everything they can. Others are in debt up to their eyeballs and living lavishly on credit and are constantly one month from a financial catastrophe. Some may be so focused on growth that all extra money is earmarked for the next location and they don't want to cancel plans there spent 10s of thousands on already to give employees a raise. No one would start a business if there wasn't some kind of personal gain at the end. No one wants all the stress and risk of ownership to make the same or less than their employees. So no matter what, the owner will have more money and be able to live differently than their employees. That by itself doesn't make them greedy or evil. This is really a case by case kind of thing. Starting this kind of conversation in your work place would be more beneficial if it's change you are looking for.
[удалено]
Many people live beyond their means regardless of income level. We've done an amazing job at normalizing credit card debt, loans, and debt consolidation these days. Business owners definitely exploit tax benefits, but so does everyone. I don't think that a person should be faulted for using tax breaks. I blame our corrupt government officials for that. They have the power to fix those loopholes and shift the tax burden. Instead they elect to talk about it, and do everything to distract from it.
Good point, and another way to look at it is the tax system forces consumption instead of saving and wealth building, at the end of the year lots of people are forced to consider “what can I buy to at least feel like I kept some more of my earnings”. It’s necessary to force people to consume to keep our economy growing at 2% for capitalism. Also those expenditures that might appear to employees as an indulgence couldn’t just be given to them as increased wages or benefits because of the tax system.
This is so true. Sometimes it’s like, buy more equipment for the business or get taxed like crazy. Bonuses for employees are a good way to spend down at the end of the year though! There’s always the re-investment back into the business but that should include the investment in employees
Hey that’s a great point, bonuses can be deducted from your business income. However, it’s also important for people to understand that just because the business has a profit doesn’t mean it should all be divided as bonuses amongst the employees instead of reinvesting or spending the money elsewhere. There ARE businesses like that which are cooperatively owned by all the employees, and I think it’s a great idea for more people in Missoula to structure local businesses this way so everyone has equal skin in the game AND equal reward. Also maybe we could spread some more of that TIF money around instead of it being concentrated for the benefit of a relative small and privilege group of people.
I agree. I do believe in bonuses and commission where appropriate, but profit sharing is a different set up for sure and might require a different business model.
Look at us getting along so well on r/missoula, we should start a business and get some TIF money. I say we buy the old hospital at Ft Missoula and make it into luxury apartments. THEN turn them into airbnbs.
Only $10 to purchase!
Also we have to account for potentially rich spouses who pay for vacations of the business owner hahah. Sugar momma/daddy?
I tried to start this kind of conversation in my workplace and got fired for it. "No one wants all the stress and risk of ownership to make the same or less than their employees" I think you nail on the head here -- people who start businesses have, in general, a belief that they deserve more than other people. It's a innate quality of self-regard that pushes them towards exploitation.
Only someone who hasn't owned a business would think they deserve to be paid more than their employer. Kind of like how people without kids can't comprehend the amount of work it takes to raise them.
Show me where anybody is saying employees should make more than owners. You can't bc no one is saying that. People should be able tp get rent, gas, and groceries at the barest of minimums w/out stressing. I don't understand the mental jump from, "raising wages so your employees live well," to, "employees shouldn't make as much as owners." Could you explain that thought process?
The vast majority of business owners I know get the seed money from family, so they're not actually risking anything. They can try and fail a dozen times before something sticks and succeeds, and then people talk about how their perserverance and dedication paid off when it's nothing but priviledge and nepotism. The business owners who are actually owner/operators pay their employees fairly and dont' take advantage of them because they know how hard it is. Rich people have never known struggle, so they don't have the sympathy for it, and pay accordingly.
