Hacker News Reader

I like the term "capital strike."

Companies don't want to pay more than $X. That's not the fault of labor. That's ownership trying to force labor's hand.

That's fair enough if they want to try, but they can't complain if that doesn't work.

Correct, they are betting that unemployment benefits and eviction maratoriums will end and the workers will come back. They don't want to get locked into higher labor costs. Some businesses genuinely can't operated at a higher cost price as well

> Some businesses genuinely can't operated at a higher cost price as well

I'll believe that when executive pay at said companies isn't high enough to cover hiring 1000+ front line workers that they supposedly can't find.

Their CEO alone made $14m last year and their wages are $15-33/hr. "Can't afford" isn't the issue.

There are some small businesses that are barely viable who really can't operate at much higher labor costs. That means they probably shouldn't be viable because labor is propping their model up with artificially low wages.

Can you explain? How are wages artificially low? Why is insolvency the solution instead of lowering payroll taxes or whatever business owners generally advocate for?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com