Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(NPR)   Since 2000, CEOs of fast food chains have seen their salaries quadruple. Their employees, however, have seen their salaries decrease by a minimum of 1%   (npr.org ) divider line
    More: Sick, fast food restaurant chains, CEO, reductions, proxy statement, Yum!, salary, Scott Stringer  
•       •       •

5241 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Apr 2014 at 9:46 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



292 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-04-22 08:04:30 PM  
Um, subby? If they didn't lower workers' salaries, how would the companies be able to quadruple the salary of their CEO? Jesus, try thinking every now and then.
 
2014-04-22 08:13:13 PM  
It will all trickle down any day now.
 
2014-04-22 08:14:38 PM  
If those workers want a decent wage, they should study and all become CEOs themselves. They're just a bunch of losers.
 
2014-04-22 08:24:07 PM  
They should of went to night school like I did instead of being burger flipper's. I'm a DM now and I own a motorboat and 7 katana's.
 
2014-04-22 08:25:08 PM  

sigdiamond2000: They should of went to night school like I did instead of being burger flipper's. I'm a DM now and I own a motorboat and 7 katana's.


They pay you to be a DM. Alls I get is Mountain Dew.
 
2014-04-22 08:26:29 PM  
I also own numchucks.
 
2014-04-22 08:31:06 PM  

sigdiamond2000: I also own numchucks.


Their spelled "numbchucks," dumbass. On account of they make you all numb when they hit you.
 
2014-04-22 08:32:28 PM  

Pocket Ninja: sigdiamond2000: I also own numchucks.

Their spelled "numbchucks," dumbass. On account of they make you all numb when they hit you.


Sorry I guess I'm not some loser English major like you.
 
2014-04-22 08:34:47 PM  

sigdiamond2000: Sorry I guess I'm not some loser English major like you.


I think the word your looking for is "looser."
 
2014-04-22 08:37:53 PM  
Ah, but the Internet has made CEOs ten times as productive. In a single round of golf, they can close ten deals instead of just the one with whoever they are playing with by using email.

Meanwhile, all of the rest of the workforce is less productive because for them the Internet is a distraction that causes them to goof off all day.

So you see, the average worker is actually stealing wealth from CEOs because of the disparity in the amount of effort they each put in.
 
2014-04-22 09:01:44 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Um, subby? If they didn't lower workers' salaries, how would the companies be able to quadruple the salary of their CEO? Jesus, try thinking every now and then.


Well, they could add non-food stuffs to the food to lower costs.

/mmmm, yoga mats
 
2014-04-22 09:07:47 PM  

Frederick: Pocket Ninja: Um, subby? If they didn't lower workers' salaries, how would the companies be able to quadruple the salary of their CEO? Jesus, try thinking every now and then.

Well, they could add non-food stuffs to the food to lower costs.

/mmmm, yoga mats


This actually annoys me. Just because a chemical is used in something you wouldn't want to eat, doesn't mean that the chemical is automatically something you want to keep out of food.

Bug spray is mostly water, but you don't see people demanding water be removed from all of their food and drink.
 
2014-04-22 09:13:50 PM  
It's simple- they're getting paid less because right now they're washing lettuce.

media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com

Pretty soon they'll be on fries. Then the grill. In a year or two, they'll make assistant manager.

And that's when the big bucks start rolling in.
 
2014-04-22 09:22:05 PM  
Leave it to NPR to wage class warfare on an economic minority.
 
2014-04-22 09:38:12 PM  
37.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-04-22 09:48:22 PM  

fusillade762: [37.media.tumblr.com image 500x625]


That guy has a very punchable face. And I haven't eaten a single one of his shiat pizzas since he took that stance.
 
2014-04-22 09:52:03 PM  
If you give the workers more money they will just spend it on something instead of using it to create jobs like the wealthy do.
 
2014-04-22 09:53:38 PM  
Time to tax all executive bonuses at 95%
 
2014-04-22 09:53:47 PM  
Yeah, but how many stale fries did those CEO's have the opportunity to swipe? Check and mate.
 
2014-04-22 09:55:40 PM  
"But, but, but......... if we pay them more, we'll have to raise prices!"

That's the first answer you'd hear from these CEO's.
 
2014-04-22 09:56:19 PM  
Not to defend high CEO pay, but is it possible that this increase in pay is coming from growth in areas outside the US?  I know for one that YUM brands is doing it's patriotic duty by spreading American values like capitalism and obesity to people in China and other parts of East Asia.
 
2014-04-22 09:56:39 PM  
fusillade762:

I'd like to know more about that. Got a link?
 
2014-04-22 09:58:03 PM  

austin_millbarge: fusillade762: [37.media.tumblr.com image 500x625]

That guy has a very punchable face. And I haven't eaten a single one of his shiat pizzas since he took that stance.


Came here to say this.
 
2014-04-22 09:58:34 PM  

austin_millbarge: fusillade762: [37.media.tumblr.com image 500x625]

I haven't eaten a single one of his shiat pizzas since he took that stance.



You ate shiat pizzas?
 
2014-04-22 09:59:10 PM  
let them eat off the dollar menu!

*cough cough cough*

static4.businessinsider.com
 
2014-04-22 09:59:32 PM  

MrBallou: If those workers want a decent wage, they should study and all become CEOs themselves. They're just a bunch of losers.


You jest, but I have been assured they could all be plumbers. There is totally enough demand for that.
 
2014-04-22 10:00:09 PM  
it is sick, it is wrong, it is disgusting, it is shameful

in fact i'll bet ANY company could get along without a CEO
and do just fine.


take the money he or she woulda got and split it between everybody working there.
 
2014-04-22 10:00:23 PM  
cps-static.rovicorp.com

img.fark.net

And this song sums it all up perfectly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXXzaaL8Khw

(Lol, fun fact too is that McDonald's actually tried to get this band banned in Australia)
 
2014-04-22 10:00:46 PM  

glutto: You ate shiat pizzas?


www.movievillains.com
 
2014-04-22 10:02:05 PM  
If flipping burgers were simply a punch-the-clock job for live-at-home teens who eventually go on to long-term careers in other industries, I wouldn't have a problem with this.

For far too many people, however flipping burgers has become their career.  You can't expect someone to raise a family on minimum wage.
 
2014-04-22 10:02:48 PM  
If you start paying the people who actually do the work then prices will get so high that they won't be able to buy the big macs they are making. Then everyone goes on welfare. If thats what you want you can move to Europe, but you should know my friend went there and said this guy told him he would rather live in the US because he had to wait in line to see a doctor once. If we weren't number one why would every person in the world want to live here.
 
2014-04-22 10:02:54 PM  
There club of CEOs (and it's not always talent, but often a club) is small, the numbers of people lined up for burger flipping jobs has gotten bigger.
 
2014-04-22 10:04:33 PM  

Just another Heartland Weirdass: If you give the workers more money they will just spend it on something instead of using it to create jobs like the wealthy do.


Exactly. Thwy will just spend it on stuff like food.
 
2014-04-22 10:05:00 PM  

Mr. Oizo: If flipping burgers were simply a punch-the-clock job for live-at-home teens who eventually go on to long-term careers in other industries, I wouldn't have a problem with this.

For far too many people, however flipping burgers has become their career.  You can't expect someone to raise a family on minimum wage.


Well, those people are lazy and deserve to live in squalor or die in the streets. It's the Conservative Way!.
 
2014-04-22 10:05:34 PM  
And the CEOs create jobs.
 
2014-04-22 10:06:21 PM  

MrBallou: If those workers want a decent wage, they should study and all become CEOs themselves. They're just a bunch of losers.


I was going to say this but I'm too tired to put up with flaming. I know you were being sarcastic but I wasn't.
 
2014-04-22 10:07:09 PM  

LordJiro: Mr. Oizo: If flipping burgers were simply a punch-the-clock job for live-at-home teens who eventually go on to long-term careers in other industries, I wouldn't have a problem with this.

For far too many people, however flipping burgers has become their career.  You can't expect someone to raise a family on minimum wage.

Well, those people are lazy and deserve to live in squalor or die in the streets. It's the Conservative Way!.


Good point.  If they have a family, they should put their kids to work.  Coal mining might be a good choice.
 
2014-04-22 10:08:26 PM  
What's with all the eat-the-rich circle-jerk threads today?
 
2014-04-22 10:08:46 PM  
But bootstraps and such as.
 
2014-04-22 10:08:52 PM  

GoldSpider: fusillade762:

I'd like to know more about that. Got a link?


Now that I Google the quote I can't find it anywhere. That appears to be fake.

My bad.
 
2014-04-22 10:11:33 PM  

Just another Heartland Weirdass: If you start paying the people who actually do the work then prices will get so high that they won't be able to buy the big macs they are making. Then everyone goes on welfare. If thats what you want you can move to Europe, but you should know my friend went there and said this guy told him he would rather live in the US because he had to wait in line to see a doctor once. If we weren't number one why would every person in the world want to live here.


Oh, look, it's this bullshiat again.
Even doubling hourly wages will not double prices:  Wages as percentage of cost of goods sold*.

*Hint: COGS is significantly lower than the price to customers.
 
2014-04-22 10:11:39 PM  
Speaking of creating jobs, this town needs a rub and tug.....
 
2014-04-22 10:11:53 PM  

GoldSpider: What's with all the eat-the-rich circle-jerk threads today?


Supply and demand.  The free market is just meeting the demands of the consumer for rich-bastard steaks.
 
2014-04-22 10:12:51 PM  

sigdiamond2000: They should of went to night school like I did instead of being burger flipper's. I'm a DM now and I own a motorboat and 7 katana's.


And you've got to be at the gym in 26 minutes?
 
2014-04-22 10:13:06 PM  

GoldSpider: What's with all the eat-the-rich circle-jerk threads today?



videos.videopress.com
When you can't eat any more sand, you eat the rich.
 
2014-04-22 10:13:13 PM  
Although I do support fast food workers earning more money, it should be noted that any amount they do earn does not effect the salaries of CEOs.

Worker's payroll comes from the owner/operators of the individual stores, which often operate on very thin margins.

The operators are paying royalties the corporation, (in significant percentages often on top of to contributing to national advertising funds).

The CEO is being paid by the corporation, which is basically sitting on top of the pyramid.
 
2014-04-22 10:13:32 PM  

Propain_az: Speaking of creating jobs, this town needs a rub and tug.....


You live in a giant strip mall outside the main gate of a military installation. You already know where to go for that.
 
2014-04-22 10:13:45 PM  

austin_millbarge: fusillade762: [37.media.tumblr.com image 500x625]

That guy has a very punchable face. And I haven't eaten a single one of his shiat pizzas since he took that stance.


I used to eat at Papa John's, because it was convenient for me. After how he acted during the 2012 election and afterward, I'll never spend one red cent there.

I know, I know... I'm stifling his right to free speech, but that cum-lapping sh*tbag can eat a bag of dicks and die in a dumpster fire.
 
2014-04-22 10:13:53 PM  
a good CEO that can run a large scale corporation is much harder to come by than a person that can create and serve food in a restaurant.
 
2014-04-22 10:14:40 PM  
Presumably the CEO's salary is up 4x because there's 4x the number of stores and responsibility he/she is presiding over. The there's ample opportunity for workers to do 4x the hours and get the same benefit.

Why is this even a question?
 
2014-04-22 10:19:05 PM  
I appreciate those CEO's.      Fast Food places providing jobs,  and a good value for customers.

Much better than some ripoff place like Panera or TGIF.

In the lousy economic climate that Washington has helped to prolong, if those CEO's are still amking progit they deserve medals along with their millions.        They are keeping us afloat.
 
