Applebee's Owner: The Truth About $15 Minimum Wage

Spare_change

Gold Member
Jun 27, 2011
8,690
1,293
280
Matt recently brought you up to date on how liberals’ minimum wage demands have done severe damage to Seattle's and New York’s businesses. He highlighted a New York Post report revealing that, in the wake of the increased rate to $15 an hour, New York lost a staggering 1,000 restaurants.

Applebee's was one of the businesses that has been especially hard pressed by the minimum wage hike. Zane Tankel, the CEO of Applebee’s New York franchise, explained that his restaurants were forced to fire at least 1,000 employees so far thanks to the liberal policy. He shared the unfortunate news with Fox Business's Stuart Varney on Monday.

Instead of typical servers, the CEO explained that they will soon be replaced by concierges, who merely check on customers from time to time to make them feel "warm and comfortable."

"The model now that we're heading towards where we had one server for three or four tables, we're moving towards one server for ten tables, eliminating about two-thirds of our labor ultimately. But it's because of Cuomo, De Blasio, the liberal agenda."

If Applebee's completely follows through with its concierge service, nearly 2,000 employees will be heading for the exit, Newsbusters explains.

Tankel discussed this same issue with Varney in January, back when he had *only* fired 500 employees.

“We can’t raise prices anymore,” he said at the time, rather candidly, so they had to take drastic measures.

The lost workers, he explained, could be replaced with tablets that are placed on customers’ tables.

"Increasing minimum wage is technology's best friend," Tankel concluded.
 
American workers would be so much better off if they made less money.

"Prosperity Through Lower Wages!"
 
This was as predictable as the sun rising in the east....
 
American workers would be so much better off if they made less money.

"Prosperity Through Lower Wages!"

If progressives continue to force businesses to pay people more than they put into a given product or service, then people will realize the true minimum wage is always "zero".
 
"Liberal" policy? :lol:

Who the fuck is "Matt"?

LMAO!!!

You read an article regarding a critical issue regarding our economic future, and THIS is what you get out of it?

And, you wonder why nobody takes the left seriously.

Thus you've switched from "Liberal" to "left". My work is done.

Never found out who the fuck "Matt" is but -- no Matter.

"No Matter" hee hee I kill me
Pretty weak attempt to weasel out of a discussion for which you have no cogent input.
 
Matt recently brought you up to date on how liberals’ minimum wage demands have done severe damage to Seattle's and New York’s businesses. He highlighted a New York Post report revealing that, in the wake of the increased rate to $15 an hour, New York lost a staggering 1,000 restaurants.

Applebee's was one of the businesses that has been especially hard pressed by the minimum wage hike. Zane Tankel, the CEO of Applebee’s New York franchise, explained that his restaurants were forced to fire at least 1,000 employees so far thanks to the liberal policy. He shared the unfortunate news with Fox Business's Stuart Varney on Monday.

Instead of typical servers, the CEO explained that they will soon be replaced by concierges, who merely check on customers from time to time to make them feel "warm and comfortable."

"The model now that we're heading towards where we had one server for three or four tables, we're moving towards one server for ten tables, eliminating about two-thirds of our labor ultimately. But it's because of Cuomo, De Blasio, the liberal agenda."

If Applebee's completely follows through with its concierge service, nearly 2,000 employees will be heading for the exit, Newsbusters explains.

Tankel discussed this same issue with Varney in January, back when he had *only* fired 500 employees.

“We can’t raise prices anymore,” he said at the time, rather candidly, so they had to take drastic measures.

The lost workers, he explained, could be replaced with tablets that are placed on customers’ tables.

"Increasing minimum wage is technology's best friend," Tankel concluded.

Well.....if you allow for the free market, which minimum wage subverts, you will only push more people into the roles of welfare. Why work at a wage where you can barely provide for yourself if you can get on public assistance and earn more? Adjusted for inflation, minimum wage is well below the heyday offerings of our economy in the 60's.

I mean if the labor force were all turned into slaves.....would there not be full employment? If we take all the people who are working today.....and cut their salaries or wages by 20% we could use that 20% to finance thousands of new jobs. This is why the unemployment rate is becoming a poor indicator of the health of the economy. Each of the past recessions has had recoveries where the new jobs created after the job losses of the recessions did not pay as well, on average, as the jobs lost during the recession. Hence, each recession is simply lowering the average pay of Americans, but we think we recover when there is job growth and unemployment drops. If we raised average pay or median pay to the levels of 1968....unemployment would be around 10%, assuming that employers keep their same profit margins....or prices would go up significantly as the cost of higher wages is passed to consumers.
 
