Store Owner Explains How Labor Exploitation Works, Says She Earns ’70k Like Everybody Else’
Madeline Pendleton has built a name for herself largely through her online presence, advocating for ethical consumption and representing counterculture.
But she also owns Tunnel Vision, a clothing line and vintage shop in Los Angeles. The brand champions size inclusivity, sustainability, and economic equality. It’s also dedicated to sweatshop-free manufacturing and makes monthly donations to Equality California and Black Lives Matter.
Plus, Madeline took a huge pay cut so that her employees could earn a decent living.
Image credits: DeeLaSheeArt
Recently, small business owner and fashion icon Madeline Pendleton released a TikTok to discuss labor exploitation
@madeline_pendletonReply to @octig #greenscreen♬ original sound – Madeline Pendleton
Madeline’s business model reminds that of Dan Price’s. In 2015, the CEO of Gravity Payments made headlines all over the world when he announced that his employees would receive a minimum salary of $70,000.
To finance this move, Dan cut his own $1.1M pay by 90%. At the time, this decision received a lot of criticism but 6 years later, the company is thriving and Price said it has made him happier and a better boss.
Image credits: madeline_pendleton
Image credits: madeline_pendleton
Madeline’s store makes over half a million dollars per year
Image credits: madeline_pendleton
Image credits: madeline_pendleton
You don’t hear about these things very often. In fact, you could call Madeline’s business an anomaly. A report by the Economic Policy Institute states that the average CEO pay is 271 times the nearly $58,000 annual average pay of the typical American worker.
Even though some argue that CEO pay is based on experience and high demands that come with the role, the study finds that’s actually not the case.
“CEOs are getting more because of their power to set pay, not because they are more productive or have special talent or have more education,” the report says. “Exorbitant CEO pay means that the fruits of economic growth are not going to ordinary workers, since the higher CEO pay does not reflect correspondingly higher output.”
For comparison, in 1978, CEO earnings were roughly 30 times the typical worker’s salary.
In the UK, the bosses of FTSE 100 companies now earn 117 times the salary of their average worker.
She could pay her employees just $14.25 an hour
Image credits: madeline_pendleton
Image credits: madeline_pendleton
This would equate to $177.8K per year
Image credits: madeline_pendleton
Image credits: madeline_pendleton
And take home well over $400K
Image credits: madeline_pendleton
But she refuses to do so and splits the profits equally with everyone working in the store
@madeline_pendletonReply to @jimmyboy_1969♬ original sound – Madeline Pendleton
People are loving her business model
Image credits: i8yomomma
Image credits: shoptunnelvision
Image credits: shoptunnelvision
Image credits: MMiyukiM2
Image credits: jayypill
Image credits: boooitsnia
Image credits: nosliwnibrok
Image credits: elko_notes
Image credits: iammarsamarna
And again an employer proves that there's no need to exploit your employees. What I love however is the "lower middle class". I didn't know that the US had a system of classes but suddenly it hit me that that explains why people treat other people so lousy. The US thinks in classes and the pariahs are treated without any respect. The abolition of slavery and segregation created a new system to humiliate people. Your wealth defines your privileges in the US and I can see why having a universal health care poses a threat to a lot people. It must be quite menacing to have to live with the knowledge that your employees have access to the same health care as you do.
Yup. Even those barely scraping by will still look down their nose at a homeless person thinking that they are more akin to their billionaire CEO than the poor man sleeping on the street. It's is bizarre.
Load More Replies...On a side note: Today a Dutch Court declared the Über-construction illegal under Dutch law. According to Dutch law they are an employer and as such they have to pay their employees livable wages and are responsible for securing a pension plan, cover the 20 mandatory vacation days and cough up a lot of social premiums that employers have to pay. They will also have to pay all the employees outstanding wages over the time that Über considered them contractors. In February Deliveroo lost a similar case forcing them to treat people who are working for them as employees instead of contractors.
How are they not contractors? I just don't understand. They set their own hours they accept or decline assignments. They work when they want. That's a contractor. never mind the wage for a moment.
Load More Replies...I support a livable wage. I support the fact that minimum wage is laughably low. But there's something wrong when the owner who built the business, runs the business, and dons the burden of many added responsibilities and pressures of staying in business to provide for her employees makes exactly the same as her employees. You have to be blind to not see how this doesn't make any sense. If this was the norm who on earth would ever take on the huge task (and risk) of starting and running a business if you can just walk right in and make the same amount as the owner on day one? Just like every other thing in the world right now, we're going from one extreme to the other. There is a middle ground.