2014-04-22 10:19:09 PM  

king_nacho: a good CEO that can run a large scale corporation is much harder to come by than a person that can create and serve food in a restaurant.


A good CEO is nothing without the people who work in their stores.
 
2014-04-22 10:19:50 PM  

toadist: I appreciate those CEO's.      Fast Food places providing jobs,  and a good value for customers.

Much better than some ripoff place like Panera or TGIF.

In the lousy economic climate that Washington has helped to prolong, if those CEO's are still amking progit they deserve medals along with their millions.        They are keeping us afloat.


Jesus, the bootlickers sure showed up in force. Get a memo?
 
2014-04-22 10:20:17 PM  
They should incentivize corporations to have lower wage disparity somehow. Something like a .1% incentive off the top for every 1% above the minimum wage the lowest paid workers are paid.
 
2014-04-22 10:20:40 PM  

king_nacho: a good CEO that can run a large scale corporation is much harder to come by than a person that can create and serve food in a restaurant.


Objection: Facts not in evidence.

Counterpoint/rebuttal:
img.timeinc.net 

img.timeinc.net
graphics8.nytimes.com

Do you feel chastised enough, or should I introduce you to more examples?
 
2014-04-22 10:26:56 PM  

king_nacho: a good CEO that can run a large scale corporation is much harder to come by than a person that can create and serve food in a restaurant.


Apparently you entered a portal in 1980 and just now returned.

Here's what you missed... (true for the vast majority of CEOs, not all). CEO pay is rising faster than their returns to investors. Even companies that don't have an active CEO, like when they have an interim CEO continues to run and usually continues to grow. Basically the CEO is like a feudal lord. He's appointed to a position where he pays himself and rewards himself using math that has zero relation to his performance. They basically belong to a good-ole boys club where they all get raises no matter how they perform.

Taken as a whole, your average regional manager of a few convenience stores could probably run any Fortune 1000 company if they had to.
 
2014-04-22 10:29:07 PM  

toadist: I appreciate those CEO's.      Fast Food places providing jobs,  and a good value for customers.

Much better than some ripoff place like Panera or TGIF.

In the lousy economic climate that Washington has helped to prolong, if those CEO's are still amking progit they deserve medals along with their millions.        They are keeping us afloat.


Is this sarcasm?
 
2014-04-22 10:30:35 PM  

clancifer: It will all trickle down any day now.


Don't piss on me and tell me it's raining.
 
2014-04-22 10:30:49 PM  
Unfortunately, I do get coffee from Tim Hortons every day I am at work. The only other chain I eat at is Harvey's though, and even then less than once every month, and even then for their veggie burger. Not because I am a hipster (hipsters despise me), but because I think CEOs and shareholders of fast food chains should make their fortunes with their own bootstraps, and not because they depend on my help.
 
2014-04-22 10:30:58 PM  
As a shareholder of Yum brands for about 12 years, I say good job management. Price is up about 8-fold since then.

You guys should start your own corporations. Then elect yourselves to the board and pay everyone the same. See how that works out.
 
2014-04-22 10:31:18 PM  
Oh,  a salary decrease of 1%   Ooooooooo.    If you worked for HP or IBM (and many other companies) you may have taken a 15% pay cut.

Face it, the decline of Americas middle class is not even close to being over.     You have another decade at least.

Get used to it.
 
2014-04-22 10:32:04 PM  

TerminalEchoes: MrBallou: If those workers want a decent wage, they should study and all become CEOs themselves. They're just a bunch of losers.

I was going to say this but I'm too tired to put up with flaming. I know you were being sarcastic but I wasn't.


You're too lazy to accuse the workers of being lazy?
 
2014-04-22 10:32:10 PM  

Cubansaltyballs: king_nacho: a good CEO that can run a large scale corporation is much harder to come by than a person that can create and serve food in a restaurant.

Apparently you entered a portal in 1980 and just now returned.

Here's what you missed... (true for the vast majority of CEOs, not all). CEO pay is rising faster than their returns to investors. Even companies that don't have an active CEO, like when they have an interim CEO continues to run and usually continues to grow. Basically the CEO is like a feudal lord. He's appointed to a position where he pays himself and rewards himself using math that has zero relation to his performance. They basically belong to a good-ole boys club where they all get raises no matter how they perform.

Taken as a whole, your average regional manager of a few convenience stores could probably run any Fortune 1000 company if they had to.


This is what farklibs actually believe.
 
2014-04-22 10:32:18 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: king_nacho: a good CEO that can run a large scale corporation is much harder to come by than a person that can create and serve food in a restaurant.

Objection: Facts not in evidence.

Counterpoint/rebuttal:
[img.timeinc.net image 307x409] 

[img.timeinc.net image 307x409]
[graphics8.nytimes.com image 592x332]

Do you feel chastised enough, or should I introduce you to more examples?


Rick Wagoner was so good that he helped bankrupt one of the biggest companies in North America. That man can LEAD
 
2014-04-22 10:32:42 PM  

balial: Presumably the CEO's salary is up 4x because there's 4x the number of stores and responsibility he/she is presiding over. The there's ample opportunity for workers to do 4x the hours and get the same benefit.

Why is this even a question?


If that's your measurement, shouldn't the average employee's wage rise in line with "same store sales growth"????

What if the CEO's pay was tied to profits? Has the company's profits quadrupled? No? Than f*ck off.
 
2014-04-22 10:34:47 PM  

GoldSpider: What's with all the eat-the-rich circle-jerk threads today?


Today? Welcome to Fark.
 
2014-04-22 10:35:06 PM  

Cubansaltyballs: What if the CEO's pay was tied to profits? Has the company's profits quadrupled? No? Than f*ck off.


CEO pay is almost always tied to profits either directly or indirectly via stock price.
that's why they are so quick to hack jobs.
dropping jobs make the bottom line number look good in the short term
 
2014-04-22 10:35:54 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: This is what farklibs actually believe.


Sorry if I'm not some bootlicking republican.
 
2014-04-22 10:36:46 PM  

mutterfark: GoldSpider: What's with all the eat-the-rich circle-jerk threads today?


[videos.videopress.com image 400x216]
When you can't eat any more sand, you eat the rich.


...Or wear them

adventurecampradio.com
 
2014-04-22 10:39:36 PM  

Sticky Hands: Cubansaltyballs: What if the CEO's pay was tied to profits? Has the company's profits quadrupled? No? Than f*ck off.

CEO pay is almost always tied to profits either directly or indirectly via stock price.
that's why they are so quick to hack jobs.
dropping jobs make the bottom line number look good in the short term


Stock price is not tied to profits. Sometimes they correlate, most times they don't.

But what about companies that don't really innovate or need to innovate? Like oil companies. You mean to tell me if the CEO of Chevron isn't there people are going to stop buying gasoline?
 
2014-04-22 10:39:39 PM  

Cubansaltyballs: Debeo Summa Credo: This is what farklibs actually believe.

Sorry if I'm not some bootlicking republican.


No, just some clown who thinks a manager of a few convenience stores could run GE or Morgan Stanley or International Paper.
 
2014-04-22 10:40:04 PM  

R5D4: Although I do support fast food workers earning more money, it should be noted that any amount they do earn does not effect the salaries of CEOs.

Worker's payroll comes from the owner/operators of the individual stores, which often operate on very thin margins.

The operators are paying royalties the corporation, (in significant percentages often on top of to contributing to national advertising funds).

The CEO is being paid by the corporation, which is basically sitting on top of the pyramid.


it was never implied that one affects the other, but the idea is that if the tide is rising, it should lift all boats, not just the yachts. The wealth gap is a real thing and it continues to get bigger.  This is another example of that.
 
2014-04-22 10:41:08 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Cubansaltyballs: Debeo Summa Credo: This is what farklibs actually believe.

Sorry if I'm not some bootlicking republican.

No, just some clown who thinks a manager of a few convenience stores could run GE or Morgan Stanley or International Paper.


Have you seen what the people at those companies have done in the last few decades? How could someone do it worse?

These CEOs are not Oracles or wizards. Most of them don't do sh*t.
 
2014-04-22 10:42:26 PM  
Oh, crap. Capitalist pig latin is here, isn't it?
Is it going to make up bullshiat excuses for idiotic executive compensation; perform ad-hominem attacks on farkers who both stayed awake through and understand basic macroeconomics, and who have a grasp on historical reality since, say, 1947; or just dismissively refer to people with common sense as liberals?

Somebody please tell it that no matter how lovingly, thoroughly, and gently it licks their arses, the plutocrats it defends will never, ever allow it in their club.
 
Skr
2014-04-22 10:42:47 PM  
Really enjoy the tasty Ham & Swiss on Rye w/ Spicy Mustard + French Baguette I get at Panera. Their CEO doesn't seem like a complete waste like most CEO's either.
 
2014-04-22 10:43:53 PM  

toadist: I appreciate those CEO's.      Fast Food places providing jobs,  and a good value for customers.

Much better than some ripoff place like Panera or TGIF.

In the lousy economic climate that Washington has helped to prolong, if those CEO's are still amking progit they deserve medals along with their millions.        They are keeping us afloat.


Go kill yourself please
 
2014-04-22 10:44:01 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Cubansaltyballs: Debeo Summa Credo: This is what farklibs actually believe.

Sorry if I'm not some bootlicking republican.

No, just some clown who thinks a manager of a few convenience stores could run GE or Morgan Stanley or International Paper.


Absolutely right. Great leaders need advanced degrees
 
2014-04-22 10:45:23 PM  

king_nacho: a good CEO that can run a large scale corporation is much harder to come by than a person that can create and serve food in a restaurant.


As a man who has to eat at resturantes on a regular basis I've got to ask you, are you sure about that?
 
2014-04-22 10:47:06 PM  

GoldSpider: What's with all the eat-the-rich circle-jerk threads today?


I read this headline and my reaction was the same as the other eat the rich headlines.  "And?".

 On this, give an avg profit per share, number of stores dif, profit per store, turns, pins, roi, and I will judge if the 4x is justified.  And then judge the avg base personnel via relevant criterion.  These are two differing judgments that does not affect the other.
 
2014-04-22 10:47:34 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: No, just some clown who thinks a manager of a few convenience stores could run GE or Morgan Stanley or International Paper.



John C. Faraci? Seriously? One of the five most overpaid CEOs?
"International Paper lost 63% and $21 per share that same year, slightly better than Abercrombie. That did not stop CEO John Faraci from drawing a total of $28.2 million according to the report. As a means of maximizing his compensation - or as wags might say, a hedge in case he destroyed the company - Faraci reaped "$21 million in pension payments while still working at the company. Faraci, 59, has been CEO for six years." There was no comment on whether other IP employees were allowed to draw pensions while still actively employed."
 
2014-04-22 10:52:54 PM  
Just put frat boy on ignore. Feels good to weed out the trolls.
 
2014-04-22 10:54:24 PM  
It's a fact that wealth and power are being concentrated into a ever smaller group of people. For me the question is how long that is sustainable. And I think the answer is until it's too late.
 
2014-04-22 10:56:47 PM  
I case anyone hasn't done the math....

CEO make $22,000,000
Yum Brands has about 17,000 fast food stores (KFC, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut combined)
Assume there are ~10 fast food workers at each store.
Take every last dime from the CEO's compensation and divvy it up among the workers...

22,000,000/177000 =  and extra $124.30 per year.

Feel better yet...?
 
2014-04-22 10:56:52 PM  

jeremie: It's a fact that wealth and power are being concentrated into a ever smaller group of people. For me the question is how long that is sustainable. And I think the answer is until it's too late.


