Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

StinkFloyyd t1_j621foo wrote

53

itsonlyastrongbuzz t1_j63578c wrote

They also own the building.

28

StinkFloyyd t1_j636fg6 wrote

Owning property doesn’t mean that you can afford to live / work there without having a viable income.

−29

dpm25 t1_j63f358 wrote

Equity and more specifically equity growth is that viable income.

12

itsonlyastrongbuzz t1_j63gb5g wrote

>Owning property doesn’t mean that you can afford to live / work there without having a viable income.

Eliminating the single largest overhead expense has a huge impact on what “viable” means.

You can survive on a lot less when it’s a family business and the building could be paid for, or at least secured via mortgage.

11

StinkFloyyd t1_j63sms7 wrote

Sure. If someone has no mortgage / owns it outright. But assuming the owner of Sam lagrasaa’s isn’t a fool, they wouldn’t operate a money losing business just because they own a building.

−11

Chippopotanuse t1_j64mu5x wrote

Owning multi-million dollar property that you bought decades ago for next-to-nothing allows you to do a lot of things.

And selling $30 sandwiches to a corporate crowd for 3 hours a day (because that’s the only goddamn time folks eat lunch) is one of them.

7