Without growth you would need to increase price to continue to pay for workers who want a COLA increase. Increase price and you hemorrhage customers without a growth path. Even if you kept your staff at the same level paying someone the same amount yearly would still lead to decreasing revenue due to the cost of taxes, benefits, etc increasing.
In the long run the only way to run a business is to increase growth or increase cost to consumers. Since the escapist mostly ran off ad revenue (although they did have subscriptions that im guessing helps) unless they increased viewership they likely they weren't hitting the metrics they wanted.
by no means does this means let go of the guy leading the team who is your likely biggest draw -- thats just stupid
A lot of small businesses push the price increases onward. Food distributor says all your burger patties are +10%, all your burgers are +10%, unless you think its very temporary.
One benefit of local "anything" is that the prices are often way better. Ex: Live in a small town, the land rent can regularly be $1-2/sq. ft./month ($10-20/yr) while a quick on Sydney (where Gamurs is located) runs $8-10/sq. ft./month ($90-$100/yr).
Frankly, Sydney's mostly already subdivided into work shares from what I've seen, and its difficult to even find a spot that's not just $500-1000 / worker / month rates (or "contact for price"). Its part of the reason Sydney's childcare is ridiculous, cause the space to even have a facility cost so much (and you have to have a min reg space per child).
Right, so I think people understand inflation. But apart from that? At least I didn't understand OP as meaning that growth is meant to keep lowering prices and raising wages even in the presence of inflation.
I run a small business, know plenty of small business owners and this isn't really the full story.
Small businesses do frequently fail, but it's more to do with the fact that anyone can start one than the fact that they are small. If you allowed random people with no experience to start billion dollar megacorps, they'd fail too.
And there are plenty that generate pretty serious profits, triple or more what you could earn in a traditional job.
It might be a lifestyle business (or a way to keep a rich person's spouse busy) in which case you can live on only employing family.
Also, there just wasn't inflation in some places for a few decades, so they just haven't had to deal with it. (Which also means there hasn't been wage growth.)
This seems pretty disingenuous. Keeping up with costs is just part of stable profitability and in no way implies growth at the rate modern investors demand.
The problem here is you're looking at the system as individual parts instead of the entire system.
Lets imagine an entire economic system that was steady state. Why would profitability have to increase?
Instead we have a system that profit must increase, and profit must increase in every component of the system constantly due to inflationary practices.
>He found that in 2021, corporate profits could account for about double that, nearly 60% of inflation, meaning it was not costs driving inflation. It was corporate profits. Now, some economists hear this and think this is proof that companies were just using inflation as an excuse to gouge customers.
You're talking about "profits" when you should really be talking about "costs".
At a macro level, in a large company/business, your employees expect raises for a variety of reasons (inflation, quality of life, promos, etc). A new product or feature may require hiring additional employees. If an employee exits, you may need to spend more money to hire a replacement. In addition to all of that, there are contractual obligations with vendors, your customers may be trying to eliminate product (or leave entirely), etc.
All of that raise the cost to run the business. If you want to keep your margin you need to raise your prices, cut expenses, or both.
In the long run the only way to run a business is to increase growth or increase cost to consumers. Since the escapist mostly ran off ad revenue (although they did have subscriptions that im guessing helps) unless they increased viewership they likely they weren't hitting the metrics they wanted.
by no means does this means let go of the guy leading the team who is your likely biggest draw -- thats just stupid