By "too late", do you mean Guillotine time?
If so, I share your concern.
 
2014-04-22 10:59:00 PM  
if Fark were instead a forum totally filled by CEOs this would get the Hero tag.
 
2014-04-22 10:59:18 PM  

Just another Heartland Weirdass: If you start paying the people who actually do the work then prices will get so high that they won't be able to buy the big macs they are making. Then everyone goes on welfare. If thats what you want you can move to Europe, but you should know my friend went there and said this guy told him he would rather live in the US because he had to wait in line to see a doctor once. If we weren't number one why would every person in the world want to live here.


sadly, i have met, and had to punch far too many americans who actually think like this. obviously you are trolling here, though...right?
 
2014-04-22 11:00:24 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: By "too late", do you mean Guillotine time?


The police/military/mercenaries will ensure that never happens.
 
2014-04-22 11:01:46 PM  

TerminalEchoes: MrBallou: If those workers want a decent wage, they should study and all become CEOs themselves. They're just a bunch of losers.

I was going to say this but I'm too tired to put up with flaming. I know you were being sarcastic but I wasn't.

I wouldn't worry about it. I'm sure most folks are ignoring you by now.
 
2014-04-22 11:02:08 PM  

Yeah_Right: I case anyone hasn't done the math....

CEO make $22,000,000
Yum Brands has about 17,000 fast food stores (KFC, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut combined)
Assume there are ~10 fast food workers at each store.
Take every last dime from the CEO's compensation and divvy it up among the workers...

22,000,000/177000 =  and extra $124.30 per year.

Feel better yet...?


The $22,000,000.00 would be better spent researching how to keep the inner hard shell crunchy on their multi-layered taco things.
 
2014-04-22 11:02:19 PM  
Cheer up fast food workers. As usual, upwards pressure on wages will accelerate the drive towards mechanization and automation.  In 20 years fast food worker wages won't be a problem any more since there will only be a dozen or so in the country.

Gas pump jockeys were first, right now it's grocery store checkout clerks, and soon it will be burger flippers.

As a side note, if you disapprove of a company's business practices, be it CEO salary, wages paid to their employees, or their stance on the environment or gays:  don't shop there.
 
2014-04-22 11:06:23 PM  

MustardTiger: mutterfark: GoldSpider: What's with all the eat-the-rich circle-jerk threads today?


[videos.videopress.com image 400x216]
When you can't eat any more sand, you eat the rich.

...Or wear them

[adventurecampradio.com image 850x641]


Would you incorporate me? I'd incorporate me. I'd incorporate me hard. I'd incorporate me so hard.
 
2014-04-22 11:08:32 PM  

Cubansaltyballs: Sticky Hands: Cubansaltyballs: What if the CEO's pay was tied to profits? Has the company's profits quadrupled? No? Than f*ck off.

CEO pay is almost always tied to profits either directly or indirectly via stock price.
that's why they are so quick to hack jobs.
dropping jobs make the bottom line number look good in the short term

Stock price is not tied to profits. Sometimes they correlate, most times they don't.

But what about companies that don't really innovate or need to innovate? Like oil companies. You mean to tell me if the CEO of Chevron isn't there people are going to stop buying gasoline?


 Stock prices are absolutely tied to profits, or better put "expectations of future profits".

as far  as CEOs go, it's more a strategic job than anything else, especially in an oil company's case, gotta find some way to get into countries, drill where you could not, and keep the subsidies rolling in.

All companies need to innovate. If you don't you are toast. Look at the above examples of Sears/K-mart, that company just needs to be put out of it's misery.

I'm not saying these CEOs are worth 100M a year or anything like that ( maybe a Steve Jobs at just the right moment is ) , but I bare no grudge against the successful ones. And it's hard to get working up about the CEO of McDonalds earning 7 million, there are nearly 100 players that earn more than that in the NBA alone. And that is not counting endorsements.


That said, golden parachutes and similar bullshiat should not be allowed. You play with the big boys and get paid massive amounts to show up, fine, you fark up,  you are out on your ass without a penny more. like a big boy.
 
2014-04-22 11:09:08 PM  
I can't bring myself to care what CEOs make.  But I think it's interesting that so many people do with such passion.
 
2014-04-22 11:09:49 PM  

king_nacho: a good CEO that can run a large scale corporation is much harder to come by than a person that can create and serve food in a restaurant.


I guess that explains all the shiatty ones currently running the businesses.
 
2014-04-22 11:10:18 PM  
Since when does the CEO of these corporations set the wages of employees that are part of a FRANCHISE? They don't. That is up to the owner of said franchise. Just sayin'. Crappy analogy to tug at our heart strings.
 
2014-04-22 11:11:54 PM  

some_beer_drinker: Just another Heartland Weirdass: If you start paying the people who actually do the work then prices will get so high that they won't be able to buy the big macs they are making. Then everyone goes on welfare. If thats what you want you can move to Europe, but you should know my friend went there and said this guy told him he would rather live in the US because he had to wait in line to see a doctor once. If we weren't number one why would every person in the world want to live here.

sadly, i have met, and had to punch far too many americans who actually think like this. obviously you are trolling here, though...right?


Yes im trolling. There were several hints in there but apparently demal is in a blind rage. Oh well.
 
2014-04-22 11:12:17 PM  
It's a sad fact that some people just have more value than others.

Subby's comparing Hot Apple Pies with Hi-C Orange Drink here.
 
2014-04-22 11:14:17 PM  

Just another Heartland Weirdass: If you start paying the people who actually do the work then prices will get so high that they won't be able to buy the big macs they are making. Then everyone goes on welfare. If thats what you want you can move to Europe, but you should know my friend went there and said this guy told him he would rather live in the US because he had to wait in line to see a doctor once. If we weren't number one why would every person in the world want to live here.


They've done the math. Prices would rise less than five percent
 
2014-04-22 11:14:19 PM  

Lokkii: Cheer up fast food workers. As usual, upwards pressure on wages will accelerate the drive towards mechanization and automation. In 20 years fast food worker wages won't be a problem any more since there will only be a dozen or so in the country.

Gas pump jockeys were first, right now it's grocery store checkout clerks, and soon it will be burger flippers.


Good.  I'm all for a society where all the mindless drudgery is done by machines and a guaranteed basic income that can allow as many people as possible to focus on creative pursuits that will increase the number of artistic and technological breakthroughs.
 
2014-04-22 11:14:23 PM  

Lokkii: Cheer up fast food workers. As usual, upwards pressure on wages will accelerate the drive towards mechanization and automation.  In 20 years fast food worker wages won't be a problem any more since there will only be a dozen or so in the country.

Gas pump jockeys were first, right now it's grocery store checkout clerks, and soon it will be burger flippers.

As a side note, if you disapprove of a company's business practices, be it CEO salary, wages paid to their employees, or their stance on the environment or gays:  don't shop there.


It's getting to the point, then, of where do you shop? Sure, there's companies like Costco, but more and more, they are the exception rather than the norm.
 
2014-04-22 11:17:52 PM  
So they run billion dollar industries that sell garbage as food, and their customers are happy enough with it to be *repeat* customers who line up around the block (in their cars) every day?

Sounds like a farking miracle to me.

Tell me again, are we talking about the thousands upon thousands of CEOs of fast food companies? Or more like 10?

I get the outrage though. It's despicable that so few people wield amount of power. That's why I hate the federal government too.
 
2014-04-22 11:18:26 PM  

12349876: Lokkii: Cheer up fast food workers. As usual, upwards pressure on wages will accelerate the drive towards mechanization and automation. In 20 years fast food worker wages won't be a problem any more since there will only be a dozen or so in the country.

Gas pump jockeys were first, right now it's grocery store checkout clerks, and soon it will be burger flippers.

Good.  I'm all for a society where all the mindless drudgery is done by machines and a guaranteed basic income that can allow as many people as possible to focus on creative pursuits that will increase the number of artistic and technological breakthroughs.


The people that have the drive and the ability to to this already are.
The vast majority of the rest of us are going to sit on our asses and watch TV.
That's cool though, should make the commute for the producers quite a bit nicer.
 
2014-04-22 11:19:09 PM  

Sticky Hands: I'm not saying these CEOs are worth 100M a year or anything like that ( maybe a Steve Jobs at just the right moment is ) , but I bare no grudge against the successful ones. And it's hard to get working up about the CEO of McDonalds earning 7 million, there are nearly 100 players that earn more than that in the NBA alone. And that is not counting endorsements.


I think we may just measure differently what "success" is. Anyone can do a smash and grab job and become "successful" if you measure success as what they take home.

I measure success differently than profits. For example, I think Jeff Bezos is much more successful than the CEO at any oil company or bank, even though Amazon's profits are smaller, both in size and percentage.
 
2014-04-22 11:20:14 PM  

clancifer: It will all trickle down any day now.


It shall come to pass, so sayeth the all-knowing Saint Reagan.
 
2014-04-22 11:22:13 PM  
Stay in school, kids. Hoping for trickle down is a bad bet.
 
2014-04-22 11:23:25 PM  

12349876: Lokkii: Cheer up fast food workers. As usual, upwards pressure on wages will accelerate the drive towards mechanization and automation. In 20 years fast food worker wages won't be a problem any more since there will only be a dozen or so in the country.

Gas pump jockeys were first, right now it's grocery store checkout clerks, and soon it will be burger flippers.

Good.  I'm all for a society where all the mindless drudgery is done by machines and a guaranteed basic income that can allow as many people as possible to focus on creative pursuits that will increase the number of artistic and technological breakthroughs.


radicalunjobbing.files.wordpress.com
i concur.
 
2014-04-22 11:24:20 PM  

GoldSpider: What's with all the eat-the-rich circle-jerk threads today?


The cats in N-space are hungry.
 
2014-04-22 11:31:03 PM  

Bonzo_1116: Yeah_Right: I case anyone hasn't done the math....

CEO make $22,000,000
Yum Brands has about 17,000 fast food stores (KFC, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut combined)
Assume there are ~10 fast food workers at each store.
Take every last dime from the CEO's compensation and divvy it up among the workers...

22,000,000/177000 =  and extra $124.30 per year.

Feel better yet...?

The $22,000,000.00 would be better spent researching how to keep the inner hard shell crunchy on their multi-layered taco things.


$1294.11 without adding an extra 70,000 franchises into your math...

Your point is still stupid because it's not a 1/1 exchange. CEO's get things like company cars (sometimes with a driver), paid accomodations when they travel, benefits packages that often include perks like (personal) cars, houses, and stock portfolio's...there's a lot more to what a Fortune 1000 CEO 'makes' than their salary


/college football and basketball coaches are even more greedy
 
2014-04-22 11:31:12 PM  
It's really weird that the people doing the labor don't make as much as the people who own the business. I really thought the guy dropping fries after upwards of 30 minutes of training was going to make more than the owner of the company.

Or if not more, than like 1/2 as much at least. They're practically equally valuable so they should get paid pretty much the same.
 
2014-04-22 11:32:25 PM  

Brainsick: Bonzo_1116: Yeah_Right: I case anyone hasn't done the math....

CEO make $22,000,000
Yum Brands has about 17,000 fast food stores (KFC, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut combined)
Assume there are ~10 fast food workers at each store.
Take every last dime from the CEO's compensation and divvy it up among the workers...

22,000,000/177000 =  and extra $124.30 per year.

Feel better yet...?

The $22,000,000.00 would be better spent researching how to keep the inner hard shell crunchy on their multi-layered taco things.

$1294.11 without adding an extra 70,000 franchises into your math...