The point is you don't need more money than your employees... you see people exploiting others making obscene amounts they hoard. If you are claiming your employees can live off of what you're paying them, you should be able to live with that amount as well. I get that you think there should be an extraordinary monetary reward for having a business but that's not really implicit... Rich people make it seem like they create jobs and are indispensable, but the truth is they are not giving charity, a business needs each and everyone to function everyone is equally valuable and could very well earn the same.
Load More Replies...@elko_notes said "we need an incentive for entrepreneurs to risk everything to start a business...so why would I start one if I can already make lots of money with labor alone?" This is such a North American capitalistic viewpoint. Why would I start a business if I can make a living off of labour? I wouldn't. Therefore I wouldn't need to RISK EVERYTHING just to make a decent wage. Socialist countries have very happy people who live off of labour alone. They don't have this incessant need to be your own boss in order to get ahead in life. They just make enough money to live life well and are happy.
How does working 4 days a week for $250 a day add up to $70,200 per year? My math off? 4 days x 250 = 1000/week x 52 weeks = 52,000 where's the other 18,200 come from? You need to make $337.50 each day to make 70,200 a year working 4 days a week
she said "take home" is 250, so overall probably is 337, then taxes are taken.
Load More Replies...A big difference I see in some good small companies is the separation between manager and owner: as a manager the boss get his paycheck, as the owner he get the profits. A good owner know to invest the profits in the company to expand and as a reserve cash, and live with only his paycheck. The problem is when the owner start to think: "If I spend less, I can increase the profits and take them myself..." NOPE. You are spending more, not less, in the paycheck of the manager (yourself). You are robbing your company to gain more!
* finds address of store to visit later, visits website * Gotta support this s**t
People run their businesses how they want. It’s her shop, she can do whatever she wants with the profits. I wouldn’t do this but I think there’s a middle ground between just minimum wage and profit sharing.
Very noble, but she also owns the company which I guess is increasing in value so she has a payday when she sells/quits. Not a bad model, please remember though, to have the skills to operate a business takes education which is expensive, takes many more free hours work and takes the rare type of person that can do this. It is a bit like paying all tennis stars the same no-matter how they do in say the US open. So I see goodwill, a need to provide a fair environment which enables everyone and ultimately she still has the big house and the nicer car as she can borrow against the value of the business (and offset a shed load of taxes and costs which employees can't). Win win.. Truly believe there should be a legal cap of around 10x from your lowest paid worker to the boss.
This is a failed business model. She spends all of her companies income on pay. What happens when Gov. Newsome makes you shut your door for 3 months. That is zero income for everyone for 3 months, no way to pay rent for the shop.... The idea of profit sharing is solid. Pay everyone min wage and then profit share, but save a sizable amount for a rainy day or year.
Who says she's spending all the companies money on pay. The company can be making a 50% profit, which she actually keeps in assets being the sole shareholder all the while making a feel good tic tic video to gain exposure for the company.
Load More Replies...still trying to get the math to work out. Full time employees work 4 days a week at @ $250 per day. $250*4 = $1000. $1000 * 52 = $52,000 per year, not $70,000. If this basic math is wrong, what about the rest? But it is an admirable pursuit.
Her math doesn't work, for anything she said. It doesn't even come out with a 5 day work week that would be 65k.
Load More Replies...Love this. The only thing I was unclear on was if she is setting aside some profit to reinvest in the business. Reinvest, grow the business and hire more people to benefit from this great culture.
I have to assume she is lying a little. On the one hand here "salary" is the same as everyone else, but he is taking money and putting it asside as business expenses. She then does not have to pay taxes on that money as her income. In all actuality she is making more than that 70k because she is the soul owner of the business so it's worth is part of her net worth.
Load More Replies...In the us on of the largest risks in starting your business is the lack of health insurance. If you can figure that out the risk drops significantly
Ya know there is a pretty wide gap between minimum wage and communism, which is exactly the business model she's preaching. Lets think of it in the simplest terms possible. Lets say you, alone decide to open a lemonade stand. You pay for the permit, you pay for the materials to build the stand, and actually build the stand. You design and print/paint the sign, you buy the lemons, the sugar, the pitcher, glasses and juicer. You make the lemonade. After all that is said and done, you friend/sibling wanders up sits there with you, pouring and handing glasses of lemonade to customers....just as you are doing. But somehow they expect half of the money. Now apply that concept to an actual business with accounting, payroll, insurance, inventory, purchasing, advertising and all the other countless things that OWNERS are responsible for. Yes, you can adopt this model, and in the short term it may work...but you, the owner/founder/inventor et al are undervaluing your own time and worth.