Matt recently brought you up to date on how liberals’ minimum wage demands have done severe damage to Seattle's and New York’s businesses. He highlighted a New York Post report revealing that, in the wake of the increased rate to $15 an hour, New York lost a staggering 1,000 restaurants.

Applebee's was one of the businesses that has been especially hard pressed by the minimum wage hike. Zane Tankel, the CEO of Applebee’s New York franchise, explained that his restaurants were forced to fire at least 1,000 employees so far thanks to the liberal policy. He shared the unfortunate news with Fox Business's Stuart Varney on Monday.

Instead of typical servers, the CEO explained that they will soon be replaced by concierges, who merely check on customers from time to time to make them feel "warm and comfortable."

"The model now that we're heading towards where we had one server for three or four tables, we're moving towards one server for ten tables, eliminating about two-thirds of our labor ultimately. But it's because of Cuomo, De Blasio, the liberal agenda."

If Applebee's completely follows through with its concierge service, nearly 2,000 employees will be heading for the exit, Newsbusters explains.

Tankel discussed this same issue with Varney in January, back when he had *only* fired 500 employees.

“We can’t raise prices anymore,” he said at the time, rather candidly, so they had to take drastic measures.

The lost workers, he explained, could be replaced with tablets that are placed on customers’ tables.

"Increasing minimum wage is technology's best friend," Tankel concluded.

Well.....if you allow for the free market, which minimum wage subverts, you will only push more people into the roles of welfare. Why work at a wage where you can barely provide for yourself if you can get on public assistance and earn more? Adjusted for inflation, minimum wage is well below the heyday offerings of our economy in the 60's.

I mean if the labor force were all turned into slaves.....would there not be full employment? If we take all the people who are working today.....and cut their salaries or wages by 20% we could use that 20% to finance thousands of new jobs. This is why the unemployment rate is becoming a poor indicator of the health of the economy. Each of the past recessions has had recoveries where the new jobs created after the job losses of the recessions did not pay as well, on average, as the jobs lost during the recession. Hence, each recession is simply lowering the average pay of Americans, but we think we recover when there is job growth and unemployment drops. If we raised average pay or median pay to the levels of 1968....unemployment would be around 10%, assuming that employers keep their same profit margins....or prices would go up significantly as the cost of higher wages is passed to consumers.
You make a strong case for eliminating the minimum wage completely.
 
Matt recently brought you up to date on how liberals’ minimum wage demands have done severe damage to Seattle's and New York’s businesses. He highlighted a New York Post report revealing that, in the wake of the increased rate to $15 an hour, New York lost a staggering 1,000 restaurants.

Applebee's was one of the businesses that has been especially hard pressed by the minimum wage hike. Zane Tankel, the CEO of Applebee’s New York franchise, explained that his restaurants were forced to fire at least 1,000 employees so far thanks to the liberal policy. He shared the unfortunate news with Fox Business's Stuart Varney on Monday.

Instead of typical servers, the CEO explained that they will soon be replaced by concierges, who merely check on customers from time to time to make them feel "warm and comfortable."

"The model now that we're heading towards where we had one server for three or four tables, we're moving towards one server for ten tables, eliminating about two-thirds of our labor ultimately. But it's because of Cuomo, De Blasio, the liberal agenda."

If Applebee's completely follows through with its concierge service, nearly 2,000 employees will be heading for the exit, Newsbusters explains.

Tankel discussed this same issue with Varney in January, back when he had *only* fired 500 employees.

“We can’t raise prices anymore,” he said at the time, rather candidly, so they had to take drastic measures.

The lost workers, he explained, could be replaced with tablets that are placed on customers’ tables.

"Increasing minimum wage is technology's best friend," Tankel concluded.

I don't know the particulars as I haven't taken the time to research it in depth, but it seems to me that the pro-business mindset is that if something changes and it causes businesses to go under, that whatever policy (allegedly) caused it must be bad as evidenced by the loss of businesses.

I find this pretty remarkable. Isn't it possible that the businesses that failed, failed because they weren't operating efficiently enough? I mean, it's not like all the restaurants went out of business, right? Some were able to survive. What were the other restaurants (and non-restaurants for that matter) doing right that the others that failed we not?