Your point is still stupid because it's not a 1/1 exchange. CEO's get things like company cars (sometimes with a driver), paid accomodations when they travel, benefits packages that often include perks like (personal) cars, houses, and stock portfolio's...there's a lot more to what a Fortune 1000 CEO 'makes' than their salary


/college football and basketball coaches are even more greedy


Bonzo, that was directed at Yeah_Right, sorry for the misquote
 
2014-04-22 11:34:17 PM  

Cubansaltyballs: Sticky Hands: I'm not saying these CEOs are worth 100M a year or anything like that ( maybe a Steve Jobs at just the right moment is ) , but I bare no grudge against the successful ones. And it's hard to get working up about the CEO of McDonalds earning 7 million, there are nearly 100 players that earn more than that in the NBA alone. And that is not counting endorsements.

I think we may just measure differently what "success" is. Anyone can do a smash and grab job and become "successful" if you measure success as what they take home.

I measure success differently than profits. For example, I think Jeff Bezos is much more successful than the CEO at any oil company or bank, even though Amazon's profits are smaller, both in size and percentage.



I'm sorry I did make it clear that I do not consider smash and grabbers as anything other than thieves.  I do not measure success as what they take home, but how much better the company is than when they started.

But even if one did measure success by how much they take home... Mr Bezos is worth some 23 billion dollars... so there appears to be some correlation there.
 
2014-04-22 11:36:07 PM  

js34603: It's really weird that the people doing the labor don't make as much as the people who own the business. I really thought the guy dropping fries after upwards of 30 minutes of training was going to make more than the owner of the company.

Or if not more, than like 1/2 as much at least. They're practically equally valuable so they should get paid pretty much the same.


Did somebody forget to take your crayons away?
 
2014-04-22 11:41:12 PM  

MrBallou: If those workers want a decent wage, they should study and all become CEOs themselves. They're just a bunch of losers.


I'm willing to bet that they would be better CEO's then the current group of CEO's without any training or study.
 
2014-04-22 11:44:05 PM  

Sticky Hands: I'm sorry I did make it clear that I do not consider smash and grabbers as anything other than thieves. I do not measure success as what they take home, but how much better the company is than when they started.

But even if one did measure success by how much they take home... Mr Bezos is worth some 23 billion dollars... so there appears to be some correlation there.


yeah, but Amazon makes nothing.

My overall point is that I think the vast majority of CEOs are parasites that bring no value, increase nothing, and basically give themselves raised based on the inertia and brands that were built by someone else. Sears is a great example, so is lehman brothers.
 
2014-04-22 11:44:08 PM  

fusillade762: [37.media.tumblr.com image 500x625]


I cannot find proof for this statement.  I am not saying it is incorrect, but before I can consider passing this information along it would be necessary to have proof.

Farkers, my google-fu is not sufficient to come up with evidence.  Anyone else?
 
2014-04-22 11:44:55 PM  

MrBallou: If those workers want a decent wage, they should study and all become CEOs themselves. They're just a bunch of losers.


That's right. If they wanted to get ahead they should have just been CEO's. Everybody knows that's where the money's at.
 
2014-04-22 11:52:37 PM  

Delta1212: Frederick: Pocket Ninja: Um, subby? If they didn't lower workers' salaries, how would the companies be able to quadruple the salary of their CEO? Jesus, try thinking every now and then.

Well, they could add non-food stuffs to the food to lower costs.

/mmmm, yoga mats

This actually annoys me. Just because a chemical is used in something you wouldn't want to eat, doesn't mean that the chemical is automatically something you want to keep out of food.

Bug spray is mostly water, but you don't see people demanding water be removed from all of their food and drink.


I think we should put together a blue ribbon panel to debate acceptable levels of melamine and arsenic in our hamburgers. After all, it's just not fair to the corporate fast food giants to expect them to keep ALL the poison out of the food. Some of those poisons actually make food manufacture cheaper and give it a longer shelf life. Or a more appealing color.
That goes straight to the bottom line, my friend.
 
2014-04-22 11:53:24 PM  

Grognard: fusillade762: [37.media.tumblr.com image 500x625]

I cannot find proof for this statement.  I am not saying it is incorrect, but before I can consider passing this information along it would be necessary to have proof.

Farkers, my google-fu is not sufficient to come up with evidence.  Anyone else?


As I mentioned after I posted it I can't find it either. It appears I have fallen for the old Abraham Lincoln picture/quote trap.
 
2014-04-22 11:57:33 PM  
As others have pointed out, the CEOs of the fast food joints do not set wages of workers at their franchises.  Franchise owners don't care how much they have to pay the workers.  They care what it costs to employ them.  Between myriad employment taxes, insurances, and other costs, the disparity between cost of employment and wages is growing.  Employers can't afford to pay workers more precisely because so much of their COGS dollar is spent on labor costs that the employee will never see.  Every tax, every insurance that the employer supposedly pays is, in reality, paid by the employee.  He must be productive enough that the owner of the company can charge that amount back to the customer.  The fact that an employer must pay $30/hour for labor and can only give the employee $10/hour is not the fault of employer.  Every time the government (fed, state, or local) steps in and orders the company to help the employees out, it's the employee that must pay.  Companies either make a profit or go bankrupt.

Right now, a lot of companies are reporting record profits.  But if you read a lot of the financial reports carefully, you will note that an awful lot of companies are missing their top line forecast.  But, because of the fed pumping money into the economy, stock prices continue to rise.  Those rising stock prices help companies, between buybacks and dividends, show those record profits on the bottom line in spite of falling short on the top line.  Unfortunately for the workers, stock price increases and handsome dividends from companies the employer may have invested in are not part of the COGS calculation.  Auditors very much like it if you can demonstrate that you're not losing money on every piece you sell.

The rising stock prices skew this report in one other significant way.  Most, if not all, of the CEOs listed derive a substantial percentage of their income from stock options, stock gifts, and the valuation of thier stock portfolio.  If all of those things are rising, it stands to reason that their demonstrated income will also rise significantly.
 
2014-04-22 11:59:48 PM  

MrBallou: If those workers want a decent wage, they should study and all become CEOs themselves.


I know you're being snarky, but this is what many people believe, and it's the great lie of our system. "If everyone tried harder, we wouldn't have any poor people." The world only needs so many CEOs, doctors, and such. There are always going to be people at the bottom end of the ladder, but society as a whole functions better when they can functionally survive and contribute to it.

To run our world as a cutthroat competition and to tell the losers they deserve to eat out of dumpsters and die young is a disgraceful way for an advanced civilization to function.

Not to mention the fact that the last thing the rich want is tens of millions more millionaires, as it would dilute their wealth and make them less special, and we can't offend the delicate precious snowflakes.
 
2014-04-23 12:01:34 AM  

js34603: It's really weird that the people doing the labor don't make as much as the people who own the business. I really thought the guy dropping fries after upwards of 30 minutes of training was going to make more than the owner of the company.

Or if not more, than like 1/2 as much at least. They're practically equally valuable so they should get paid pretty much the same.


Nice misdirection. Nobody is suggesting the fry-guy make 11 million. Just that he should be treated as more than expendable slave labor.
 
2014-04-23 12:04:11 AM  

Mr. Right: Unfortunately for the workers, stock price increases and handsome dividends from companies the employer may have invested in are not part of the COGS calculation.


Why not? Employee compensation has much wider repercussions than just the dollar amount they cost. Employee availability, mobility, overall health and retention are just a few that come to mind. Why retrain sick, unmotivated people once or twice a year when you can spend half as much keeping the smart, capable people you already have? Because they are somehow worth 'less' than the cost of retaining upper management? Of course, now we're getting into 'competetive salary' territory...
 
2014-04-23 12:05:33 AM  

Mr. Oizo: If flipping burgers were simply a punch-the-clock job for live-at-home teens who eventually go on to long-term careers in other industries, I wouldn't have a problem with this.

For far too many people, however flipping burgers has become their career.  You can't expect someone to raise a family on minimum wage.


I can't raise a family, sitting on my ass , complaining about the poor quality of tv programming - someone should raise the pay for that!
 
2014-04-23 12:05:42 AM  

Smackledorfer: MrBallou: If those workers want a decent wage, they should study and all become CEOs themselves. They're just a bunch of losers.

You jest, but I have been assured they could all be plumbers. There is totally enough demand for that.


If people are eating that much fast food, there's got to be be more than a few busted shiatters in need of service.
 
2014-04-23 12:11:23 AM  

ImpendingCynic: MrBallou: If those workers want a decent wage, they should study and all become CEOs themselves.

I know you're being snarky, but this is what many people believe, and it's the great lie of our system. "If everyone tried harder, we wouldn't have any poor people." The world only needs so many CEOs, doctors, and such. There are always going to be people at the bottom end of the ladder, but society as a whole functions better when they can functionally survive and contribute to it.

To run our world as a cutthroat competition and to tell the losers they deserve to eat out of dumpsters and die young is a disgraceful way for an advanced civilization to function.

Not to mention the fact that the last thing the rich want is tens of millions more millionaires, as it would dilute their wealth and make them less special, and we can't offend the delicate precious snowflakes.


I said that because every time there's a minimum wage thread, some Limbaugh-quoting a-hole inevitably argues this, so I wanted to preempt them.

You said it perfectly. It is disgraceful.
 
2014-04-23 12:11:58 AM  

Smackledorfer: MrBallou: If those workers want a decent wage, they should study and all become CEOs themselves. They're just a bunch of losers.

You jest, but I have been assured they could all be plumbers. There is totally enough demand for that.


Too true. But we don't have much of an apprenticeship thing anymore. Besides, in my area people just hire illegals who know enough to poorly sweat a joint, and then file insurance claims when the black mold forces them out of the house.
 
2014-04-23 12:16:36 AM  

fusillade762: Grognard: fusillade762: [37.media.tumblr.com image 500x625]

I cannot find proof for this statement.  I am not saying it is incorrect, but before I can consider passing this information along it would be necessary to have proof.

Farkers, my google-fu is not sufficient to come up with evidence.  Anyone else?

As I mentioned after I posted it I can't find it either. It appears I have fallen for the old Abraham Lincoln picture/quote trap.



my apologies.  I got to your retraction post after posting.  I am guilty, often, of not reading the whole discussion thread and commenting.  Mea Culpa
 
2014-04-23 12:25:38 AM  

GoldSpider: What's with all the eat-the-rich circle-jerk threads today?


Let's think about that... The last few years have seen a massive economic recovery - for those who actually own capital of some sort (stocks, real estate, etc.), while for the majority of people in the US, their standard of living has never recovered to pre-2008 levels. The people who caused the whole farking problem got away with many types of criminal fraud and never received anything other than token fines. When people got upset and marched in the street, the news was like "what do they want, these crazy folks?!?". This was shortly followed by demonization of the protesters and a police crackdown.

Then, they ran a farktard who was born on third and thought he hit a triple for president, and he actually had the nerve to call 47% of the country "moochers". That is, the poor and working class, the people who clean his hotel rooms, make and serve his meals, people who often work multiple jobs and still have to get food stamps in order to be able to afford both rent and food.

Then, to top in all off, the Supreme Court eviscerated campaign finance laws, giving the rich even greater leverage to control the county.

Is this hard to understand? Most people are in the working classes, they are paid by others, they are employees, and they see the rich get much richer while they are struggling under increasing rents, energy costs, etc., and when they ask for a raise are told "we can get a hundred like you".

Just maybe, maybe, the anger against the rich - less than 70 of whom literally own as much as half the people on the entire planet - maybe this anger is justified. Maybe people are angry because of what they see and experience.
 
2014-04-23 12:26:27 AM  

Brainsick: Mr. Right: Unfortunately for the workers, stock price increases and handsome dividends from companies the employer may have invested in are not part of the COGS calculation.