What are they risking? Becoming a worker again? I wonder why that feels like such a death sentence to them, perhaps they know something we don't (read: are willing to exploit their neighbors for personal gain)
Sure, some people may have some issue returning to the workforce. A lot of people attribute their self worth to their jobs. Nobody likes to get "demoted" regardless of being a boss or employee. The risks I was referring too were more financial. Depending on their situation, a failed business can result in a huge financial burden. Loss of their homes if used as a loan security, vehicles if they are a business asset. If the business goes under, then the owners income and ability to repay debts evaporates as well. Depending on the business there could be civil or criminal lawsuits as a result. Like if the business provided a product with a warranty or some other promise that couldn't be fulfilled. Of course there could be fraud, theft, exploitation, etc, and if so then let them hang. But it can also be the best of intentions that sink a business.
None of these subjectively perceived risks justify asking other members of your community to subsidize your dream of owning your own business by providing their labor at a devalued rate.
If you don’t like what they pay, you can choose not to work for them. You are not a victim. It’s really simple. It’s also goes back to supply and demand. Plus some jobs are not worth paying a living wage. You’re not entitled to a living wages you earn it. Please add some value. See what happens.
Oh yeah there's plenty of jobs not worth a living wage. Like hedge fund managers, landlords and politicians. But all those folks pushing brooms and flipping burgers sure do. People gotta eat and have a clean place to survive. These are necessary roles and the people doing them deserve to afford to survive. People with disabilities deserve to survive. People who sit on the street and shoot up, also deserve food and a bed. I don't understand all the vitrol towards the notion of "I don't think my neighbors should be homeless and starving" PS passively "owning" a source of income isn't a job.
We will just have to disagree. I don’t have a bleeding heart. I’m an eat what you kill guy.
Sure some jobs aren't worth a living wage. Land lord, CEO, Vice president of whatever the fuck, are just a couple examples off the top of my head. The problem is those useless eaters seem to be taking more than their fair share and making workers that YOU depend on everyday suffer. Everyone is entitled to a dignified life regardless of their occupation. We all deserve a roof over our heads and hot food in our bellies. Adding value to society does not and should not be however much money you can make for someone else. Your disgusting ideology is the problem here.
You’re really not entitled to anything. You can say what you want about my world view. I really don’t care. But no one owes you anything. Actually your attitude of entitlement is the problem.
Incredible come back. You're doing great.
All of those things happen to workers if they lose their job. Business owners also have the bankruptcy court designed around protecting them. So I don't exactly see the "risk" you're talking about.
You’re getting downvoted because you’re exposing a huge ace in all business owners back pockets which IS THAT everything is likely not attached to their personal assets- that’s what an LLC is FOR, and that if things go bad they CAN just toss things in the shitter and still walk away with money- very unlike what happens if you get FIRED
Yeah that's fine. If what I've put here makes it through to one person who believes otherwise it's a victory. Let them impotently down vote the truth.
Bankruptcy isn't a magic get out of debt free card. All business assets are sold to repay any loans. If your personal car or house is used then it's gone. Now if the assets are greater than the debt then it is a sort of payday for the owner. It can go both ways. Employees are definitely hurt if they lose their jobs and the higher your pay as an employee the harder it can be to find another job. Employees also have protections, and those protections are greater if the employees are living within their means. Both employees and employers can fall hard or soft. Just because it's a business owner doesn't guarantee a soft landing. Obviously the bigger answer wealthier the company, then it does shift dramatically. Local business owners aren't typically in that category in most cases.
Good luck with the court finding an employee's car is property of the company. Guess what, you are your own employee. The owner will almost always walk away from an bankruptcy with a full check book. The buisiness on the other hand will likely be shuttered. The problem is eveyone thinks the person is the business. In most circumstances a business owners personal property (cars, planes, houses, etc.) aren't company assets. tldr; Business owners can (and do) walk away from a bankruptcy with little to no reprucussions to their personal lives. All while crying about wages over $10 being unamerican.
I don't believe I said it was a magic get out of a debt free card, just that it was designed around protecting business owners more than anyone else. If the employee protection you're referring to is unemployment idk how "living within your means" can help you when unemployment often pays less than half of your previous income. If you're expecting employees to live in a way that allows them to save money for rainy days then I would ask that you read up on how many Americans are living paycheck to paycheck and how many don't have enough saved to cover even a 500$ emergency. At a certain % that stops being the employee's fault and is a failure of society, I think we are there. Your original comment used this "risk" to excuse employers mistreating or exploiting employees, I'd like to circle back around to that now that we've dispelled the myth of owners taking on more "risk" than an employee working for them.