Now, I'm not a big fan of minimum wages. I think it's blunt instrument where something more precise is necessary, so please don't accuse me of holding my opinion to justify the minimum wage. It just surprises me that workers are expected to accept smaller wages, give up cable, cell phones and other "luxury" items and deal with low pay but businesses that cannot operate under a provision that mandates a $15 an hour wage are victims of a system of governmental overreach.

Food prices are just one part of a restaurant's profitability. There are tons of expenses and business decisions, things like location, competition, presentation and experience and other facts like the negotiating of rent, insurance, the cost of food supplies and salaries paid to those above the $15 an hour threshold.

If a business can't innovate in the market so that it can be profitable then perhaps it doesn't deserve to be in business. People treat businesses as if they are sacred. They aren't. They live in the same world as workers who are trying to scrape by.

Of course, there is also the possibility that markets are too expensive. If enough restaurants go out of business and people want them, the market will find an equilibrium or it will simply endure going without whatever it is we're discussing.
 
Last edited:
Matt recently brought you up to date on how liberals’ minimum wage demands have done severe damage to Seattle's and New York’s businesses. He highlighted a New York Post report revealing that, in the wake of the increased rate to $15 an hour, New York lost a staggering 1,000 restaurants.

Applebee's was one of the businesses that has been especially hard pressed by the minimum wage hike. Zane Tankel, the CEO of Applebee’s New York franchise, explained that his restaurants were forced to fire at least 1,000 employees so far thanks to the liberal policy. He shared the unfortunate news with Fox Business's Stuart Varney on Monday.

Instead of typical servers, the CEO explained that they will soon be replaced by concierges, who merely check on customers from time to time to make them feel "warm and comfortable."

"The model now that we're heading towards where we had one server for three or four tables, we're moving towards one server for ten tables, eliminating about two-thirds of our labor ultimately. But it's because of Cuomo, De Blasio, the liberal agenda."

If Applebee's completely follows through with its concierge service, nearly 2,000 employees will be heading for the exit, Newsbusters explains.

Tankel discussed this same issue with Varney in January, back when he had *only* fired 500 employees.

“We can’t raise prices anymore,” he said at the time, rather candidly, so they had to take drastic measures.

The lost workers, he explained, could be replaced with tablets that are placed on customers’ tables.

"Increasing minimum wage is technology's best friend," Tankel concluded.

I don't know the particulars as I haven't taken the time to research it in depth, but it seems to me that the pro-business mindset is that if something changes and it causes businesses to go under, that whatever policy (allegedly) caused it must be bad as evidenced by the loss of businesses.

I find this pretty remarkable. Isn't it possible that the businesses that failed, failed because they weren't operating efficiently enough? I mean, it's not like all the restaurants went out of business, right? Some were able to survive. What were the other restaurants (and non-restaurants for that matter) doing right that the others that failed we not?

Now, I'm not a big fan of minimum wages. I think it's blunt instrument where something more precise is necessary, so please don't accuse me of holding my opinion to justify the minimum wage. It just surprises me that workers are expected to accept smaller wages, give up cable, cell phones and other "luxury" items and deal with low pay but businesses that cannot operate under a provision that mandates a $15 an hour wage are victims of a system of governmental overreach.

Food prices are just one part of a restaurant's profitability. There are tons of expenses and business decisions, things like location, competition, presentation and experience and other facts like the negotiating of rent, insurance, the cost of food supplies and salaries paid to those above the $15 an hour threshold.

If a business can't innovate in the market so that it can be profitable then perhaps it doesn't deserve to be in business. People treat businesses as if they are sacred. They aren't. They live in the same world as workers who are trying to scrape by.

Of course, there is also the possibility that markets are too expensive. If enough restaurants go out of business and people want them, the market will find an equilibrium or it will simply endure going without whatever it is we're discussing.

I find this pretty remarkable. Isn't it possible that the businesses that failed, failed because they weren't operating efficiently enough?

Paying your employees more than they produce doesn't sound very efficient.

If a business can't innovate in the market so that it can be profitable then perhaps it doesn't deserve to be in business.

Exactly! The best way to help the employees is to drive their employers under.
 
