muffguy
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2012
- Posts
- 296
Read the 10th amendment
Fast-food workers push for $15 an hour
- Thread starter koalabear
- Start date
Read the 10th amendment
Sean
We'll see.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2005
- Posts
- 96,196
Thank you for proving my point.
U
unregistered
Guest
Sean
We'll see.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2005
- Posts
- 96,196
Really? Because I'm right?
muffguy
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2012
- Posts
- 296
rarely
U
unregistered
Guest
Joeybagadonuts
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- May 6, 2010
- Posts
- 9,202
MSNBC did a show on this topic last night. In response to the employees who described what life is like trying to survive on meager wages, MSNBC had one of the corporate burger guys come on and say that the business model doesn't work when they pay burger flippers more money. What that means is the business model which pays record profits to upper management and investors doesn't continue to provide record profits if you also have to pay a decent, fair, living wage to employees.
koalabear
~Armed and Fuzzy~
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2001
- Posts
- 101,964
The study is bogus for more than one reason. For openers it doesn't include the payroll figures for the franchisees, which number 27,882 as shown on page 11 of their annual report.
But it sounds good.
U
unregistered
Guest
Fuckin' A ! It is tough out there; maybe tougher than it ever was. Parents should be smackin' there chillun' upside the head and tell them to get their learn on because it is their only hope. And they need to learn something marketable; not some Lost Languages Motif or Elizabethan Poetry.
Whose dream is it to grow up, get married, pop out a couple of puppies, get a nice little house with a backyard, a car for themselves and the wife, get braces for their daughter's teeth, save a little for college....while flippin burgers at MAC Donalds?
U
unregistered
Guest
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
Fuckin' A ! It is tough out there; maybe tougher than it ever was. Parents should be smackin' there chillun' upside the head and tell them to get their learn on because it is their only hope. And they need to learn something marketable; not some Lost Languages Motif or Elizabethan Poetry.
Whose dream is it to grow up, get married, pop out a couple of puppies, get a nice little house with a backyard, a car for themselves and the wife, get braces for their daughter's teeth, save a little for college....while flippin burgers at MAC Donalds?
The ones I see wanna settle for Ma's sofa, and a crack addiction, maybe give the kids to the state and elope with a toothless carny.
U
unregistered
Guest
U
unregistered
Guest
jeninflorida
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2003
- Posts
- 22,463
the only solution is to force private industry to pay what the ruling government caste class says we should pay
just more proof that only stupid people work in government aka union
just more proof that only stupid people work in government aka union
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Opps
McDonalds Math, Or, Latest Lib Talking Points Fail
The Huffington Post popularizes some McDonalds level math:
Doubling McDonald's Salaries Would Cause Your Big Mac To Cost Just 68¢ More: Study
McDonald's can afford to pay its workers a living wage without sacrificing any of its low menu prices, according to a new study provided to The Huffington Post by a University of Kansas researcher.
Doubling the salaries and benefits of all McDonald's employees -- from workers earning the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour to CEO Donald Thompson, whose 2012 compensation totaled $8.75 million -- would cause the price of a Big Mac to increase just 68 cents, from $3.99 to $4.67, University of Kansas research assistant Arnobio Morelix told HuffPost. In addition, every item on the Dollar Menu would go up by 17 cents.
And how did he come to this conclusion?
Morelix looked at McDonald's 2012 annual report and discovered that only 17.1 percent of the fast-food giant's revenue goes toward salaries and benefits. In other words, for every dollar McDonald's earns, a little more than 17 cents goes toward the income and benefits of its more than 500,000 U.S. employees.
Thus, if McDonald's executives wanted to double the salaries of all of its employees and keep profits and other expenses the same, it would need to increase prices by just 17 cents per dollar, according to Morelix.
I don't suppose we can expect Huffers to actually read the annual report in question, but here it is. And what do we glean?
From the Consolidated Statement of Income (p. 30) we see that "Payroll and Employee Benefits" came to $4,710.3 (in millions, or $4,710,300,000, which is even past A-Rod territory.) Total Revenue was $27,567 (in millions). Dividing 4,710 by 27,567 yields 17.1%, which we take to be the 17% used by Morelix.
However! McDonalds reports a net revenue from both the stores it operates and its franchise fees. The McDonalds franchisors are separate businesses which pay a fee to McDonalds Corp and are responsible for their own payroll, as is discussed in the annual report (p. 13).