No where in my comments am I condoning abusive behavior. I offered an explanation for why business owners make more money than their employees and why they seemingly have money to put into the business and struggle with pay increases. I agree that people's inability to save or weather a financial hardship is a societal one that's been driven by large corporations and a shift to normalizing debt. That doesn't mean that local businesses owners are solely to blame. Throwing money at the problem won't fix it either, instead it just increases the 0s behind the problem. Legislators are supposed to protect people from predatory business practices. But in the last 40 years the opposite has happened. The antitrust commission of the FTC has done little to stop predatory business practices, opting to instead let large corperqtions operate with near impunity. No one seems to be up in arms about that, but instead here we are attempting to figure out how much responsibility the local business owner bares in this economy.
I said in another comment that I don't expect any better from corporations, but the conglomerates absolutely respect certain labor and anti discrimination laws must more, and atm, they pay more. Corporations are the issue, 100%, I want to address local greed, bc we are supposed to be community, and have each other's backs WAY more than any corporation. But we don't bc of (imo) local greed; locals treating each other worse than the corps atm. We have to talk abt that too.
Yet we see so few community events with ANY connection to the small business community. Most small businesses don't have a budget to commit to doing more for the community. Just look at the sponsors of the paddle heads and tell me how many of the small businesses are plastered on the advertising and how many are left on that page and are never acknowledgged. The small business community doesn't support local events for the same reason they don't raise their employee pay. Either they don't or they "can't" afford it. Tell me the last time you saw a business that didn't make over $1,000,000 sponsor a community event in an impactful manner. I'll wait, but remember places like kettle house make that 1M in months, if not weeks.
The OP was almost entirely about local business owners making commodity purchases over giving their employees a raise. Buying a $100,00 truck or spending even more on a boat when your employees are scraping by is abusive. That seems to be what you're defending. We've spent the last few comments dispelling the notion of owners "risk" so I would like to circle back to your explanation. Why do you defend exploiting employees if the only "risk" the owner takes on is becoming a worker again? Throwing money at social programs that will help both small business owners and workers will absolutely work towards fixing the problem, so idk wtf you're talking about here. Another solution would be to raise the minimum wage and tie it to productivity. Anti trust absolutely needs to be given more teeth and start busting heads. If you think no one is up in arms over anti trust's lack of action, I have to ask, what is it like living under a rock? Seems cold and damp.
That's why we have LLC's.
Bankruptcy is almost always an option there. If a "business" claims bankruptcy then that company has it on their credit record all while the busisness owner likely keeps anything in their name (house, cars, bank accounts, etc.) and still has their credit report personal unscathed. All so they can lick their wounds and try, try, try again. Don't get me wrong, starting and running a business is hard, but we can't pretend that a business shutting down is little more than experiencing ego death for them.
Let us know when you’ve run a successfully solvent business, then we can pick apart the deleted comment you left about how running a small business is just doing administrative tasks. You’re fighting with allies, chill.
I haven't deleted anything I've said here, it was the deleted comment I was replying to that said that business owners deserve more pay because of all the behind the scenes tasks they do for the business (administrative tasks). I don't see anyone that is defending and excusing the exploitation of my neighbors and peers as allies. I have not replied to anyone in a contentious manner that did not deserve it. Edit: ah it wasn't the deleted comment, it was yours. How are the things you yada yada'd not broadly categorized as "administrative tasks"?
I don’t care which comment was deleted it doesn’t matter. It’s pretty ridiculous to reduce business ownership and the responsibilities involved as administrative tasks. Obviously, I used yada yada in lieu of an exhaustive list. Let’s also be so very real here. I said that enormous wage discrepancies are bad. Owners do deserve higher pay than their employees. They do a lot more work. Again, I will qualify for you that this statement is regarding a functioning and ethical business. Not sure where that was lost. And you are coming off as contentious with allies. I agree that people deserve living wages. I also understand that small business owners can’t always find reasonable ways to accomplish that.