Matt recently brought you up to date on how liberals’ minimum wage demands have done severe damage to Seattle's and New York’s businesses. He highlighted a New York Post report revealing that, in the wake of the increased rate to $15 an hour, New York lost a staggering 1,000 restaurants.

Applebee's was one of the businesses that has been especially hard pressed by the minimum wage hike. Zane Tankel, the CEO of Applebee’s New York franchise, explained that his restaurants were forced to fire at least 1,000 employees so far thanks to the liberal policy. He shared the unfortunate news with Fox Business's Stuart Varney on Monday.

Instead of typical servers, the CEO explained that they will soon be replaced by concierges, who merely check on customers from time to time to make them feel "warm and comfortable."

"The model now that we're heading towards where we had one server for three or four tables, we're moving towards one server for ten tables, eliminating about two-thirds of our labor ultimately. But it's because of Cuomo, De Blasio, the liberal agenda."

If Applebee's completely follows through with its concierge service, nearly 2,000 employees will be heading for the exit, Newsbusters explains.

Tankel discussed this same issue with Varney in January, back when he had *only* fired 500 employees.

“We can’t raise prices anymore,” he said at the time, rather candidly, so they had to take drastic measures.

The lost workers, he explained, could be replaced with tablets that are placed on customers’ tables.

"Increasing minimum wage is technology's best friend," Tankel concluded.

I don't know the particulars as I haven't taken the time to research it in depth, but it seems to me that the pro-business mindset is that if something changes and it causes businesses to go under, that whatever policy (allegedly) caused it must be bad as evidenced by the loss of businesses.

I find this pretty remarkable. Isn't it possible that the businesses that failed, failed because they weren't operating efficiently enough? I mean, it's not like all the restaurants went out of business, right? Some were able to survive. What were the other restaurants (and non-restaurants for that matter) doing right that the others that failed we not?

Now, I'm not a big fan of minimum wages. I think it's blunt instrument where something more precise is necessary, so please don't accuse me of holding my opinion to justify the minimum wage. It just surprises me that workers are expected to accept smaller wages, give up cable, cell phones and other "luxury" items and deal with low pay but businesses that cannot operate under a provision that mandates a $15 an hour wage are victims of a system of governmental overreach.

Food prices are just one part of a restaurant's profitability. There are tons of expenses and business decisions, things like location, competition, presentation and experience and other facts like the negotiating of rent, insurance, the cost of food supplies and salaries paid to those above the $15 an hour threshold.

If a business can't innovate in the market so that it can be profitable then perhaps it doesn't deserve to be in business. People treat businesses as if they are sacred. They aren't. They live in the same world as workers who are trying to scrape by.

Of course, there is also the possibility that markets are too expensive. If enough restaurants go out of business and people want them, the market will find an equilibrium or it will simply endure going without whatever it is we're discussing.

i think they call that stovepipe vision. The fact that single store fails may be an indicator of failed management, but when you see them closing in droves, you have to look at external factors.

As for your "if they can't innovate, let them fail" comment ---- they can succeed at $15/hour ---- if they raise the price of their product to compensate for the increase in labor. Having owned restaurants, I can tell you that most of them operate on the
30-30-30 model ... 30% food costs, 30% labor costs, 30% fixed costs and 10% profit = retail price. So, if you raise one segment, the retail price must rise accordingly. Quick math says that raising the wages from $7.50 to $15 means the price of the product must go up 30% to compensate (assuming the owner wants to retain his 10% profit). Obviously, it's not that simple -- but the example should suffice. So, I will ask you ... what are the alternatives? 1) Raise a $6 burger to $8, 2) Cut staff to offset increased costs, or 3) go out of business.

You're right, though ... you definitely will eliminate competition as company after company goes out of business.
 
Paying your employees more than they produce doesn't sound very efficient.

Here is the problem with that notion.

Wages enable workers to purchase business output. Decreasing wages decreases the consumption capacity of the majority of potential customers.

Since 1980 here's what we've seen:

YXMVErq.png


The gap between purple and blue is the problem. Not because it's "unfair", but because the top quintile (in blue - roughly 32 million families) regardless of its increasing income, cannot purchase enough to drive necessary demand in the businesses owned by the same top 20%. In simple terms, it's bad for the economy (though it tends to be great for individuals) and it's bad for demand. This is because buying more expensive versions of everyday items, watches, pots and pans, dishwashers, cars ect doesn't employ more people. The families on the bottom 80%, roughly 65-70 million families can, if they have adequate income drive much greater demand.