So Morelix has not included the payroll figure for the franchisees in this calculation. Is that a big problem? Huge, actually. From page 11 we see that their are 6,598 outlets run directly by McDonalds Corp and 27,882 franchised outlets. Sales from franchised outlets totalled $69,687 (in million) in 2012, which far exceeds the $18,602 (mm) revenue figure for company-operated stores. That $69 billion figure is condensed down to $8.9 billion of franchise revenue on the Consolidated Statement of Income (The rest of the $27,567 MM in total revenue comes from sales at McDonalds run stores).
Which leaves us where? Doubling all the salaries at McDonalds headquarters and in their 6,598 stores would be offset by a total revenue increase of 17%, but the franchisees won't be agreeing to pay more in franchise fees and won't be raising their payroll (the size of which we haven't found in this report) in the 27,882 stores they operate.
If I were inclined to press down this road I would compare the $18 billion of revenue from McDonalds run stores with the payroll figure of $4.7 billion; that ratio is 26%. By that calculation, McDonalds would need to raise all its prices by 26% at its own stores in order to double all of its direct payroll expenses, which presumably includes a lot of non-hamburger flippers at headquarters. Hey, 17%, 26%, de nada - that is only a 50% error and it's not my money anyway!
Or from a different tack - the McDonalds-operated stores average $2.8 million in sales per store. The franchisees average $2.5 million per store, so they are on average a bit smaller but close enough that maybe we can wave our hands and pretend they are the same. That suggests that if the franchisees cost structure looks like the parent company then they can double their payroll and recoup the additional expense by raising prices by 26%.
Of course, that is a big if. And it assumes that there are no elasticities - consumers don't switch to Wendy's, franchisees don't finally buy that expensive whiz-bang machine that eliminates two jobs, and so on. One might argue that if minimum wage legislation obliged Wendy's and other fast food chains to also raise payroll costs that all of them would be obliged to raise prices and some of the consumer substitution would be mitigated. One might also wonder why McDonalds and their franchisees have been so beneficient as to forebear a 26% price increase, taking all that new revenue straight to the bottom line. Have they forgotten to be greedy, or are they already charging as much as they think consumers will pay?
Moreever, there is yet another problem. The fundamental premise is that McDonalds customers will pay more, thereby raising the living standard of the McDonalds employees. That would be fine if Mitt Romney and his sons were over-represented in the McDonalds demographic, but I bet they aren't. My guess is that working- and middle-class families make up the bulk of McDonalds customers, which means the working class and middle class will be reaching into their non-capacious pockets to elevate the lifestyle of McDonalds workers, not all of whom are themselves in the working class. I don't want to say "Voodoo economics", but a regressive 'tax' to help those with jobs may not be the path to prosperity.
Get back to me when the workers are striking at Le Bernardin. And bring the real math.
DIFFERING INTUITIONS:
I adore this from Think Progress:
Currently, a minimum wage McDonalds employee makes $7.25 per hour. The CEO makes $8.75 million. But if the former were raised to $15 and the latter to $17.5 million, the dollar menu would only have to become the $1.17 menu and the Big Mac would go from $3.99 to $4.67, Morelix found.
If the CEO’s pay remained the same but low-wage workers earned more, the price difference for customers would be negligible.
We are talking about doubling a $4.7 billion payroll but in their estimation, saving $8.75 million by not raising the CEO pay would make room for negligible price hikes. Ok.
Back in reality, if we double the CEO pay then the reported "Payroll and Employee Benefits" as shown in the annual report would rise from $4,710.3 MM to $4,719.0 MM. Not quite a rounding error.
COLOR ME SHOCKED: A HuffPo correction:
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story misrepresented Arnobio Morelix as a researcher for the University of Kansas. Morelix is registered as a undergraduate student at the university, according to University of Kansas School of Business Communications Director Austin Falley.
Yup, that is what they say at the Daily Kansan. Would it be fair to say that libs will believe anything and print anything that fits The Narrative?
McDonalds Math, Or, Latest Lib Talking Points Fail
The Huffington Post popularizes some McDonalds level math:
Doubling McDonald's Salaries Would Cause Your Big Mac To Cost Just 68¢ More: Study
McDonald's can afford to pay its workers a living wage without sacrificing any of its low menu prices, according to a new study provided to The Huffington Post by a University of Kansas researcher.
