If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   You know how opponents of minimum wage hikes talk about what a disaster it would be if fast-food restaurants had to pay their workers $10/hr? Shake Shack manages to do it, plus offer health, vision, dental, 401(k) and profit sharing   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 188
    More: Spiffy, Shake Shack, profit shared, minimum wages, fine dining, restaurants, workers, disasters  
•       •       •

4185 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Mar 2014 at 4:07 PM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



188 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-21 02:50:07 PM  
Are they publicly traded or privately owned? A privately owned company has more leeway regarding such things. Publicly owned companies are obligated to focus first on maximizing profits.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-03-21 03:24:08 PM  

SurfaceTension: Are they publicly traded or privately owned? A privately owned company has more leeway regarding such things. Publicly owned companies are obligated to focus first on maximizing profits.


Yes, capitalism sucks.
 
2014-03-21 03:29:44 PM  

SurfaceTension: Are they publicly traded or privately owned? A privately owned company has more leeway regarding such things. Publicly owned companies are obligated to focus first on maximizing profits.


Was hoping to get in before the b-b-b-but business crowd. I should have known better.
 
2014-03-21 03:35:55 PM  

SurfaceTension: Publicly owned companies are obligated to focus first on maximizing profits.


So are privately owned companies. Unless they decide not to.
 
2014-03-21 03:37:17 PM  

SurfaceTension: Are they publicly traded or privately owned? A privately owned company has more leeway regarding such things. Publicly owned companies are obligated to focus first on maximizing profits.


No they aren't.  That a basic  fallacy.  The BOD has a fiduciary duty to manage the assets of their company in a reasonably prudent manner.   And something called The Business Judgment Rule gives them WIDE leeway in how they define that.  This is why Costco's CEO can say "yeah we COULD pay our employees less, but we are not going to because in MY Judgment it is better for the company, long term if we don't"  or Apple can say "Yeah we COULD take that $80 billion we have lying around in various bank accounts and call  it "profit" and share it with you the investors as a dividend, but nothing says we HAVE to, so we won't ..suck it, shareholders"
 
2014-03-21 03:53:22 PM  

SurfaceTension: Are they publicly traded or privately owned? A privately owned company has more leeway regarding such things. Publicly owned companies are obligated to focus first on maximizing profits.


Actually they are obligated to do what best for  the  Company;  That has been made to mean maximum profits no matter what.
 
2014-03-21 03:56:37 PM  

Magorn: SurfaceTension: Are they publicly traded or privately owned? A privately owned company has more leeway regarding such things. Publicly owned companies are obligated to focus first on maximizing profits.

No they aren't.  That a basic  fallacy.  The BOD has a fiduciary duty to manage the assets of their company in a reasonably prudent manner.   And something called The Business Judgment Rule gives them WIDE leeway in how they define that.  This is why Costco's CEO can say "yeah we COULD pay our employees less, but we are not going to because in MY Judgment it is better for the company, long term if we don't"  or Apple can say "Yeah we COULD take that $80 billion we have lying around in various bank accounts and call  it "profit" and share it with you the investors as a dividend, but nothing says we HAVE to, so we won't ..suck it, shareholders"



Sort of this.  Every company wants to maximize profits... but some do feel that attracting the best employees and keeping them is a way to do that.  And to achieve that, benefits are a common thing to offer.

I had full health insurance and a 401k when I worked at a grocery store at the age of 16.  It was a great place to work, and I gave back by taking the job seriously.  Loved it, even though at the end of the day it was meaningless labor.
 
2014-03-21 04:08:15 PM  
The opponents are well... liars.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-03-21 04:08:22 PM  
U.S. laws are geared at who can pay the most money.  That is why we suck so much.
 
2014-03-21 04:09:23 PM  
In all fairness to Shake Shack, their food sucks a lot less than many other fast food establishments.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-03-21 04:09:26 PM  

meat0918: The opponents are well... liars.


All the data that say the constant bullshiat of "higher minimum wage means less jobs" are all lying too.

My faith based economics are better than your data on ANY day of the week.
 