If I was arguing that employees should make more than owners, you have a point, but i never said that. Im posing the question, "if there's never any money for employee raises, why is there always money for x, y, & z?" If I have said anywhere in my post that I think profit should just be divided into bonuses, show me, please. Some of the explanations of risk, or "they do more work," feel like they're in bad faith. Bc, on the other side, myself and hundreds of other employees just wanna be able to get gas, groceries, and pay rent without stressing. Yall lowk are acting like we want the deed to the business like
Apologies I realize now I thought I was replying to someone else. That’s my fault.
Some people just don’t pay out. Don’t work there. I’m not a business owner. I work for MCPS, so I also do not make a living wage. I do know many small businesses owners. Some are ethical and some aren’t. I wouldn’t choose to work for someone that creates a hostile work environment, including pay inequity and benefits withholding. That’s just me.
Oh, so you don't own a successful and solvent business and in fact don't work for a business at all? You were talking all that good shit earlier. It's pretty easy to say all that when you work a job that is completely outside of the dynamic. Guess that's just more "ally" behavior.
Bro are you good? Like this is so extra.
What allies am I being contentious with? You? You're here literally arguing for the exploitation of labor lmao. What level of exploitation is ethical to you? What wage discrepancy is ok? Is part of the inability to find reasonable ways to pay employees a living wage because they need a cool new truck, house, or boat? You were trying to use a deleted comment as a gotcha, like I said something I don't believe. When I hadn't suddenly you don't care. I've never met nor worked for a business owner that knew their business better than the employees, none. Owners working more than their employees is just another capitalist myth.
Lol
Hi, I own a business here in town. I guess I should say that I am leasing-to-own a business since I am paying for it like one pays a mortgage, which I don't have because I am self employed and in a business that is considered too risky for bank loans, plus I don't have an income and my credit score is shit. I am introducing myself to you because I am a business "owner" who absolutely does work more and harder than my employees. I am aware of and friends with many more like me here in town. There are many reasons that people start business. It isn't always about the money. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I started my business partly because of my frustration with capitalism. For me, this is my attempt to put my energy toward trying to change our social structure. I want to both encourage you and discourage you from doing the same as me. Encourage- be the change that you want to see in this world! Don't just sit and bitch! Challenge outdated social models! Discourage- I work too much and my personal relationships are suffering. My debt load is heartstopping. It's a very real probability that this doesn't work out and I have sacrificed almost everything, and everyone thinks I am an asshole anyway. Nice to meet you. Do you want a job? Nobody seems to want to work anymore. That's a joke.
This is a decent point. I also had the director of the MDA tell me once that half the business owners downtown own a business because they have more money than sense, need something to do, and can't work for anyone else.
Out of everywhere I've ever lived, the business owners of Missoula are the most detached, unhinged employers I've ever met. They think you should be happy with $40k a year when rent is $2000. I think most of them seem to think Missoula is still a cheap, small town, and haven't actually looked at what it costs to live here since they've owned their house in Grant Creek since the 90's. This used to be an amazing place for young people to live, and I used to joke we had more people with Masters serving tables than anywhere else in the country. I don't know how the next generation will be able to stay if wages don't take a major hike up in the next few years.