Why not? Employee compensation has much wider repercussions than just the dollar amount they cost. Employee availability, mobility, overall health and retention are just a few that come to mind. Why retrain sick, unmotivated people once or twice a year when you can spend half as much keeping the smart, capable people you already have? Because they are somehow worth 'less' than the cost of retaining upper management? Of course, now we're getting into 'competetive salary' territory...


Companies have to demonstrate that their COGS is balanced and outside of that, they operate on margins.  No company will spend any more than necessary to retain a reasonable work force but they will spend whatever is necessary to keep it.

 Back in the 90s, the economy was absolutely booming.  Clinton had the good sense to realize that the government cannot do much to control the economy and if it's going great, stay the hell out of the way.  In our neck of the woods, West Michigan, unemployment hovered between 1% and 1.7% for nearly a year.  One had to actively avoid a job in order to not have one.  Employers were poaching workers from other companies.  Temp agencies were desperate for workers.  Any workers.  Our local BK franchise was paying $11/hour - in the late 90s - for workers.  They offered tuition assistance.  They toyed with the idea of offering health insurance.  They could afford it.  They were busy all day every day because everybody else in the country had a job - 2 if they wanted them - and so they were eating out frequently because they weren't home to cook.

Fast forward 20 years and the local BK franchise pays under $9/hour.  No tuition assistance.  No insurance because even if you are a 40 year single mother who's been out of work for the past 2 years, you're going to get no more than 30 hours a week.  Because unemployment is no longer under 2%.  The average Joe can't afford to go to even BK very often any more so their parking lots are perennially empty, drive-through lanes wide open for the next customer.  20 years ago, the line at the drive through was 20 cars at the peak of the lunch rush.  Now, they get excited if there are 6 or 7 cars in line at the same time.  In spite of lower wages, the franchise owners per burger margin is the same or lower because of the huge increase in the cost of materials.  But he would rather have a small margin 1000 times than a better margin 100 times.  He made more money when the economy was booming.  So did his employees.
 
2014-04-23 12:35:46 AM  

king_nacho: a good CEO that can run a large scale corporation is much harder to come by than a person that can create and serve food in a restaurant.


I'm not sure if you're 10/10 trolling or totally serious, but I bet we could come up with a long, long list of people who were, in fact, not good enough to run a large scale corporation and ran it into the ground beyond recovery. They managed to collected their "highly valued employee" salary and earned a great parting package, all while being abysmal failures.
 
2014-04-23 12:44:41 AM  
So WHAT?
 
2014-04-23 12:46:36 AM  

dstrick44: Delta1212: Frederick: Pocket Ninja: Um, subby? If they didn't lower workers' salaries, how would the companies be able to quadruple the salary of their CEO? Jesus, try thinking every now and then.

Well, they could add non-food stuffs to the food to lower costs.

/mmmm, yoga mats

This actually annoys me. Just because a chemical is used in something you wouldn't want to eat, doesn't mean that the chemical is automatically something you want to keep out of food.

Bug spray is mostly water, but you don't see people demanding water be removed from all of their food and drink.

I think we should put together a blue ribbon panel to debate acceptable levels of melamine and arsenic in our hamburgers. After all, it's just not fair to the corporate fast food giants to expect them to keep ALL the poison out of the food. Some of those poisons actually make food manufacture cheaper and give it a longer shelf life. Or a more appealing color.
That goes straight to the bottom line, my friend.


If your only acceptable level of anything potentially poisonous in your food is zero, you're going to starve to death. I guarantee you have consumed some amount of arsenic, gold and uranium today, just to pick a few elements at semi-random.

Yes, given too much leeway, good manufacturers will put their bottom line above your health and include all kinds of crap you probably don't want in your bottom at any measurable level. No, that doesn't make most of the outrage that pours out of social media about "unnatural" ingredients and trace contaminants any less stupid. But no, we have to flush millions of gallons of water that some idiot peed in to preserve the illusion that anyone in the history of the world has ever consumed anything "purer" than that piss water was.
 
2014-04-23 12:49:33 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: king_nacho: a good CEO that can run a large scale corporation is much harder to come by than a person that can create and serve food in a restaurant.

Objection: Facts not in evidence.

Counterpoint/rebuttal:
[img.timeinc.net image 307x409] 

[img.timeinc.net image 307x409]
[graphics8.nytimes.com image 592x332]

Do you feel chastised enough, or should I introduce you to more examples?


Ooo...You forgot Carly.  Can't have a list of Shiat CEOs without having Carly on it.
 
2014-04-23 12:53:28 AM  

Pocket Ninja: sigdiamond2000: Sorry I guess I'm not some loser English major like you.

I think the word your there looking for is "looser."


Sorry, pet peeve.
 
2014-04-23 12:57:35 AM  

Mr. Oizo: If flipping burgers were simply a punch-the-clock job for live-at-home teens who eventually go on to long-term careers in other industries, I wouldn't have a problem with this.

For far too many people, however flipping burgers has become their career.  You can't expect someone to raise a family on minimum wage.


And besides that, teens can't work at burger flipping during the day, anyway. Someone has to work there during school hours, and saying they shouldn't make any more than Timmy Part-Timer is pretty much why they get who they get for those jobs.
 
2014-04-23 01:00:49 AM  

Bennie Crabtree: Unfortunately, I do get coffee from Tim Hortons every day I am at work. The only other chain I eat at is Harvey's though, and even then less than once every month, and even then for their veggie burger. Not because I am a hipster (hipsters despise me), but because I think CEOs and shareholders of fast food chains should make their fortunes with their own bootstraps, and not because they depend on my help.


Actually, Tim Horton's, being a Canadian company, would probably be the choice for coffee over Starbucks and Dunkin' Donuts.
 
2014-04-23 01:03:33 AM  
It does not matter how much CEO's make, the very cold, hard fact of the matter is that the labor needed to work in a fast food restaurant is still only worth minimum wage at best. Can a CEO be trained in a day like the counter jockey at McD's? I don't think so. Especially when the counter jockey can and will be replaced by self-service touch screens.
 
2014-04-23 01:06:37 AM  

Ambivalence: demaL-demaL-yeH: king_nacho: a good CEO that can run a large scale corporation is much harder to come by than a person that can create and serve food in a restaurant.

Objection: Facts not in evidence.

Counterpoint/rebuttal:
[img.timeinc.net image 307x409] 

[img.timeinc.net image 307x409]
[graphics8.nytimes.com image 592x332]

Do you feel chastised enough, or should I introduce you to more examples?

Ooo...You forgot Carly.  Can't have a list of Shiat CEOs without having Carly on it.


At least her ineptitude led her to spin off HP's instrumentation group off into Agilent so she couldn't destroy that too.
 
2014-04-23 01:10:27 AM  

ChiliBoots: At least her ineptitude led her to spin off HP's instrumentation group off into Agilent so she couldn't destroy that too.


It's kind of sad when you're greatest accomplishment is that some company cut ties with yours so they could escape your leadership (and not be dragged down with you).
 
2014-04-23 01:30:37 AM  

js34603: It's really weird that the people doing the labor don't make as much as the people who own the business. I really thought the guy dropping fries after upwards of 30 minutes of training was going to make more than the owner of the company.

Or if not more, than like 1/2 as much at least. They're practically equally valuable so they should get paid pretty much the same.


The bastard child of Strawman and False Dichotomy, ladies and gentlemen.
 
2014-04-23 01:49:54 AM  
upload.wikimedia.org
Actually, Tim Horton's is owned by Wendy's International, Inc., an American company since 1995. It is franchised out now.
Both facts much to the chagrin of a lot of Canadians.

Regardless; people working in minimum wage jobs get trapped in minimum wage jobs because you can't buy much education for $10/ hr., especially if that's what the majority of most jobs are paying out there too.
 
2014-04-23 01:52:54 AM  

Cubansaltyballs: balial: Presumably the CEO's salary is up 4x because there's 4x the number of stores and responsibility he/she is presiding over. The there's ample opportunity for workers to do 4x the hours and get the same benefit.

Why is this even a question?

If that's your measurement, shouldn't the average employee's wage rise in line with "same store sales growth"????


Well I was being sarcastic, but we can discuss it. The erroneous point would be that if the company is doing 4x better, you can't really expect that each worker is doing 4x more. The guy at the top, though, is presiding of 4x as much that can go wrong.

Of course, that totally ignores the fact that employees are going *backwards* due to inflation. So by the same logic, they're probably certainly not doing *less* work, so they should _at the very least_ be getting inflation.

But, to spoil my joke, the whole point was that it's not that simple.

What if the CEO's pay was tied to profits? Has the company's profits quadrupled? No? Than f*ck off.

Well if you look at the YUM stock at quoted, its stock price is up over 10x since 2000 (the quoted time frame), so if you go, once again, by a (garbage) accepted metric, the share holders must thing the CEO is doing far better than 4x and could be justified in getting 10x. Oh, and there were dividends. Of course, that's stock price and not profit or revenue. I couldn't find any good source over that time frame, but morningstar seemed to claim ~30% revenue over the last 5 years or something.

Either way, the company is doing great. I don't think the article does a good job of addressing the complexities of the situation. They don't present an argument why the CEOs are doing a poor job, nor explain why the workers aren't doing a crap job, and are being hosed. I'm sorry you missed the point :(
 
2014-04-23 02:19:19 AM  

IlGreven: Pocket Ninja: sigdiamond2000: Sorry I guess I'm not some loser English major like you.

I think the word your there looking for is "looser."

Sorry, pet peeve.


You mean per pieve.
 
2014-04-23 03:11:44 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: As a shareholder of Yum brands for about 12 years, I say good job management. Price is up about 8-fold since then.

You guys should start your own corporations. Then elect yourselves to the board and pay everyone the same. See how that works out.


THIS!

Fark: Home of the economic illiterates
 
2014-04-23 03:12:49 AM  
Once day, we won't be able to avoid the debate on the cost of rich people to society.
 
2014-04-23 03:13:23 AM  
I'm so glad that the bulk of my career was in the days before supply and demand determined wages and corporations weren't greedy.
 
2014-04-23 03:14:08 AM  

doglover: IlGreven: Pocket Ninja: sigdiamond2000: Sorry I guess I'm not some loser English major like you.

I think the word your there looking for is "looser."

Sorry, pet peeve.

You mean per pieve.


"Peefs"
 
2014-04-23 03:24:31 AM  

generallyso: demaL-demaL-yeH: By "too late", do you mean Guillotine time?

The police/military/mercenaries will ensure that never happens.


Never underestimate the power of starving family members.
 
2014-04-23 03:27:45 AM  

Cubansaltyballs: Have you seen what the people at those companies have done in the last few decades? How could someone do it worse?

These CEOs are not Oracles or wizards. Most of them don't do sh*t.


How do you know this?
 
2014-04-23 04:17:53 AM  
 
2014-04-23 04:56:02 AM  
Papa John Schnatter himself had $2,750,000 earnings in 2010, split that yearly earning with all 20,700 Papa John's employee's equally (they all deserve equal portions, not on actual value to the company) and everyone get's a check for $132.85. The guy who actually established the brand that is employing thousands of people is the bad guy? Insanity.
 
2014-04-23 05:05:54 AM  
If we raise the minimum wage to 15.00 a Big Mac will cost 15 dollars.

Because somebody said so. Or something.
 
2014-04-23 05:29:39 AM  

Brainsick: Bonzo_1116: Yeah_Right: I case anyone hasn't done the math....

CEO make $22,000,000
Yum Brands has about 17,000 fast food stores (KFC, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut combined)
Assume there are ~10 fast food workers at each store.
Take every last dime from the CEO's compensation and divvy it up among the workers...

