• partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    The economic opportunity of having a thriving business is far greater than the potential losses this bill would cause to a business, which are … giving notice 6 months in advance, hosting a few community meetings, writing a report or something on possible replacements?

    There is nothing in this proposed law that results in a thriving business at the end. Thriving businesses don’t close. The only reason a store would be closing is if its not thriving.

    You’d make more money staying in business than you would save by shutting down early to avoid the small costs incurred by this law.

    If you’re closing your store its already losing money. There’s no money to be made in staying open. Staying open over time just means losing more money. Its a quick bit of math to find out where the amount money lost from operating for additional months at a loss compared to the cost of closing (because of this new law) means to “break even” on your losses, the better business decision is to close the store months early.

    Example using small simple numbers for illustration:

    Lets say your store is losing $100,000/month in operation. Lets say that the cost of complying with this law would cost $2 million. That $1m is an additional 6 months of operating at a $100,000/month loss, as well as an additional $1,400,000 in labor to set up community meetings on alternatives or helping the residents set up a coop.

    1. Your second best business decision would be to announce tomorrow that you’re closing to start the clock on the mandatory 6 month operation.
    2. Your first best bet is to close before your competitor serving the same community does. That way, you cut your losses immediately and don’t have to spend $1.4m complying with the law, because you won’t be the last grocery store standing.