2014-03-21 04:12:02 PM  

SurfaceTension: Are they publicly traded or privately owned? A privately owned company has more leeway regarding such things. Publicly owned companies are obligated to focus first on maximizing profits.


img.4plebs.org

A proper reading of the Ford v Dodge Bros. results in you knowing that it is primarily for the shareholder benefit but not SOLELY.  Which means that you don't have to pay everyone minimum wage in order to achieve maximum profit.  It just means you try to negotiate the crap out of wage and salaries.  You're a meat-sack number and you cost the company numbers that they don't like having taken away.

and that's today's lesson
 
2014-03-21 04:12:15 PM  
This explains why everything on their menu is about $1 more expensive than it should be.
 
GBB
2014-03-21 04:12:49 PM  
According to TFA, they aren't the only ones paying descent wages.
 
2014-03-21 04:12:56 PM  

vpb: SurfaceTension: Are they publicly traded or privately owned? A privately owned company has more leeway regarding such things. Publicly owned companies are obligated to focus first on maximizing profits.

Yes, capitalism sucks.


Too bad it's the better than the rest of the systems.
 
2014-03-21 04:13:14 PM  
When you charge $7.50 for a burger and $5 for a shake, it's not that hard to pay people $10/hr.
 
2014-03-21 04:13:39 PM  
Dick's Drive-In in the Seattle area does similar. Great local chain.
 
2014-03-21 04:15:01 PM  
Plus Shake Shake is awesome.

Way better than Five Guys.
 
2014-03-21 04:16:48 PM  

SurfaceTension: Are they publicly traded or privately owned? A privately owned company has more leeway regarding such things. Publicly owned companies are obligated to focus first on maximizing profits.


no, it's just that publicly traded companies tend to get punished more for doing anything other than emphasizing short-term profits.
 
2014-03-21 04:17:31 PM  

Voiceofreason01: SurfaceTension: Are they publicly traded or privately owned? A privately owned company has more leeway regarding such things. Publicly owned companies are obligated to focus first on maximizing profits.

no, it's just that publicly traded companies tend to get punished more for doing anything other than emphasizing short-term profits.


And by punished, you mean sued by shareholders ;-)
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-03-21 04:18:42 PM  

This text is now purple: This explains why everything on their menu is about $1 more expensive than it should be.


No... it means that everyone has prices that are artificially $1 less.
 
2014-03-21 04:18:43 PM  

Azlefty: SurfaceTension: Are they publicly traded or privately owned? A privately owned company has more leeway regarding such things. Publicly owned companies are obligated to focus first on maximizing profits.

Actually they are obligated to do what best for  the  Company;  That has been made to mean maximum profits no matter what.


But you have to understand that as far as I know, these companies did that from day one before they went public... its in their culture, its a condition that was known by the investors from day one.

On the other side, if you think a public company is going to cut their dividends to institutional and pension investors.. you have another thing coming.. they CEO will lose their jobs faster than their head can spin.
 
2014-03-21 04:18:53 PM  

TDBoedy: SurfaceTension: Are they publicly traded or privately owned? A privately owned company has more leeway regarding such things. Publicly owned companies are obligated to focus first on maximizing profits.


TDBoedy: A proper reading of the Ford v Dodge Bros. results in you knowing that it is primarily for the shareholder benefit


I think you used the wrong pic for your response, since you both said the same thing using different words.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-03-21 04:19:18 PM  

BgJonson79: Voiceofreason01: SurfaceTension: Are they publicly traded or privately owned? A privately owned company has more leeway regarding such things. Publicly owned companies are obligated to focus first on maximizing profits.

no, it's just that publicly traded companies tend to get punished more for doing anything other than emphasizing short-term profits.

And by punished, you mean sued by shareholders ;-)


That's not a rule handed down by God.  We could change it.  We just don't want to.
 
2014-03-21 04:19:37 PM  
It's almost as if the primary concern over minimum wage hikes is actually about how it will affect a very small number of already obscenely wealthy people who are angry that their millions in disposable income may be slightly reduced if some fry-jockey that's actually doing all the work that keeps the company in business takes home an extra thirty bucks he needs this week.