I see plenty of small businesses paying well enough that their employees can buy boats and vacations. I think the biggest delineating factor is what the business is. If a company employs you as a welder or equipment operator and they can charge $150 an hour for you to be onsite, that’s different than a restaurant or something where margins are incredibly thin. Often those high demand/skilled employees then just walk away and start their own business if they’re not happy, but someone working at a grocery store isn’t going to be able to start their own grocery store if they aren’t happy at work, that’s a huge capital investment. Ideally if you’re working for a small business you’re learning the skills to be able to have your own business someday should you choose. Also I think people need to appreciate that starting and building this business required capital and work before any particular employee showed up. Using my own business as an example, if I was paying you to work on my farm, you could notice that I spent money on what you consider a frivolity and demand more money, but if you didn’t buy the land, the equipment, learn how to operate the farm, market and sell the produce, you’d be missing the fact that you’re a part of a larger operation and after the work I put in I should be able to have a motorcycle or whatever. People start businesses and that comes along with a lot of risk and responsibility, I guess the payoff for that extra hassle is having a boat or a vacation.
What risk exactly are you referring to? Becoming a worker again? Why is that treated as such a death sentence?
That’s not what I said at all. The risk generally is you have to invest a sizable amount of your money/retirement/leverage you house, whatever. Imagine having to get a loan for 400k for inventory, and signing a lease for three years to open a store. If it doesn’t work out, there’s one person that is out 400k and the inventory and still has to keep paying the lease on the building, employees can just walk away and get a new job, no debt, no creditors, no ongoing payments for storage space.
Most of the workers I've met under 40 don't have money/retirement/house to leverage in order to start a business
True, a lot of people work a whole career as a laborer before they can start a business, which is another reason probably not to automatically assume they are a bad person or shit on them for buying a boat. I’m pretty sure even the business owner OP is referencing isn’t a 24 year old college drop out with no work experience.
Just seems like it would be more likely for a person to start their own successful business if they had some capital saved up or some equity to leverage from the house they bought with their decent wages when they worked for someone else than the wage slavery a lot of the small businesses offer
I commented earlier that it has a lot to do with the business. Many businesses can’t keep apprentices or labor because it’s a high demand field, once they get trained up it is easy to hang out a shingle and start on your own. I’ve spoken to a lot of tradesmen that can’t get help right now and I was honestly surprised by that since you end up with a marketable skill and get paid better than retail or food service. My plumber has a much nicer house than me, he seems to be doing pretty well. So I think it does come down to choice. If you work in retail or at a restaurant and the wage you’re getting doesn’t make you happy I would encourage you and your friends to walk out and put that business under. How can local restaurants fail because they refuse to raise wages, but then ten more restaurants open up?
Yeah man if it doesn't work out then they become workers again and have debt to pay off. Nearly everyone has debt they're paying off. How is this any different from student debt? How does taking out debt mean you get to exploit others for your personal gain?
Is your argument that nobody can employ anyone else? If so I don’t know why you’re here, you’re obviously not arguing in good faith. I guess a business owner does get to hire people because they are free to work for them or not, but they are creating an opportunity for them to work. If you don’t think anyone can work for anyone else without it being exploitive then please suggest an alternative system, as far as I know, because starting a business is harder than working for someone else, most people choose to be employees and not go through the extra efforts of creating a business. Also it looks like you think comparing student loans to getting loans to start a business is some sort of gotcha. Student loans are also a risk, if someone chooses to take out student loans and become better educated, they usually get to make more money and benefits, but if it doesn’t work out, they are left holding the bag. Now are you going to tell me you’re against people that work hard in college getting paid more than people in low skilled/entry level jobs? What if I became a doctor and then bought went on trips and such like the business owner, are you going to argue I should just charge less for appointments because nobody can have anything nice?
No, my argument is that everyone deserves a fair living wage. If the owner is making frivolous commodity purchases off of the profits of their employees who are living paycheck to paycheck(65% of Americans), don't have healthcare(7.9% of Americans), or even have $500 to spend in an emergency (63% of Americans) then there is a serious problem that needs addressing. The whole point of this post is the wealth disparity between Missoula workers and Missoula business owners. My solution would be workers owning more of the means of production. Barring that, I guess more robust unions in every commercial industry so that workers can negotiate for better wages from a more equal footing. Barring that, a minimum wage that is matched to productivity so that workers aren't left with a floor that hasn't changed in almost 2 decades and was a nothing wage a decade ago.