Doubling the salaries and benefits of all McDonald's employees -- from workers earning the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour to CEO Donald Thompson, whose 2012 compensation totaled $8.75 million -- would cause the price of a Big Mac to increase just 68 cents, from $3.99 to $4.67, University of Kansas research assistant Arnobio Morelix told HuffPost. In addition, every item on the Dollar Menu would go up by 17 cents.
And how did he come to this conclusion?
Morelix looked at McDonald's 2012 annual report and discovered that only 17.1 percent of the fast-food giant's revenue goes toward salaries and benefits. In other words, for every dollar McDonald's earns, a little more than 17 cents goes toward the income and benefits of its more than 500,000 U.S. employees.
Thus, if McDonald's executives wanted to double the salaries of all of its employees and keep profits and other expenses the same, it would need to increase prices by just 17 cents per dollar, according to Morelix.
I don't suppose we can expect Huffers to actually read the annual report in question, but here it is. And what do we glean?
From the Consolidated Statement of Income (p. 30) we see that "Payroll and Employee Benefits" came to $4,710.3 (in millions, or $4,710,300,000, which is even past A-Rod territory.) Total Revenue was $27,567 (in millions). Dividing 4,710 by 27,567 yields 17.1%, which we take to be the 17% used by Morelix.
However! McDonalds reports a net revenue from both the stores it operates and its franchise fees. The McDonalds franchisors are separate businesses which pay a fee to McDonalds Corp and are responsible for their own payroll, as is discussed in the annual report (p. 13).
So Morelix has not included the payroll figure for the franchisees in this calculation. Is that a big problem? Huge, actually. From page 11 we see that their are 6,598 outlets run directly by McDonalds Corp and 27,882 franchised outlets. Sales from franchised outlets totalled $69,687 (in million) in 2012, which far exceeds the $18,602 (mm) revenue figure for company-operated stores. That $69 billion figure is condensed down to $8.9 billion of franchise revenue on the Consolidated Statement of Income (The rest of the $27,567 MM in total revenue comes from sales at McDonalds run stores).
Which leaves us where? Doubling all the salaries at McDonalds headquarters and in their 6,598 stores would be offset by a total revenue increase of 17%, but the franchisees won't be agreeing to pay more in franchise fees and won't be raising their payroll (the size of which we haven't found in this report) in the 27,882 stores they operate.
If I were inclined to press down this road I would compare the $18 billion of revenue from McDonalds run stores with the payroll figure of $4.7 billion; that ratio is 26%. By that calculation, McDonalds would need to raise all its prices by 26% at its own stores in order to double all of its direct payroll expenses, which presumably includes a lot of non-hamburger flippers at headquarters. Hey, 17%, 26%, de nada - that is only a 50% error and it's not my money anyway!
Or from a different tack - the McDonalds-operated stores average $2.8 million in sales per store. The franchisees average $2.5 million per store, so they are on average a bit smaller but close enough that maybe we can wave our hands and pretend they are the same. That suggests that if the franchisees cost structure looks like the parent company then they can double their payroll and recoup the additional expense by raising prices by 26%.
Of course, that is a big if. And it assumes that there are no elasticities - consumers don't switch to Wendy's, franchisees don't finally buy that expensive whiz-bang machine that eliminates two jobs, and so on. One might argue that if minimum wage legislation obliged Wendy's and other fast food chains to also raise payroll costs that all of them would be obliged to raise prices and some of the consumer substitution would be mitigated. One might also wonder why McDonalds and their franchisees have been so beneficient as to forebear a 26% price increase, taking all that new revenue straight to the bottom line. Have they forgotten to be greedy, or are they already charging as much as they think consumers will pay?
Moreever, there is yet another problem. The fundamental premise is that McDonalds customers will pay more, thereby raising the living standard of the McDonalds employees. That would be fine if Mitt Romney and his sons were over-represented in the McDonalds demographic, but I bet they aren't. My guess is that working- and middle-class families make up the bulk of McDonalds customers, which means the working class and middle class will be reaching into their non-capacious pockets to elevate the lifestyle of McDonalds workers, not all of whom are themselves in the working class. I don't want to say "Voodoo economics", but a regressive 'tax' to help those with jobs may not be the path to prosperity.
Get back to me when the workers are striking at Le Bernardin. And bring the real math.