Nah. That couldn't possibly be it.
 
2014-03-21 04:20:15 PM  
1. Good for them.  It shows that there's no need to raise the minimum wage.  This proves that companies that see a value in paying more can do so without being forced.  If they manage to attract all the best workers, their competitors might increase their pay and benefits to.  Or they might not.  Leave it up to them.  If the competitors' employees don't like what they're getting, they're perfectly capable of applying at Shake Shack (or leaving the industry altogether, or working toward a raise or promotion).  If customers want to support higher-paying companies, they can choose to do so, too.  Especially if the service is better there.

2. There's a huge difference between some companies doing something and all companies doing something.  Shake Shack employs a tiny tiny tiny fraction of the population.

3. Sorry, but some people neither need nor deserve more than the current minimum wage (perhaps even less).  Why should those people automatically get more?  I absolutely believe in paying people what they're worth, but I don't see how that equates to "pay everybody more".
 
2014-03-21 04:20:46 PM  

This text is now purple: This explains why everything on their menu is about $1 more expensive than it should be.


No, their prices are exactly where they should be. The McDonald's and Hardees items are $1 LESS expensive than they should be, because we're subsidizing their employees with food stamps.
 
2014-03-21 04:21:02 PM  
In-N-Out Burger starts at at least $10.50.  They seem to be doing fine.  Go ahead and raise it.  The one thing I want is MY wage to go up proportionality to the minimum wage hike.
 
2014-03-21 04:21:17 PM  
yes but what he means is to the exclusion of all else...or that is the implication.  The goal of any corporation.company is to make more money than it spends.  Hah durrrr.  But paying people shiat wages is what shiat companies do because their product(s) don't have any real value.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-03-21 04:21:39 PM  

Perducci: 1. Good for them. It shows that there's no need to raise the minimum wage. This proves that companies that see a value in paying more can do so without being forced. If they manage to attract all the best workers, their competitors might increase their pay and benefits to. Or they might not. Leave it up to them. If the competitors' employees don't like what they're getting, they're perfectly capable of applying at Shake Shack (or leaving the industry altogether, or working toward a raise or promotion). If customers want to support higher-paying companies, they can choose to do so, too. Especially if the service is better there.


This argument is, as usual, laughable.  Corporations have so much more power than an individual that negotiations are meaningless... unless you unionize.  Then watch them HOWL.
 
2014-03-21 04:21:55 PM  
Not expressing an opinion either way but.....there is a difference between one restaurant doing this and all restaurants doing this by law.

See, the article even says this.  By offering good wages, they get the best staff.  They have lower turnover and, presumably, are better at their jobs.  Customers like good customer service.  The prices on their menu are actually pretty high compared to other restaurants.

If everyone raises pay to match this place, you won't see those benefits.  If minimum wage is $12 an hour, you won't get the best workers for $12 an hour, you won't get lower turn-over, you won't get better customer service.  It's not the wage that determines these things, it's the ability to select/attract better employees by paying more.

All that would happen is you'd end up paying In-and-Out prices at McDonalds and paying Olive Garden prices at In-and-Out.
 
2014-03-21 04:22:25 PM  
They pay $10.00/Hr in New York City. What's the equivalent in Bumfark WV? $7.25?
 
2014-03-21 04:22:43 PM  

beefoe: When you charge $7.50 for a burger and $5 for a shake, it's not that hard to pay people $10/hr.


On the plus side, your burger may not have been spat in.

Maybe.
 
2014-03-21 04:22:57 PM  

Perducci: I absolutely believe in paying people what they're worth, but I don't see how that equates to "pay everybody more".


because most people are paid the bare minimum, not what they're worth.
 
2014-03-21 04:23:07 PM  
I have nothing against upping the minimum wage.  However, I don't think it should be done at the federal level.  There is too much of a variance of what a living wage is within the country that something at a more local level makes much more sense to me.
 
2014-03-21 04:23:34 PM  

vpb: SurfaceTension: Are they publicly traded or privately owned? A privately owned company has more leeway regarding such things. Publicly owned companies are obligated to focus first on maximizing profits.