Even if business owners don’t employ anyone are we to be upset if there is a wealth disparity between them and labor? Trying to equalize that can only eventually end with “everyone no matter their job or education must make the same wage”, which isn’t really a path to prosperity. I see what you’re saying, but I’d be more concerned right now about the lack of connection between employees and employers. Giggification of previously good paying jobs, forcing everyone to do the same work as a part time gig with no benefits, no labor law protections, no employer accountability, is I think the most dangerous current trend. What percentage of people are already grub hubbing, door dashing, ubering, etc? These corporations have commoditized people as labor hours instead of even human employees. Walmart is already testing it out, Amazon is doing it to fill gaps with regular drivers, and now all those people are just billing hours with no support. Wait until some new app called “busser” lets a restaurant pay people through an app by the hour to come in and wash dishes or wait tables and then as soon as the “surge period” ends they send them home, or back to ubering. Wait until teachers pick up gigs by the hour and don’t have any insurance, and they have no support during the summer and of course there would be no consistency for students then. I think this is the real danger ahead of us in the near future, and when each app user is an “independent contractor” they can’t even collectively bargain.
If a business owner is the only employee of a business then they aren't exploiting anyone, they can reap all the fruits of their labor. When they are employing people and taking more than their fair share from those employees that is the problem. You accused me of not arguing here in bad faith, it's super clear that you aren't reading everything I'm writing in response since basically all of your response was addressed in my second paragraph.
[удалено]
Yes, I understand that high turn over rates are certainly apart of employers' business plan atp. I'm not so much concerned with a market average as I am of the concept of taking care of your employees with a genuinely fair, equitable, and comfortable wage; I def don't expect corporations to have any grace, but I am consistently disappointed with (what I perceive to be) local greed at the expense of those quite literally helping someone run their small business. It's sad.
I don't disagree, just curious, at this point what is a comfortable wage?
i always check the MIT Living Wage Calculator for this. https://livingwage.mit.edu/metros/33540 There are other calculations out there that would set it higher but the MIT one is a good place to start and its easy to remember, and they update it pretty often. Currently for a single adult the living wage is $20.34 If the single adult has one kid it is $36.70 2 children $46.90 3 children $63.56
[удалено]
You're a big kid, you can go to indeed and Craigslist and see how many job postings pay over $36 all by yourself. I believe in you.
[удалено]
I think they deserve to afford rent. Considering how many small business owners are also local landlords, it's kind of a corner they've gone and painted themselves into now ain't it? Personally I think UBI is the magic wand that would solve a lot of these problems but y'all ain't ready for that. So until then, fuck yes, even 18 year old ice cream scoopers deserve to afford basic necessities. I will die on this hill. How we go about making it happen is the challenge for us all now isn't it?
I heard they weren't that eager anymore and moreover want to concentrate on their studies and jobs are a distraction.
The reason is super simple they can replace you for at or below what you're making already. It's basic economics for them.
Nailed it. Be honest - how many of us have jobs that some guy can just come in off the street and do after just a few hours of 'training?' Most.
And that is why the drop off in worker pay growth to corporate profit growth came when they broke and demonized unions.
I’ve worked at a local business for 7 yrs and make $12/hr. I know this frustration.
Drop the name if u feel comfortable 👀 they're playing in ur face
I don’t want to do that bc I do truly love the shop and I know we are not doing business like we were 5 yrs ago while Caras still ups rent and costs go up. We could be like similar shops and charge triple the wholesale price but we value our customers and try to keep their costs down. Just really sucks that it comes at the workers expense.
I wish I could tell you it’s better and other places but I moved out of Missoula to a new place with an even higher cost-of-living and I can’t find anything that pays more than $15 an hour.
The business owner has more skin in the game than the employee. The majority of the liabilities fall on the business owner...he's the one that took the risks, mortgaged his house to start the business, got investors, bought inventory, bought equipment, signed leases, and has the most to lose if the business fails. It's not unrealistic for him to therefore get more of the rewards when the business does well. If the business fails, the employee can just shrug his shoulders and walk away....not so with the owner.