There is a paradox of sorts that exists between the individual business owner and the economy as a whole. What's good for the business owner (decrease expenses by decreasing the cost of labor - lowering wages and automation) can be bad for the economy as a whole and ultimately bad for that same owner. Not to mention the fact that societal costs increase as the government is left to help those that cannot find work that pays enough to afford healthcare, food, shelter ect....

Now to your point, you say that; "Paying employees more than they produce" is inefficient.

I could simply turn that around and say, "Paying employees less than they are worth decreases their capacity to consume and isn't very efficient." At least from an overall economy standpoint.

But how do we determine what an employee is worth? An employees value is linked to demand. As demand falls and under/ unemployment rises employee salaries tend to go down as competition increases. When times are good and under/ unemployment declines the value of employees rises. The problem with both of these states is they tend to feedback. Paying less decreases costs but also decreases overall demand. Conversely paying more can increase costs as competition for workers increases, but it can also increase demand.

Thus owners, not workers, are creating the environment we see today.

There is always a shifting equilibrium between wages and costs. By pushing wages incrementally higher we expect to observe an overall increase overall demand and decrease the need for government services as people are increasingly capable of paying for themselves.

You are looking at things from a very owner-centric point-of-view.

Your statement assumes fix costs, but costs aren't fixed. Higher wages lead to greater consumption capacity. Greater consumption leads to growing businesses and decreased marginal costs due to economies of scale. The whole scale, not just wages, moves.

The problem is that marginal wages have been allowed to decrease over time. Trying to slide the "scale" back to where is should be to drive adequate demand will cause instability and disruption until that point is reached. The justification for doing nothing is the instability and a sign of the very short-sighted nature of our culture.

Now, as I said, I'm not necessarily arguing for a MW, I think there are better alternatives. Something I'm not going to get into now.

Exactly! The best way to help the employees is to drive their employers under.

Again, I could turn that around and say that failure to increase wages is the best way to decrease demand in the economy overall.

Thus it is possible for employers to pay too little and it's possible to employees to ask for too much (think late 1970's). The problem usually comes, not in the nominal figures paid, but in the transition between where wages are and where we'd like to be as a soiciety.
 
Matt recently brought you up to date on how liberals’ minimum wage demands have done severe damage to Seattle's and New York’s businesses. He highlighted a New York Post report revealing that, in the wake of the increased rate to $15 an hour, New York lost a staggering 1,000 restaurants.

Applebee's was one of the businesses that has been especially hard pressed by the minimum wage hike. Zane Tankel, the CEO of Applebee’s New York franchise, explained that his restaurants were forced to fire at least 1,000 employees so far thanks to the liberal policy. He shared the unfortunate news with Fox Business's Stuart Varney on Monday.

Instead of typical servers, the CEO explained that they will soon be replaced by concierges, who merely check on customers from time to time to make them feel "warm and comfortable."

"The model now that we're heading towards where we had one server for three or four tables, we're moving towards one server for ten tables, eliminating about two-thirds of our labor ultimately. But it's because of Cuomo, De Blasio, the liberal agenda."

If Applebee's completely follows through with its concierge service, nearly 2,000 employees will be heading for the exit, Newsbusters explains.

Tankel discussed this same issue with Varney in January, back when he had *only* fired 500 employees.

“We can’t raise prices anymore,” he said at the time, rather candidly, so they had to take drastic measures.

The lost workers, he explained, could be replaced with tablets that are placed on customers’ tables.

"Increasing minimum wage is technology's best friend," Tankel concluded.

One server for ten tables has been an industry norm for decades. The story is a lie.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-ideal-waiter-to-table-ratio-in-a-restaurant
 
Last edited:
i think they call that stovepipe vision. The fact that single store fails may be an indicator of failed management, but when you see them closing in droves, you have to look at external factors.

As for your "if they can't innovate, let them fail" comment ---- they can succeed at $15/hour ---- if they raise the price of their product to compensate for the increase in labor. Having owned restaurants, I can tell you that most of them operate on the
30-30-30 model ... 30% food costs, 30% labor costs, 30% fixed costs and 10% profit = retail price. So, if you raise one segment, the retail price must rise accordingly. Quick math says that raising the wages from $7.50 to $15 means the price of the product must go up 30% to compensate (assuming the owner wants to retain his 10% profit). Obviously, it's not that simple -- but the example should suffice. So, I will ask you ... what are the alternatives? 1) Raise a $6 burger to $8, 2) Cut staff to offset increased costs, or 3) go out of business.