It's a free country. You can play it safe and work hourly or take a risk and be the shop owner. It's free will and free will employment. You are a victim only if you decide you are a victim!!!
Right. When you own a house and rent rooms you dont feel bad that the amount of money coming in is more than what you pay out. That is because you are taking the risk of loses if something goes wrong like a fire. If her shop burns down and she has been using all the income for pay.... how does she recover?
Load More Replies...CEO's are hired by the Stockholder's Board of Directors. The CEO's purpose is to protect the best interests of the Stockholders, not the employees. A privately owned business owner can call himself a CEO or whatever he wants to but it's not the same as a CEO for a company like IBM or Proctor and Gamble or Ford Motors. They are not on the same salary scale as management, such as the Production Manager, Operations Manger, General Manager, HR Manager, CEO's are separate.
I think the word your looking for is Capitalist economic standpoint. It sounds like she's settling in for the long term game
Load More Replies...I'm also Canadian, and make a good salary of over 100k, however, it's not the dream you make it sound like. I'm not trying to boast or complain or anything, just saying that even with greater than 100k annually, with a spouse who stays home to take care of our 2 young kids, it's not easy to cover the bills. And I bought my house for $385k - it's not a perfect stress free life. I guess the biggest issue in Canada is we get ripped off on almost all of our utilities and services.... Phone bills are $100/person, internet and cable are a ripoff compared to other countries, hydro, you name it we get ripped off on it.
Load More Replies...And again an employer proves that there's no need to exploit your employees. What I love however is the "lower middle class". I didn't know that the US had a system of classes but suddenly it hit me that that explains why people treat other people so lousy. The US thinks in classes and the pariahs are treated without any respect. The abolition of slavery and segregation created a new system to humiliate people. Your wealth defines your privileges in the US and I can see why having a universal health care poses a threat to a lot people. It must be quite menacing to have to live with the knowledge that your employees have access to the same health care as you do.
Yup. Even those barely scraping by will still look down their nose at a homeless person thinking that they are more akin to their billionaire CEO than the poor man sleeping on the street. It's is bizarre.
Load More Replies...On a side note: Today a Dutch Court declared the Über-construction illegal under Dutch law. According to Dutch law they are an employer and as such they have to pay their employees livable wages and are responsible for securing a pension plan, cover the 20 mandatory vacation days and cough up a lot of social premiums that employers have to pay. They will also have to pay all the employees outstanding wages over the time that Über considered them contractors. In February Deliveroo lost a similar case forcing them to treat people who are working for them as employees instead of contractors.
How are they not contractors? I just don't understand. They set their own hours they accept or decline assignments. They work when they want. That's a contractor. never mind the wage for a moment.
Load More Replies...I support a livable wage. I support the fact that minimum wage is laughably low. But there's something wrong when the owner who built the business, runs the business, and dons the burden of many added responsibilities and pressures of staying in business to provide for her employees makes exactly the same as her employees. You have to be blind to not see how this doesn't make any sense. If this was the norm who on earth would ever take on the huge task (and risk) of starting and running a business if you can just walk right in and make the same amount as the owner on day one? Just like every other thing in the world right now, we're going from one extreme to the other. There is a middle ground.
The point is you don't need more money than your employees... you see people exploiting others making obscene amounts they hoard. If you are claiming your employees can live off of what you're paying them, you should be able to live with that amount as well. I get that you think there should be an extraordinary monetary reward for having a business but that's not really implicit... Rich people make it seem like they create jobs and are indispensable, but the truth is they are not giving charity, a business needs each and everyone to function everyone is equally valuable and could very well earn the same.
Load More Replies...@elko_notes said "we need an incentive for entrepreneurs to risk everything to start a business...so why would I start one if I can already make lots of money with labor alone?" This is such a North American capitalistic viewpoint. Why would I start a business if I can make a living off of labour? I wouldn't. Therefore I wouldn't need to RISK EVERYTHING just to make a decent wage. Socialist countries have very happy people who live off of labour alone. They don't have this incessant need to be your own boss in order to get ahead in life. They just make enough money to live life well and are happy.
How does working 4 days a week for $250 a day add up to $70,200 per year? My math off? 4 days x 250 = 1000/week x 52 weeks = 52,000 where's the other 18,200 come from? You need to make $337.50 each day to make 70,200 a year working 4 days a week
she said "take home" is 250, so overall probably is 337, then taxes are taken.
Load More Replies...A big difference I see in some good small companies is the separation between manager and owner: as a manager the boss get his paycheck, as the owner he get the profits. A good owner know to invest the profits in the company to expand and as a reserve cash, and live with only his paycheck. The problem is when the owner start to think: "If I spend less, I can increase the profits and take them myself..." NOPE. You are spending more, not less, in the paycheck of the manager (yourself). You are robbing your company to gain more!