Yes, capitalism sucks.


Privately owned companies are capitalistic, too.

More like publicly owned companies are a cancer to personal progress
 
2014-03-21 04:23:45 PM  

highendmighty: In-N-Out Burger starts at at least $10.50.  They seem to be doing fine.  Go ahead and raise it.  The one thing I want is MY wage to go up proportionality to the minimum wage hike.


Oh, aren't you cute.
 
2014-03-21 04:24:40 PM  
Helps when you charge twice as much as other fast food joints
 
2014-03-21 04:25:41 PM  

SurfaceTension: Are they publicly traded or privately owned? A privately owned company has more leeway regarding such things. Publicly owned companies are obligated to focus first on maximizing profits.


I'm pretty sure you didn't read your own link the whole way through.
 
2014-03-21 04:27:38 PM  

MrPleasant: I have nothing against upping the minimum wage.  However, I don't think it should be done at the federal level.  There is too much of a variance of what a living wage is within the country that something at a more local level makes much more sense to me.


I live in one of the cheaper places to live in the country and $10.10(the new min. for Federal Employees) would just barely be a living wage. Most States set a minimum above the Federal min. wage anyway.
 
2014-03-21 04:28:24 PM  
What is Shake Shack?
 
2014-03-21 04:31:22 PM  
While we're at it, why don't we just double the amount of money everyone makes. Surely the system is such that a dollar has intrinsic value and by no measure will increasing everyone's wages cause prices to proportionately rise. Can't see how that would hurt anyone though. I mean, other than to half the current value of everyone's savings, surely that won't hurt anyone.
 
2014-03-21 04:32:59 PM  
Personally, I think it's wise that anyone who plans to come in contact with a Shake Shack Philly would be well-advised to have full health coverage.

/and dental if they're crazy enough to eat it
 
2014-03-21 04:33:05 PM  
Excuse my ignorance on, be it U.S. tax laws, public vs. private, federal involvement, etc.   I simply rely on what I've seen and fast food workers in other countries seem to be able to make a decent wage [example: Australia] in comparison to the ones in the U.S..

So why is it fast food workers here can barely get by?
 
2014-03-21 04:34:33 PM  
I think the only real difference here is that in one case, the business model, including pricing and so on, took that into consideration ahead of time.  So their employees are taken care of that way.  In the other case, the business model is all about making money, and getting people to work for as cheap as possible.

In either case though, it would be a gigantic hit to the business to FORCE them to give their employees $3 more an hour.  Because it's not in the plans, it would wreck the business.

In other words...  The problem people have with changing the minimum wage is how it would effect established businesses.
 
2014-03-21 04:34:59 PM  
Then people should go work for them as they pay a more competitive wave ABOVE minimum wage?

If the minimum wage goes up... now all of sudden their offer isn't nearly as competitive, right?

Why does nobody get that this wouldn't be fair either?

Unless everyone really believes that a teen saving up for their first car should always get paid exactly that as single mom supporting two kids...
 
2014-03-21 04:36:21 PM  

MrPleasant: I have nothing against upping the minimum wage.  However, I don't think it should be done at the federal level.  There is too much of a variance of what a living wage is within the country that something at a more local level makes much more sense to me.


It's like taking my Los Angeles wage and moving to Denver where I have 50% more buying power... oh wait, that's what I'm already doing.  Damn, everyone is going to catch on.
 
2014-03-21 04:37:37 PM  

maxheck: beefoe: When you charge $7.50 for a burger and $5 for a shake, it's not that hard to pay people $10/hr.

On the plus side, your burger may not have been spat in.

Maybe.


"Double bacon cheeseburger... it's for a cop. "

www.fatwallet.com
 
2014-03-21 04:37:38 PM  

RYOTnews: Helps when you charge twice as much as other fast food joints


The Quarter Pounder index for Nassau county is is $4.36 .  A Shake Shack single is $4.75 at the Brooklyn location.
 
2014-03-21 04:38:38 PM  

This text is now purple: This explains why everything on their menu is about $1 more expensive than it should be.


img.fark.net
 
Displayed 50 of 188 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report