22,000,000/177000 =  and extra $124.30 per year.

Feel better yet...?

The $22,000,000.00 would be better spent researching how to keep the inner hard shell crunchy on their multi-layered taco things.

$1294.11 without adding an extra 70,000 franchises into your math...

Your point is still stupid because it's not a 1/1 exchange. CEO's get things like company cars (sometimes with a driver), paid accomodations when they travel, benefits packages that often include perks like (personal) cars, houses, and stock portfolio's...there's a lot more to what a Fortune 1000 CEO 'makes' than their salary


/college football and basketball coaches are even more greedy


Hell the coaches demand sexual rights to many of their players.
 
2014-04-23 05:37:43 AM  

whidbey: If we raise the minimum wage to 15.00 a Big Mac will cost 15 dollars.

Because somebody said so. Or something.


Oh, for fark's sake.
Average labor contribution to costs of goods sold is ~18.5%. Average gross margin for the S&P 500 was a tad over 38% last year.
Let's pretend that doubling the minimum wage doubles all wages (it doesn't), and overestimate labor's "new" contribution to COGS at 35%. Let's even throw in an overly pessimistic inflation multiplier equal to that of food stamps ~1.75.
The total average cost-push inflation as the effects propagate is 28% using the most pessimistic numbers I can reasonably justify, and that inflation would take place over several years.

And that's for doubling everybody's wages, which absolutely nobody has proposed. That said, the positive effect on GDP for doubling wages - for everybody - is more than enough to overwhelm any inflationary effects.

Now let's apply that only to the 25% of hourly workers making less than $14.50 an hour, and earn less than six percent (6%) of total US income: The inflationary effect of doubling minimum wage drops to less than 10%.


/Next step: Some math impaired, reality rejecting Austrian will enter the thread.
//Mark my words, whids: Some half-wit saying that, as an expert MBA, doubling minimum wage will double prices, guaran-damn-teed.
 
2014-04-23 05:37:57 AM  
Umm, low-skill workers can only demand so much these days before automation happens. Reducing regulations, so that one doesn't need to be a chain to handle the insane amounts of paperwork it often takes to open up a freaking pizza place would help a lot more when it comes to bringing down CEO pay (and increasing wages).b-i.forbesimg.com
 
2014-04-23 05:44:48 AM  

dmoynihan: low-skill workers can only demand so much these days before automation happens.


Ah yes, just threaten them if they dare demand better for themselves.
 
2014-04-23 06:06:50 AM  

WhyteRaven74: dmoynihan: low-skill workers can only demand so much these days before automation happens.

Ah yes, just threaten them if they dare demand better for themselves.


Didn't seem like a threat. Just reality.
 
2014-04-23 06:10:56 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: whidbey: If we raise the minimum wage to 15.00 a Big Mac will cost 15 dollars.

Because somebody said so. Or something.

Oh, for fark's sake.
...
Now let's apply that only to the 25% of hourly workers making less than $14.50 an hour, and earn less than six percent (6%) of total US income: The inflationary effect of doubling minimum wage drops to less than 10%.


/Next step: Some math impaired, reality rejecting Austrian will enter the thread.
//Mark my words, whids: Some half-wit saying that, as an expert MBA, doubling minimum wage will double prices, guaran-damn-teed.


The whole "raising the minimum wage will just pass those costs on to the consumer" argument is a bluff by the "job creators" anyway.  And the correct response to that argument is to -in poker terms- call.

Go ahead McDonalds, charge that $15 dollars for a hamburger to offset the minimum wage -see what happens.  McDonalds will either eat the costs of the wage raise in other areas; optimally in the disproportionate CEO salaries, or in other equally easily manageable areas like their ridiculous, superfluous advertising, or they'll go out of business and another product will fill the void with an actual business model that accommodates living wages.

Killing the giant is probably in our best long term interests.
 
2014-04-23 06:27:32 AM  
Pay ratios and profit sharing, now.
 
2014-04-23 06:29:51 AM  

Frederick: demaL-demaL-yeH: whidbey: If we raise the minimum wage to 15.00 a Big Mac will cost 15 dollars.

Because somebody said so. Or something.

Oh, for fark's sake.
...
Now let's apply that only to the 25% of hourly workers making less than $14.50 an hour, and earn less than six percent (6%) of total US income: The inflationary effect of doubling minimum wage drops to less than 10%.


/Next step: Some math impaired, reality rejecting Austrian will enter the thread.
//Mark my words, whids: Some half-wit saying that, as an expert MBA, doubling minimum wage will double prices, guaran-damn-teed.

The whole "raising the minimum wage will just pass those costs on to the consumer"

No, they will hire SKILLED workers who are able to do the work of 2 unskilled workers, unemployment rises for those unskilled workers.

 
2014-04-23 06:43:41 AM  

Tetrazphere: The whole "raising the minimum wage will just pass those costs on to the consumer"

No, they will hire SKILLED workers who are able to do the work of 2 unskilled workers, unemployment rises for those unskilled workers.


*snerk*
None of the Austrians ever wants to answer the following:
Please explain how the fark SKILLED burger-flippers/fry-dippers are different from ordinary ones.
Then explain how the four decade deskilling of labor via technology fits into this scenario, please.
When you plot the decline in union membership in the work force and the percentage of the population dropping out of the middle class, the lines are farking collinear. Why is that?
When you compare average blue collar wages in right-to-work states to union states, guess what you find.

/These are not a random coincidences.
 
2014-04-23 07:16:28 AM  
so if corporations are people, would said person have a farked up mutated body with disproportionate limbs and an oversized head dragging on the ground? somebody needs to get this corporation to a hospital
 
2014-04-23 07:24:44 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Tetrazphere: The whole "raising the minimum wage will just pass those costs on to the consumer"

No, they will hire SKILLED workers who are able to do the work of 2 unskilled workers, unemployment rises for those unskilled workers.

*snerk*
None of the Austrians ever wants to answer the following:
Please explain how the fark SKILLED burger-flippers/fry-dippers are different from ordinary ones.
Then explain how the four decade deskilling of labor via technology fits into this scenario, please.
When you plot the decline in union membership in the work force and the percentage of the population dropping out of the middle class, the lines are farking collinear. Why is that?
When you compare average blue collar wages in right-to-work states to union states, guess what you find.

/These are not a random coincidences.


"Skilled burger flippers" are the ones who can also do inventory, P and L, effective customer service, maintain superior production skills and have the ability to flow to any position as needed, for instance, would be 'skilled' in comparison with the typical job requirements of a minimum wage employee.

And any current succesful union is for SKILLED labor!
 
2014-04-23 07:38:00 AM  

Frederick: demaL-demaL-yeH: whidbey: If we raise the minimum wage to 15.00 a Big Mac will cost 15 dollars.

Because somebody said so. Or something.

Oh, for fark's sake.
...
Now let's apply that only to the 25% of hourly workers making less than $14.50 an hour, and earn less than six percent (6%) of total US income: The inflationary effect of doubling minimum wage drops to less than 10%.


/Next step: Some math impaired, reality rejecting Austrian will enter the thread.
//Mark my words, whids: Some half-wit saying that, as an expert MBA, doubling minimum wage will double prices, guaran-damn-teed.

The whole "raising the minimum wage will just pass those costs on to the consumer" argument is a bluff by the "job creators" anyway.  And the correct response to that argument is to -in poker terms- call.

Go ahead McDonalds, charge that $15 dollars for a hamburger to offset the minimum wage -see what happens.  McDonalds will either eat the costs of the wage raise in other areas; optimally in the disproportionate CEO salaries, or in other equally easily manageable areas like their ridiculous, superfluous advertising, or they'll go out of business and another product will fill the void with an actual business model that accommodates living wages.

Killing the giant is probably in our best long term interests.


It is scary that people can be as utterly misguided as you.

"Business model that can accommodate a living wage". You actually typed that.
 
2014-04-23 07:49:07 AM  
McDonald's did helpfully provide that budget calculator for their minimum wage employees that figured out how much they should tip their maids and nannies, so I think it's pretty clear that they understand the issue.
 
2014-04-23 07:57:23 AM  
This stuff is par for the course, but it's not like I have much influence over the behavior of companies whose products I don't buy anyway.
 
2014-04-23 08:06:16 AM  
This is why Farklibs will never be CEOs, and will be getting me my fries.

Liberal economics is funny. Punish anyone who makes money, and somehow that makes everyone happier and wealthier.....
 
2014-04-23 08:10:16 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Frederick: demaL-demaL-yeH: whidbey: If we raise the minimum wage to 15.00 a Big Mac will cost 15 dollars.

Because somebody said so. Or something.

Oh, for fark's sake.
...
Now let's apply that only to the 25% of hourly workers making less than $14.50 an hour, and earn less than six percent (6%) of total US income: The inflationary effect of doubling minimum wage drops to less than 10%.


/Next step: Some math impaired, reality rejecting Austrian will enter the thread.
//Mark my words, whids: Some half-wit saying that, as an expert MBA, doubling minimum wage will double prices, guaran-damn-teed.

The whole "raising the minimum wage will just pass those costs on to the consumer" argument is a bluff by the "job creators" anyway.  And the correct response to that argument is to -in poker terms- call.

Go ahead McDonalds, charge that $15 dollars for a hamburger to offset the minimum wage -see what happens.  McDonalds will either eat the costs of the wage raise in other areas; optimally in the disproportionate CEO salaries, or in other equally easily manageable areas like their ridiculous, superfluous advertising, or they'll go out of business and another product will fill the void with an actual business model that accommodates living wages.

Killing the giant is probably in our best long term interests.

It is scary that people can be as utterly misguided as you.

"Business model that can accommodate a living wage". You actually typed that.


With your limited knowledge, bordering on offensive stupidity, you're not even qualified to look at the internet much less contribute to its hallowed intellectual tradition; that's sarcasm obviously, you're right where you belong.
 
2014-04-23 08:13:34 AM  

some_beer_drinker: 12349876: Lokkii: Cheer up fast food workers. As usual, upwards pressure on wages will accelerate the drive towards mechanization and automation. In 20 years fast food worker wages won't be a problem any more since there will only be a dozen or so in the country.

Gas pump jockeys were first, right now it's grocery store checkout clerks, and soon it will be burger flippers.

Good.  I'm all for a society where all the mindless drudgery is done by machines and a guaranteed basic income that can allow as many people as possible to focus on creative pursuits that will increase the number of artistic and technological breakthroughs.


i concur.


Capitalism needs to die.
 
2014-04-23 08:14:19 AM  

Thunderpipes: This is why Farklibs will never be CEOs, and will be getting me my fries.

Liberal economics is funny. Punish anyone who makes money, and somehow that makes everyone happier and wealthier.....


Yeah we punished those successful plantation owners too, mainly out of jealousy.
 
2014-04-23 08:29:56 AM  
cdn-www.i-am-bored.com

But worst of all, he makes some seriously shiatty pizza. And THAT I can not forgive.
 
2014-04-23 08:37:55 AM  

blurr_grrl


upload.wikimedia.org
Actually, Tim Horton's is owned by Wendy's International, Inc., an American company since 1995. It is franchised out now.
Both facts much to the chagrin of a lot of Canadians.


Nonsense. This pic you showed was from the brief period when Tim and Wendy were cohabitating. They have since split up.

From http://www.timhortons.com/us/en/about/index.html:

"In March 2006, Tim Hortons completed an initial public offering of the company and was fully spun off as a separate company as of September 29, 2006. Tim Hortons trades on the NYSE and TSX (THI)."
 
