Who gave them that profit?
Was it the government? Nope
I believe it was the consumer who shopped there, because they offer better pricing than the other guy
How? By keeping their costs down....blame the world man.
We want the most, and we want it for the least
That is the world we live in.....Walmart and others are catering to what us....the consumers want
If we wanted, we could put mom and pop’s back in business....but that isn’t what the American consumer wants
But all you want to do is blame the company for providing what the people want, at the price they want
Profit isn’t a dirty word....so many of you get almost angry because companies make money
If you think it’s easy, start your own company....see for yourself
And I don’t work for free....
I find this response strange...why does not wanting to subsidize corporations equate to hating profit? When a company realizes a "profit" by running their business to where they pay their employees so low that the government must step in with social programs, that's not "earning profit"....that's accepting a handout, paid for by all of your fellow citizens. Should a company exist under those circumstances? Or should it move the **** over?
Of course the government gave them that … or a chunk of it, anyway. If their employees were paid to where they didn't need food stamps, the profit margin would be less - good thing they have a lot of wiggle room. Or, if they still needed to make a big profit, they'd have to get their consumers to pay more. Either way, their profits are heavily impacted by how little they pay their workforce, and they can do that because the government picks up the slack - without that, folks couldn't work there. :shrug:
I'm not blaming business owners for consumer demand. But again, minimum wage is a uniform cost - if it forces you to raise your prices, your competition must also raise their prices, assuming everyone is paying their workers minimum wage. It's a flat impact. If someone can't afford your services at the new rate, they can't afford anyone else's services either. If that service is essential, which I would say yours is, then that represents a gap where the government needs to step in and increase subsidy.
No one is suggesting you work for free...at worst, the minimum wage should apply for you as well.

Personally, though, I think that until every single employee can be proven to be free of government assistance driven by the employer paying a low wage, the business owner shouldn't make a dime over what their lowest paid person makes. Imagine how quickly wages would increase in that scenario...haha... Something tells me you would be more motivated to find a way.
One last thing: just because I think ripping off employees is a bad thing, that doesn't mean I don't know what it's like to run a business. I think it's a massive cop out to suggest that - there are lots of businesses who pay above the minimum, whether that be minimum wage, or the industry average rate. You can usually pick them out, they're the successful ones. I'm not setting out to be offensive here, but if you're going to condescend, maybe start by asking yourself why they can do it, and you can't, and why is that anyone's problem but your own. You were saying something about a sense of entitlement?