You're right, though ... you definitely will eliminate competition as company after company goes out of business.

I've also run a business with a $466k annual gross revinue.

The issue, one that you didn't address is that in your 30-30-30 model is that you appear to be assuming that all other costs are fixed. And that increasing salaries (acro9ss the economy) won't have an impact on the demand for your goods and services.

My ex-mother-in-law ran a small restaurant. She had little understanding of her business. She didn't maintain any sort of P&L she didn't understand how to negotiate, she didn't understand that replacing or upgrading equipment could result in lower costs. I tried to help her, but she just wasn't business savvy. What she did do very well is create a hometown restaurant that people were extremely loyal to. People enjoyed the service, and the good Christian family run business atmosphere.

Now we can get emotionally attached to my ex-mother-in-laws business because we like her. we like her work ethic and love her food, but if she sucks running a business, why does she deserve to stay in business?

She doesn't, she much change and learn to be a better business person or the market will do what the market does and purge her in favor of someone with a better plan and better understanding of the underlying costs.

My point was not to say that businesses should or shouldn't go out of business, just that when they do, the default position seems to be that the causes were entirely external. That few people consider the idea that perhaps those businesses that failed were poorly run and that culling those that are poorly run make room for those that are more business savvy.

The same goes for employees, I'm not saying that people "deserve" or don't "deserve" more money. I tend to look at things from a much higher level.
 
"Liberal" policy? :lol:

Who the fuck is "Matt"?

LMAO!!!

You read an article regarding a critical issue regarding our economic future, and THIS is what you get out of it?

And, you wonder why nobody takes the left seriously.

You post an article regarding a critical issue regarding our economic future, and THIS is what you get out of it?

And, you wonder why nobody takes you seriously.

Anyone that has worked in a restaurant knows the story is a lie.
 
i think they call that stovepipe vision. The fact that single store fails may be an indicator of failed management, but when you see them closing in droves, you have to look at external factors.

As for your "if they can't innovate, let them fail" comment ---- they can succeed at $15/hour ---- if they raise the price of their product to compensate for the increase in labor. Having owned restaurants, I can tell you that most of them operate on the
30-30-30 model ... 30% food costs, 30% labor costs, 30% fixed costs and 10% profit = retail price. So, if you raise one segment, the retail price must rise accordingly. Quick math says that raising the wages from $7.50 to $15 means the price of the product must go up 30% to compensate (assuming the owner wants to retain his 10% profit). Obviously, it's not that simple -- but the example should suffice. So, I will ask you ... what are the alternatives? 1) Raise a $6 burger to $8, 2) Cut staff to offset increased costs, or 3) go out of business.

You're right, though ... you definitely will eliminate competition as company after company goes out of business.

I've also run a business with a $466k annual gross revinue.

The issue, one that you didn't address is that in your 30-30-30 model is that you appear to be assuming that all other costs are fixed. And that increasing salaries (acro9ss the economy) won't have an impact on the demand for your goods and services.

My ex-mother-in-law ran a small restaurant. She had little understanding of her business. She didn't maintain any sort of P&L she didn't understand how to negotiate, she didn't understand that replacing or upgrading equipment could result in lower costs. I tried to help her, but she just wasn't business savvy. What she did do very well is create a hometown restaurant that people were extremely loyal to. People enjoyed the service, and the good Christian family run business atmosphere.

Now we can get emotionally attached to my ex-mother-in-laws business because we like her. we like her work ethic and love her food, but if she sucks running a business, why does she deserve to stay in business?

She doesn't, she much change and learn to be a better business person or the market will do what the market does and purge her in favor of someone with a better plan and better understanding of the underlying costs.

My point was not to say that businesses should or shouldn't go out of business, just that when they do, the default position seems to be that the causes were entirely external. That few people consider the idea that perhaps those businesses that failed were poorly run and that culling those that are poorly run make room for those that are more business savvy.

The same goes for employees, I'm not saying that people "deserve" or don't "deserve" more money. I tend to look at things from a much higher level.

You've established why most businesses fail. Beyond that, not much.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top