2014-04-23 08:38:25 AM  
If they had paid more attention as school, then they'd earn more money.
 
2014-04-23 08:40:02 AM  

Thunderpipes: This is why Farklibs will never be CEOs, and will be getting me my fries.

Liberal economics is funny. Punish anyone who makes money, and somehow that makes everyone happier and wealthier.....


We all can't be pickle farkers.
 
2014-04-23 08:42:22 AM  

SpectroBoy: [cdn-www.i-am-bored.com image 700x876]

But worst of all, he makes some seriously shiatty pizza. And THAT I can not forgive.


I can't lie I actually perfer his pizza over the "chain" pizza joints that are out there.  Of course you have never had my local pizza joint that only the locals eat at that has the best pizza.
 
2014-04-23 08:48:22 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: McDonald's did helpfully provide that budget calculator for their minimum wage employees that figured out how much they should tip their maids and nannies, so I think it's pretty clear that they understand the issue.


At least it had space to factor in income from a second job.
 
2014-04-23 08:50:45 AM  

SpectroBoy: [cdn-www.i-am-bored.com image 700x876]

But worst of all, he makes some seriously shiatty pizza. And THAT I can not forgive.


but better ingredients make better pizzas!  You mean the guy slapping the pizza together has something to do with its flavor, too?  Preposterous!
 
2014-04-23 09:01:43 AM  

some_beer_drinker: 12349876: Lokkii: Cheer up fast food workers. As usual, upwards pressure on wages will accelerate the drive towards mechanization and automation. In 20 years fast food worker wages won't be a problem any more since there will only be a dozen or so in the country.

Gas pump jockeys were first, right now it's grocery store checkout clerks, and soon it will be burger flippers.

Good.  I'm all for a society where all the mindless drudgery is done by machines and a guaranteed basic income that can allow as many people as possible to focus on creative pursuits that will increase the number of artistic and technological breakthroughs.

[radicalunjobbing.files.wordpress.com image 452x433]
i concur.


I will concur as well with one caveat.  You be the one working and let me be one of the ten-thousand you support.  I will then agree to sit around and think happy thoughts and you can provide me with an nice comfy house, preferably near the sea.  Oh and cable, you really need to give me cable.
 
2014-04-23 09:08:39 AM  

R5D4: Although I do support fast food workers earning more money, it should be noted that any amount they do earn does not effect the salaries of CEOs.

Worker's payroll comes from the owner/operators of the individual stores, which often operate on very thin margins.

The operators are paying royalties the corporation, (in significant percentages often on top of to contributing to national advertising funds).

The CEO is being paid by the corporation, which is basically sitting on top of the pyramid.


Your own statement proves that they are related.  If the corporation didn't demand such high royalties (your own words were "significant percentages", and partially to cover the CEO salary), the individual stores could afford to pay their workers more, and probably make more profit at the same time.
 
2014-04-23 09:11:45 AM  
A machine can make a bigmac, keep crying and soon enough your entry level job will be nonexistent.
 
2014-04-23 09:12:59 AM  

midigod: R5D4: Although I do support fast food workers earning more money, it should be noted that any amount they do earn does not effect the salaries of CEOs.

Worker's payroll comes from the owner/operators of the individual stores, which often operate on very thin margins.

The operators are paying royalties the corporation, (in significant percentages often on top of to contributing to national advertising funds).

The CEO is being paid by the corporation, which is basically sitting on top of the pyramid.

Your own statement proves that they are related.  If the corporation didn't demand such high royalties (your own words were "significant percentages", and partially to cover the CEO salary), the individual stores could afford to pay their workers more, and probably make more profit at the same time.


If you remove the CEOs pay from all of the franchise fees, the avg bump in pay if that money was given to the employee would be around $150 a year.  A number  greater than zero I will give you that but at the end of the day it would account for about 1% of their wages.
 
2014-04-23 09:14:22 AM  

austin_millbarge: fusillade762: [37.media.tumblr.com image 500x625]

That guy has a very punchable face. And I haven't eaten a single one of his shiat pizzas since he took that stance.


It didn't seem to affect his bank account any..
 
2014-04-23 09:15:25 AM  

Gentoolive: A machine can make a bigmac, keep crying and soon enough your entry level job will be nonexistent.


Then when we are at 30% unemployment and people are stealing everything that isn't bolted down then what?  Be like China and build cities for the hell of it then just let them sit around rotting?
 
2014-04-23 09:16:14 AM  

teenage mutant ninja rapist: Time to tax all executive bonuses at 95%


Worked out well for the French..

Do you people understand business at all, or just autorage against anyone that makes more than you?
 
2014-04-23 09:17:25 AM  

kling_klang_bed: "But, but, but......... if we pay them more, we'll have to raise prices!"

That's the first answer you'd hear from these CEO's.


Welcome to the free market.

You guys really are lemmings..
 
2014-04-23 09:19:59 AM  

GoldSpider: What's with all the eat-the-rich circle-jerk threads today?


You haven't been paying attention to politics and the economy for the last thirty-five years, have you?
 
2014-04-23 09:22:18 AM  

SpectroBoy: [cdn-www.i-am-bored.com image 700x876]

But worst of all, he makes some seriously shiatty pizza. And THAT I can not forgive.


He actually owns 3 mansions around the country.

You start a billion dollar business out of your home and employy tens of thousands of people all over the world and you to can live in a mansion.


He's not some fat cat wallstreeter, or CEO who got his job/$$ via conenctions or was in the born lucky club. He was a guy like you or I who made a businees.

I think everyone should live like that. You think no one should.
 
2014-04-23 09:22:28 AM  

Mr. Oizo: If flipping burgers were simply a punch-the-clock job for live-at-home teens who eventually go on to long-term careers in other industries, I wouldn't have a problem with this.

For far too many people, however flipping burgers has become their career.  You can't expect someone to raise a family on minimum wage.


Perhaps they shouldn't be spitting out crotch fruit while working for minimum wage.

Lemmings, all of ya.
 
2014-04-23 09:25:12 AM  
Choices in life.... how do they work?

/jealousy is a biatch
 
2014-04-23 09:25:25 AM  

Saiga410: If you remove the CEOs pay from all of the franchise fees, the avg bump in pay if that money was given to the employee would be around $150 a year. A number greater than zero I will give you that but at the end of the day it would account for about 1% of their wages.


Well, at least you gave me something.  That's more than I can say for most people.  And so I tip my hat to you, sir.
 
2014-04-23 09:29:04 AM  

Danger Mouse: SpectroBoy: [cdn-www.i-am-bored.com image 700x876]

But worst of all, he makes some seriously shiatty pizza. And THAT I can not forgive.

He actually owns 3 mansions around the country.

You start a billion dollar business out of your home and employy tens of thousands of people all over the world and you to can live in a mansion.


You can also afford to insure your employees.
 
2014-04-23 09:38:55 AM  
Given that the minimum wage has gone up since 2000, there is zero chance that the pay of workers has declined.

Also, hourly workers don't have salaries.
 
2014-04-23 09:39:27 AM  

Gentoolive: kling_klang_bed: "But, but, but......... if we pay them more, we'll have to raise prices!"

That's the first answer you'd hear from these CEO's.

Welcome to the free market.

You guys really are lemmings..


Hey guys look, a free independent thinker showed up to shame us for blindly following conformist attitudes, that are...against the status quo?
 
2014-04-23 09:39:47 AM  

dmoynihan: Umm, low-skill workers can only demand so much these days before automation happens. Reducing regulations, so that one doesn't need to be a chain to handle the insane amounts of paperwork it often takes to open up a freaking pizza place would help a lot more when it comes to bringing down CEO pay (and increasing wages).[b-i.forbesimg.com image 850x566]


Offer us some examples of regulations you'd get rid of.  There are bound to be some regulations that legitimately need to go; but when the Plutocrat Party spews about deregulation, it always seems to be about getting rid of regulations against ripping off customers, putting employees at risk of life and limb or dumping poison into the air and water.

I doubt even Rush Limbaugh would have us entirely abolish chapter 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations.  That's the one that says, among other things, that I can't run a jammer on the frequency where Rush is shooting off his mouth.
 
2014-04-23 09:40:07 AM  

austin_millbarge: fusillade762: [37.media.tumblr.com image 500x625]

That guy has a very punchable face. And I haven't eaten a single one of his shiat pizzas since he took that stance. 2002.

 
2014-04-23 09:41:38 AM  

Frederick: Pocket Ninja: Um, subby? If they didn't lower workers' salaries, how would the companies be able to quadruple the salary of their CEO? Jesus, try thinking every now and then.

Well, they could add non-food stuffs to the food to lower costs.

/mmmm, yoga mats


Why are they putting bread chemicals in yoga mats?
 
2014-04-23 09:41:39 AM  

TNel: Gentoolive: A machine can make a bigmac, keep crying and soon enough your entry level job will be nonexistent.

Then when we are at 30% unemployment and people are stealing everything that isn't bolted down then what?  Be like China and build cities for the hell of it then just let them sit around rotting?


Perhaps they can go make 6 figures in the oil fields.

Oh, fartbongo's still preventing that.. Never mind, I guess they farking die.
 
2014-04-23 09:42:33 AM  

fusillade762: [37.media.tumblr.com image 500x625]


Amusing, because it demonstrates you have no idea what trickle down economics is.
 
2014-04-23 09:42:42 AM  

Tetrazphere: Frederick: demaL-demaL-yeH: whidbey: If we raise the minimum wage to 15.00 a Big Mac will cost 15 dollars.

Because somebody said so. Or something.

Oh, for fark's sake.
...
Now let's apply that only to the 25% of hourly workers making less than $14.50 an hour, and earn less than six percent (6%) of total US income: The inflationary effect of doubling minimum wage drops to less than 10%.


/Next step: Some math impaired, reality rejecting Austrian will enter the thread.
//Mark my words, whids: Some half-wit saying that, as an expert MBA, doubling minimum wage will double prices, guaran-damn-teed.

The whole "raising the minimum wage will just pass those costs on to the consumer"

No, they will hire SKILLED workers who are able to do the work of 2 unskilled workers, unemployment rises for those unskilled workers.


The problem with your 'replace-the-unskilled-with-skilled-workers' argument is that,frankly, it doesn't take very much skill to flip a burger. You're as good and efficient as you are going to get after about three months on the job.  The jobs are very limited in scope - simple tasks done repeatedly.  Increasing the wages of someone who has been in a burger-flipper job for more than a year is simply a loss to company. Wage increases after this point are given for reliability in attendance and working attitude rather than for increased contribution to profits of the company.

Places where skill is required for cooking are called restaurants.  Employees who utilize skill in preparation of food are called chefs, and, for some odd reason, are paid than the busboys and dishwashers who do simple tasks repeatedly.

As for increasing wages for fast-food workers, sure, why not? Those are jobs which can't be exported, right? And if we make all the companies do it, then nobody can ruin the game by offering cheaper prices.

OH WAIT! What's this?

http://www.businessinsider.com/burger-robot-could-revolutionize-fast -f ood-industry-2012-11

And just for fun, let's change 'could revolutionize' to 'have begun to revoluntionize'

http://singularityhub.com/2014/01/11/burritobox-joins-growing-number -o f-fast-food-making-robots/

Finally, if you are a burger flipper looking for a good paying job that doesn't require a college degree

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-03-20/skilled-welder-short ag e-looms-in-u-dot-s-dot-with-many-near-retirement


Hint: many companies will pay for your training too
 
2014-04-23 09:46:20 AM  

Mr. Oizo: If flipping burgers were simply a punch-the-clock job for live-at-home teens who eventually go on to long-term careers in other industries, I wouldn't have a problem with this.