* finds address of store to visit later, visits website * Gotta support this s**t
People run their businesses how they want. It’s her shop, she can do whatever she wants with the profits. I wouldn’t do this but I think there’s a middle ground between just minimum wage and profit sharing.
Very noble, but she also owns the company which I guess is increasing in value so she has a payday when she sells/quits. Not a bad model, please remember though, to have the skills to operate a business takes education which is expensive, takes many more free hours work and takes the rare type of person that can do this. It is a bit like paying all tennis stars the same no-matter how they do in say the US open. So I see goodwill, a need to provide a fair environment which enables everyone and ultimately she still has the big house and the nicer car as she can borrow against the value of the business (and offset a shed load of taxes and costs which employees can't). Win win.. Truly believe there should be a legal cap of around 10x from your lowest paid worker to the boss.
This is a failed business model. She spends all of her companies income on pay. What happens when Gov. Newsome makes you shut your door for 3 months. That is zero income for everyone for 3 months, no way to pay rent for the shop.... The idea of profit sharing is solid. Pay everyone min wage and then profit share, but save a sizable amount for a rainy day or year.
Who says she's spending all the companies money on pay. The company can be making a 50% profit, which she actually keeps in assets being the sole shareholder all the while making a feel good tic tic video to gain exposure for the company.
Load More Replies...still trying to get the math to work out. Full time employees work 4 days a week at @ $250 per day. $250*4 = $1000. $1000 * 52 = $52,000 per year, not $70,000. If this basic math is wrong, what about the rest? But it is an admirable pursuit.
Her math doesn't work, for anything she said. It doesn't even come out with a 5 day work week that would be 65k.
Load More Replies...Love this. The only thing I was unclear on was if she is setting aside some profit to reinvest in the business. Reinvest, grow the business and hire more people to benefit from this great culture.
I have to assume she is lying a little. On the one hand here "salary" is the same as everyone else, but he is taking money and putting it asside as business expenses. She then does not have to pay taxes on that money as her income. In all actuality she is making more than that 70k because she is the soul owner of the business so it's worth is part of her net worth.
Load More Replies...In the us on of the largest risks in starting your business is the lack of health insurance. If you can figure that out the risk drops significantly
Ya know there is a pretty wide gap between minimum wage and communism, which is exactly the business model she's preaching. Lets think of it in the simplest terms possible. Lets say you, alone decide to open a lemonade stand. You pay for the permit, you pay for the materials to build the stand, and actually build the stand. You design and print/paint the sign, you buy the lemons, the sugar, the pitcher, glasses and juicer. You make the lemonade. After all that is said and done, you friend/sibling wanders up sits there with you, pouring and handing glasses of lemonade to customers....just as you are doing. But somehow they expect half of the money. Now apply that concept to an actual business with accounting, payroll, insurance, inventory, purchasing, advertising and all the other countless things that OWNERS are responsible for. Yes, you can adopt this model, and in the short term it may work...but you, the owner/founder/inventor et al are undervaluing your own time and worth.
It's a free country. You can play it safe and work hourly or take a risk and be the shop owner. It's free will and free will employment. You are a victim only if you decide you are a victim!!!
Right. When you own a house and rent rooms you dont feel bad that the amount of money coming in is more than what you pay out. That is because you are taking the risk of loses if something goes wrong like a fire. If her shop burns down and she has been using all the income for pay.... how does she recover?
Load More Replies...CEO's are hired by the Stockholder's Board of Directors. The CEO's purpose is to protect the best interests of the Stockholders, not the employees. A privately owned business owner can call himself a CEO or whatever he wants to but it's not the same as a CEO for a company like IBM or Proctor and Gamble or Ford Motors. They are not on the same salary scale as management, such as the Production Manager, Operations Manger, General Manager, HR Manager, CEO's are separate.
I think the word your looking for is Capitalist economic standpoint. It sounds like she's settling in for the long term game
Load More Replies...I'm also Canadian, and make a good salary of over 100k, however, it's not the dream you make it sound like. I'm not trying to boast or complain or anything, just saying that even with greater than 100k annually, with a spouse who stays home to take care of our 2 young kids, it's not easy to cover the bills. And I bought my house for $385k - it's not a perfect stress free life. I guess the biggest issue in Canada is we get ripped off on almost all of our utilities and services.... Phone bills are $100/person, internet and cable are a ripoff compared to other countries, hydro, you name it we get ripped off on it.
Load More Replies...
105
60