Business owners take the risk. Not everyone can start a business and take on that risk. Most aren’t even profitable for years after. That’s my point.

It’s going to blow your mind to find out how often new businesses fail.

So you’re self employed. This study doesn’t apply to you.

So if you owned a business, you’d like to be removed from that position?

Took them long enough.

No, but it makes business owners more likely to outsource or replace with AI.

Writes a bad review when all he had to do was look at the store hours on the sign. Did he also need their personal confirmation that they were closed? People are getting so strange in 2024.

It’s a nightmare and it’s probably going to get worse now that they are ditching Apple Carplay and Android Auto. https://www.motortrend.com/news/general-motors-removing-apple-carplay-android-auto-for-safety-tim-babbitt/

That’s just distraction legislation, not what people truly need. This has been happening since the early days of the election process, but none of these measures address the real needs of the public because it’s all political theater. The actual control lies elsewhere (i.e. global elite). I’ve been aware of this for decades, but only recently have others started to see it too.

All talk. I have yet to see a single politician actually give the people what they want. She had 4 years to do it, and crickets.

The Hunger Games are revealing themselves folks.

Gradually increasing revenue each year is more sustainable, as it avoids the pressure of constantly surpassing record highs and potentially alienating your customer base. CEOs somehow fail to understand this. Morons.

That’s a triple win. Love hearing these types of stories.

“You are not allowed to work from home unless we want you working from home” is basically their slogan. It’s so funny how these companies are ok with upper management working from home, or having remote locations in India where they work from home, or when it comes to working overtime/after hours from home. But, can’t do it on a day to day basis. Horrible companies.

And put him in jail

The term ‘CEO’ is just individuals who exploit legal loopholes to unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of others, while being rewarded for such unethical practices. They serve no real value that can’t be accomplished by those under them.

I have no vested interest, as I’m not a landlord. My point is that people generally won’t settle for less when they can earn more. Regardless of how essential the item or service is, businesses and individuals will always aim to maximize their earnings if the market allows it. It would be a poor financial decision not to. Whether someone feels resentful because others profit off of them (which, by the way, is all of us in America when we buy foreign goods who use children for harvesting raw materials or other labor), it’s irrelevant to the situation. It isn’t going to change until God changes it.

If the government gets involved, the owners will just sell, making homeownership even more unaffordable and reducing rent options. What you want is less greed in the world, and that isn’t going to happen in its current state.

Yes, but it isn’t fair to expect anyone to provide housing at their own personal loss. I agree that people need homes, and we’re on the same page there. However, consider it this way. If you could earn more by charging a higher amount, would you charge less out of generosity, or would you try to maximize your income? This applies to anything. If you’re selling a car, would you sell it for less just to be nice, or would you sell it to the highest bidder? People need cars too. You see my point?

While I sympathize with high rent prices, it’s still no different than say someone who owns a Wedding venue and rents out the location, tables, chairs, etc. They paid for the initial investment and are making money off of it through rental. That’s how investments work. Otherwise, what benefit is there to owning it outside of selling it outright.