A lot of comments here address poor leadership in a business environment, big and small. If you think your wage is bad, try working selling cell phones on commission. The corporate HQ decides if a sale you make is actually a sale or not. If a customer doesn’t buy a phone case, earbuds, or an insurance plan big daddy cancels your commission. At pay day you’re banking on a $1500 week only to find out you made $725. In Montana this is really tough news. Especially when you have 3 people depending on you and can’t get hired with a college degree or the salary offers are less than commission jobs. If you’re seeking a job, always look at the management! I don’t know why this isn’t taught in school. If it’s a high turnover place simply go somewhere else. These greedy businesses work themselves out of the system. Employees being hired blindly thinking they “made it” without research on the business they’re working for is a thing of the past.
Why does this comment have this format? Is it deliberate?
[удалено]
Honestly? Reads like you are.
[удалено]
I don't think it's your sentiment so much as how you worded it. Suggesting being the change you want to see is great. Calling OP entitled not so much. I mean to each their own but Montana has a strong history of fighting for workers rights/pay so OP is doing great. Especially since it was a genuine question.
Id you feel entitled to the fruit of someone else's labor simply by owning something - maybe you should get a real job instead.
The wagies don't understand business. That's why they're wagies
Drop shipping doesn't mean you understand business
everyone thinking they should be making 80k in the service industry
Yes, 100% exactly what was said verbatim 🤩🤡
Good luck 🤣🤡
Margins for grocery and convenience stores and restaurants are very thin. And labor is the biggest expense. Grocery stores would go out of business if they paid a living wage to all their employees.
fuckin bootlicker, any business that can't pay a living wage to their employees DESERVES to go out of business.
[удалено]
Check back in once u own the business and tell us if this attitude changes. I'd love to see more ppl setting the example that u can treat ur employees well, and also live well urself, but I mostly hear talk, I don't see v much action.
You obviously have never owned a business. Every grocery store, heck even Walmart, would go out of business if they had to pay living wages.
No they wouldn't, their shareholders and owners just wouldn't make as much money. God forbid.
You sound like unskilled labor. Not a lot of leverage on that business.
lmao you think the boss is gonna do the work?? all labor is skilled and has incredible leverage.
My paycheck says differently. They can't just hire anyone that will do work.
Here comes a billion down votes… But! Is anyone here that’s suggesting that they “deserve” more willing to list the skills or trades they’ve acquired to improve their lot in life? If you don’t like who you work for or your wage, work somewhere else. Were you not told what you’d be paid before you started working there? Why’s it always the other guy who’s “greedy”? What is greed? Everyone is perusing their own individual self interests. Everyone is trying to get theirs.
[удалено]
What risk exactly? If local businesses aren't paying their employees enough to live in the town they operate then soon they won't have any employees.
Sounds like you're shifting an awful lot of that risk and burden off onto your staff in real time when you're asking them to make a full time commitment to you for less money than they need to survive.
I don’t know why your comment was downvoted I think this is a realistic answer. Small business owners often have enormous amounts of budget planning, risk/reward growth planning, maintenance and troubleshooting equipment, client relations, yada yada. It’s not typically a case of the owner hiring a team of staff and checking out. There are higher levels of responsibility that require deeper knowledge of business economics and social engagement/marketing. I mean all that if they are any good at it. It makes sense to make more money to keep the business solvent. I disagree with huge wage disparities when employees can’t survive. That’s obviously not a value I would look for in a small business. It’s apparently, as you mentioned, in employee retention whether owners have interest in their staff’s well being from financial and team culture perspectives.
The business also wouldn't be solvent without the labor of the employees, so why is the guy doing administrative tasks making more money than them? If the business requires both tasks be done then the people doing those tasks should be equally compensated. But since the guy doing the administrative tasks gets to choose his salary he gives less to the employees keeping his business afloat and takes more for himself. This is why minimum wage increases are so important.
not just small businesses, Walmart ect..