Hacker News Reader

Comment by bsbechtel | Hacker News Reader

Retail fast food restaurant - <$50,000 A food truck - <$20,000 Home-based service business - <$5,000

All these businesses can be started with either 1) personal savings, 2) a family and friends loan, or 3) credit cards. They all also have the advantage of generating cash from day 1, vs a tech startup which can have substantial development time.

View on HN

So your hypothetical minimum wage worker is going to start a retail restaurant that costs typically $350,000 - $500,000 to open?

"A 2009 survey by "Restaurant Startup and Growth Magazine" found that the average owner spent $451,966 to get his restaurant up and running -- not including the acquisition of real estate. With a land purchase, the average total cost went to just over $700,00. Even those with starting costs in the lowest quartile of respondents spent $125,000."

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/startup-cost-opening-restaura...

You're very out of touch with the life of a minimum wage worker. I'm not sure what I can do to fix that, but maybe just step back and think about who you're defending and why.

What do you do for a living? I run a business that competes with fast food franchises for low wage labor. A great majority of our employees aren't poor, or struggling to get by, but college kids who are looking to make a little extra cash and get some work experience. A small handful are children of parents who have millions in the bank, and have no need to work other than it's something to do, and maybe to gain some necessary life skills. A number of them also wish to start their own small business one day (I always ask, because I would rather convince the ones who do to start a franchise for us). We have them sign a non-compete because a large portion of our competitive edge comes from operational efficiencies that our competitors can't touch, but aren't necessarily exclusive or proprietary. We also tripled in growth in the past year, and pay our employees higher wages than virtually any alternative job they could acquire elsewhere. The risk that one of these employees would try to start a competing business is very real, and someone who is resourceful enough to do so is also probably resourceful enough to pose a significant threat to our business. Yes, many of the employees we hire probably won't ever try to do this, with or without the non-compete, but all it takes is one employee who wishes to do so and has the financial backing to make it happen to significantly hurt our business.

I appreciate your judgement on my knowledge of the life of a minimum wage worker. Yes, there are many who are struggling to get by, this is a very real problem that needs to be fixed. However, generalizing the skill set and struggles of a few to an entire wage class of labor is absurd. You're talking about millions of individuals in just as many different live situations across thousands of local markets. I would advise you to rethink your assessment of the life of a minimum wage worker. You might want to add a little complexity and depth to your profile of the minimum wage worker.

That is an interesting anecdote about hiring trust fund babies on Manhattan Island or the equivalent on the west coast, but the fraction of the population operating under similar circumstances is extremely small and thus not very applicable to a nationwide discussion.

We're based in the Midwest. Believe it or not, there are rich people here too.

> A great majority of our employees aren't poor, or struggling to get by, but college kids who are looking to make a little extra cash and get some work experience.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/08/08/2433601/fast-foo...

> However, generalizing the skill set and struggles of a few to an entire wage class of labor is absurd

You mean like you did earlier in your post? I backed my claims up with data, you backed yours up with an anecdote about trust fund babies and college kids.

I acknowledged (in my earlier post) that a vast majority of minimum wage workers do struggle. I was pointing out that the risk lies in the outliers, not those who fall into the average. If there was a very real risk that every single one of our employees could start a competing business, then we wouldn't be in business. It just wouldn't be feasible.

I also never mentioned this practice was right or wrong, I just stated there is another side to this argument that the NYT is not sharing, and they did so in a biased way.

If one of your employees can quit and start a business that threatens yours, then why should you continue to remain in business?

Why do you think that Jimmy Johns is concerned with the life of an average minimum wage worker? Perhaps they are concerned with the outliers and are happy to saddle the average workers with a non-compete just the same. The lack of insight in this thread is shocking. No one said the policy is fair or justified. The point is to think through why they might have the policy in the first place and people seem to be too outraged to do that. It's disappointing, really.

That $50k is about three years worth of the $8.50 salary you cite. They're not going to have it in savings, no bank will give them that much credit, and your friends/family tend to be in the same socioeconomic situation as you.

Yes, I'm sure there are just TONS of barely-higher-paid-than-minimum-wage workers out there with an extra $5,000 just sitting around.

Idiot.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com