DIFFERING INTUITIONS:
I adore this from Think Progress:
Currently, a minimum wage McDonalds employee makes $7.25 per hour. The CEO makes $8.75 million. But if the former were raised to $15 and the latter to $17.5 million, the dollar menu would only have to become the $1.17 menu and the Big Mac would go from $3.99 to $4.67, Morelix found.
If the CEO’s pay remained the same but low-wage workers earned more, the price difference for customers would be negligible.
We are talking about doubling a $4.7 billion payroll but in their estimation, saving $8.75 million by not raising the CEO pay would make room for negligible price hikes. Ok.
Back in reality, if we double the CEO pay then the reported "Payroll and Employee Benefits" as shown in the annual report would rise from $4,710.3 MM to $4,719.0 MM. Not quite a rounding error.
COLOR ME SHOCKED: A HuffPo correction:
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story misrepresented Arnobio Morelix as a researcher for the University of Kansas. Morelix is registered as a undergraduate student at the university, according to University of Kansas School of Business Communications Director Austin Falley.
Yup, that is what they say at the Daily Kansan. Would it be fair to say that libs will believe anything and print anything that fits The Narrative?
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
Vote buying.
Beco
I'm Not Your Guru
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2002
- Posts
- 57,795
I think they should all just close down.
That makies the most sense.....
If the fast food workers unionize and can successfully get wages of $15.00 an hour, more power to them. If they can force full time benefits onto the company, great. That is just market in action, labour adjusting its cost and the product price will eventually reflect the change.
It isn't only management and the CEO who get to set the rate of labour - it is the person willing to work for the lowest wage who sets the rate of labour.
If they all get fired - well then that was their threat anyway.
It isn't only management and the CEO who get to set the rate of labour - it is the person willing to work for the lowest wage who sets the rate of labour.
If they all get fired - well then that was their threat anyway.
Sean
We'll see.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2005
- Posts
- 96,196
I'm pretty sure the RWCJ won't be happy until we get a return to serfdom. Which is somewhat ironic given the esteem in which Hayek is regarded by at least some of them.
Where do you think the doubeling of the wage is going to come from?
Consumers?
Besides the SEIU is no better than organized crime. There are plenty of people who need part time jobs.
Screw these workers
If minimum wages are raised from $7+/hr to $15+/hr by federal government mandate...
...how much more tax revenue will the federal government collect from each worker?
Isn't there a progressive owner of a fast food chain around...
...who could lead by example and raise his/her workers' minimum wage to $15+/hr without any outside influence - you know, just 'cause it's the progressively right thing to do?
How many progressive fast food customers would intentionally patronize such a progressive establishment and pay twice as much?
Almost definitely not enough to keep that progressive eatery in business, thus the statist protestation for the federal government to once again tyrannically level the playing field against individual liberty by force.
BTW:
Currently I work M-Sa, 0800-1800, have no benefits except that I get to work tomorrow if I do a good enough job today, and am paid $30/day, which equates to $3/hr - gross...
...the perks live in being a truly independent contractor in a country gone socialist, and knowing the little tax money I still must remit doesn't hardly contribute squat to a bunch of busybodies who somehow believe that any of my business is any of theirs (which describes the great majority of statist pieces of sh!t in this thread).
Where are the Pinkertons when you need them?
...how much more tax revenue will the federal government collect from each worker?
Isn't there a progressive owner of a fast food chain around...
...who could lead by example and raise his/her workers' minimum wage to $15+/hr without any outside influence - you know, just 'cause it's the progressively right thing to do?
How many progressive fast food customers would intentionally patronize such a progressive establishment and pay twice as much?
Almost definitely not enough to keep that progressive eatery in business, thus the statist protestation for the federal government to once again tyrannically level the playing field against individual liberty by force.
BTW:
Currently I work M-Sa, 0800-1800, have no benefits except that I get to work tomorrow if I do a good enough job today, and am paid $30/day, which equates to $3/hr - gross...
...the perks live in being a truly independent contractor in a country gone socialist, and knowing the little tax money I still must remit doesn't hardly contribute squat to a bunch of busybodies who somehow believe that any of my business is any of theirs (which describes the great majority of statist pieces of sh!t in this thread).
Where are the Pinkertons when you need them?
U
unregistered
Guest
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
Socialism is all bullshit however you look at it, cuz most socialists are wealthy. Socialism is a racket against dolts like our resident usual suspects, all of them on disability.
U