For far too many people, however flipping burgers has become their career.  You can't expect someone to raise a family on minimum wage.


That is what those jobs are for. If people stupidly choose to try to leverage them otherwise, that is called freedom and they can do it. No one is able to prevent them from being stupid. That is what freedom is.

Porn sites are intended as places for adults to browse adult material, but for far too many teenage boys, porn sites have become their daily activity. We therefore must ban porn sites!
 
2014-04-23 09:50:12 AM  

Gentoolive: TNel: Gentoolive: A machine can make a bigmac, keep crying and soon enough your entry level job will be nonexistent.

Then when we are at 30% unemployment and people are stealing everything that isn't bolted down then what?  Be like China and build cities for the hell of it then just let them sit around rotting?

Perhaps they can go make 6 figures in the oil fields.

Oh, fartbongo's still preventing that.. Never mind, I guess they farking die.


We're producing more oil and gas than we have in decades.
 
2014-04-23 09:50:59 AM  
Fast food places and stores like Walmart are actually being responsible Democrats. See, if they paid workers more, they'd use that money for drugs and booze. Since they pay them less, their workers qualify for food stamps instead, which can only be used for food.


But the best part always is "Minimum wage isn't a living wage!! Derp!!" because it is so easy to disprove. First, people are not dying while working at McD or Walmart, so obviously it is a living wage. But. If these people weren't getting enough money for food and clothing, McD and Walmart would realize that paying more would lead to more sales at their own businesses. It would be a no brainer to get their bonuses, higher stock prices, etc. Which means that these people do earn exactly enough money for food, clothing and shelter, because it is not economically advantageous for their employers to pay them more.
 
2014-04-23 09:53:59 AM  

Bullseyed: Mr. Oizo: If flipping burgers were simply a punch-the-clock job for live-at-home teens who eventually go on to long-term careers in other industries, I wouldn't have a problem with this.

For far too many people, however flipping burgers has become their career.  You can't expect someone to raise a family on minimum wage.

That is what those jobs are for. If people stupidly choose to try to leverage them otherwise, that is called freedom and they can do it. No one is able to prevent them from being stupid. That is what freedom is.

Porn sites are intended as places for adults to browse adult material, but for far too many teenage boys, porn sites have become their daily activity. We therefore must ban porn sites!


Did you even bother to think about the argument you posted, or is being an intellectually dishonest prick so enjoyable that you couldn't pass up on the opportunity.
 
2014-04-23 10:07:28 AM  

Gentoolive: Perhaps they can go make 6 figures in the oil fields.

Oh, fartbongo's still preventing that.. Never mind, I guess they farking die.


*favorited!*
 
2014-04-23 10:11:33 AM  

Realist29: Since when does the CEO of these corporations set the wages of employees that are part of a FRANCHISE? They don't. That is up to the owner of said franchise. Just sayin'. Crappy analogy to tug at our heart strings.


Came here to say this as well.

/not in the business
//any idiot could figure this out
 
2014-04-23 10:17:05 AM  

Bullseyed: Fast food places and stores like Walmart are actually being responsible Democrats. See, if they paid workers more, they'd use that money for drugs and booze. Since they pay them less, their workers qualify for food stamps instead, which can only be used for food.


But the best part always is "Minimum wage isn't a living wage!! Derp!!" because it is so easy to disprove. First, people are not dying while working at McD or Walmart, so obviously it is a living wage. But. If these people weren't getting enough money for food and clothing, McD and Walmart would realize that paying more would lead to more sales at their own businesses. It would be a no brainer to get their bonuses, higher stock prices, etc. Which means that these people do earn exactly enough money for food, clothing and shelter, because it is not economically advantageous for their employers to pay them more.


Well, that was retarded.
 
2014-04-23 10:44:05 AM  
Almost none of the fast food workers around here speak English these days.

Everyone does know, I hope that the FF corporations don't own many of their own stores. Most of them are franchises.
 
2014-04-23 10:45:24 AM  
Well duh guys. The CEOs obviously figured out how to cut labor costs in both real and absolute terms. That right there is increasing their value to the company which should translate into more pay for them.

king_nacho: a good CEO that can run a large scale corporation is much harder to come by than a person that can create and serve food in a restaurant.


Be careful Mr. Strawman, you are standing awfully close to that candle!

balial: Presumably the CEO's salary is up 4x because there's 4x the number of stores and responsibility he/she is presiding over. The there's ample opportunity for workers to do 4x the hours and get the same benefit.

Why is this even a question?



There are 4x more fast food restaurants now than in 2000?

Excellent derp there.
 
2014-04-23 10:48:03 AM  

Cubansaltyballs: I used to eat at Papa John's, because it was convenient for me. After how he acted during the 2012 election and afterward, I'll never spend one red cent there.

I know, I know... I'm stifling his right to free speech, but that cum-lapping sh*tbag can eat a bag of dicks and die in a dumpster fire.


You're not stifling it; he's talking to you (by speaking in public), and you're responding to that by NOT speaking (keeping your money, which is speech) back to him.

This is how CEOs are much more effective than lower level workers.  It would take slightly late service or slightly inferior pizza weeks or months to lose a handful of customers.  CEOs, however, can alienate and lose thousands of potential customers all over the place in a very short amount of time.  Just look at how quickly that Ayn Rand follower guy killed Sears in about five years.  Could you destroy Sears any faster?  Do you think cashiers could destroy it faster?  CEOs are basically gods compared to us normal humans.  We need to cut their taxes; otherwise, we're taxing religion.
 
2014-04-23 10:54:23 AM  

Mr. Oizo: You can't expect someone to raise a family on minimum wage.


Why would we want poor people to raise families?

That's just more poor people.
 
2014-04-23 10:58:35 AM  

fusillade762: [37.media.tumblr.com image 500x625]


I'm not finding anything about him actually saying that, other than cached facebook BS.

citation needed?
 
2014-04-23 10:59:51 AM  

JackieRabbit: Almost none of the fast food workers around here speak English these days.

Everyone does know, I hope that the FF corporations don't own many of their own stores. Most of them are franchises.


No, they don't. Fark responders are primarily composed of DERP. Sympathetic responders to anti-corporate threads are Left-Wing DERP.

You'll find more Right-Wing DERP in the pro-gun threads.
 
2014-04-23 11:04:47 AM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: dmoynihan: Umm, low-skill workers can only demand so much these days before automation happens. Reducing regulations, so that one doesn't need to be a chain to handle the insane amounts of paperwork it often takes to open up a freaking pizza place would help a lot more when it comes to bringing down CEO pay (and increasing wages).[b-i.forbesimg.com image 850x566]

Offer us some examples of regulations you'd get rid of.  There are bound to be some regulations that legitimately need to go; but when the Plutocrat Party spews about deregulation, it always seems to be about getting rid of regulations against ripping off customers, putting employees at risk of life and limb or dumping poison into the air and water.

I doubt even Rush Limbaugh would have us entirely abolish chapter 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations.  That's the one that says, among other things, that I can't run a jammer on the frequency where Rush is shooting off his mouth.


Which is a damned pity, mainly because of the number of jammers and the power required to drown out his bloviation for all the poor souls trapped within listening range of the transmitters and relays for each and every market.
 
2014-04-23 11:05:34 AM  

Lokkii: Finally, if you are a burger flipper looking for a good paying job that doesn't require a college degree

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-03-20/skilled-welder-short ag e-looms-in-u-dot-s-dot-with-many-near-retirement


Oh, good!

To get in, you need a high school diploma or a GED, plus about $25,000 to cover the cost of tuition, books, and living expenses.

Oh, never mind!

I don't think this is something a single mother of three who speaks English as her second language can just pick up and do.

Because that's who fast food workers are.  At least, where I'm from.  Immigrant moms.
 
2014-04-23 11:06:23 AM  

kling_klang_bed: "But, but, but......... if we pay them more, we'll have to raise prices!"

That's the first answer you'd hear from these CEO's.


Fine, I'm willing to pay an extra buck for a cheeseburger to get your workers off the dole.

I'm tried of my tax dollars subsidizing artificially low wages.
 
2014-04-23 11:10:26 AM  

Frederick: Go ahead McDonalds, charge that $15 dollars for a hamburger to offset the minimum wage -see what happens.  McDonalds will either eat the costs of the wage raise in other areas; optimally in the disproportionate CEO salaries, or in other equally easily manageable areas like their ridiculous, superfluous advertising, or they'll go out of business and another product will fill the void with an actual business model that accommodates living wages.


Oh, sure.  They can pass the cost on.  It's up to the consumer to pay it.

However, if consumers decide that burgers served by people making a living wage  aren't worth the extra cost, and just stop eating at McDonald's, do you think that they will cut the C-level salaries?

Or would just get rid of the now-unnecessary workers?

Hmmm.  I wonder.  Would they hurt themselves, or would they hurt those they don't even consider "people," just "labor?"  Hmmm.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.
 
2014-04-23 11:12:18 AM  

shortymac: kling_klang_bed: "But, but, but......... if we pay them more, we'll have to raise prices!"

That's the first answer you'd hear from these CEO's.

Fine, I'm willing to pay an extra buck for a cheeseburger to get your workers off the dole.

I'm tried of my tax dollars subsidizing artificially low wages.


Easy, remove the subsidy.
 
2014-04-23 11:16:03 AM  

Saiga410: shortymac: kling_klang_bed: "But, but, but......... if we pay them more, we'll have to raise prices!"

That's the first answer you'd hear from these CEO's.

Fine, I'm willing to pay an extra buck for a cheeseburger to get your workers off the dole.

I'm tried of my tax dollars subsidizing artificially low wages.

Easy, remove the subsidy.



And watch people riot and starve during the 6 months it takes to stabilize wages? Bonus points because there are laws limiting worker's right to collectively bargain.

Perhaps a tax on companies whose employees receive government assistance to cover that amount would be in order. Don't want to pay the tax? Give your employees more money so they don't qualify for food stamps.
 
2014-04-23 11:16:53 AM  

sendtodave: Mr. Oizo: You can't expect someone to raise a family on minimum wage.

Why would we want poor people to raise families?

That's just more poor people.


You know, back when we didn't have to be reminded that we're all in this together, it was simplicity to demonstrate that the easiest way to make everybody better off was to pay a living wage to the poorest.
And after we implemented minimum wage and attempted to keep it mostly ahead of inflation, we had decades of growth, a growing middle class, and prosperity for everybody.
So we have a simple concept that really works; decades of real experience to show that it works; and decades of data and experience to show that doing the opposite kills off the middle class and reduces economic growth. But there are still people arguing for the stupid, counterproductive economic policies that turned this country from a majority middle-class country to a country where a third of us are one paycheck from the streets.
Most of us are really not enjoying the return of the age of Robber Barons and monopolies. Some of us, on the other hand, seem to be enamored with the idea of turning a middle class country into a country of wage slaves. Why is that?
 
2014-04-23 11:28:35 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Gentoolive: TNel: Gentoolive: A machine can make a bigmac, keep crying and soon enough your entry level job will be nonexistent.

Then when we are at 30% unemployment and people are stealing everything that isn't bolted down then what?  Be like China and build cities for the hell of it then just let them sit around rotting?

Perhaps they can go make 6 figures in the oil fields.

Oh, fartbongo's still preventing that.. Never mind, I guess they farking die.

We're producing more oil and gas than we have in decades.


in-spite of Obama, not because of
 
2014-04-23 11:33:37 AM  

Deep Contact: WhyteRaven74: dmoynihan: low-skill workers can only demand so much these days before automation happens.

Ah yes, just threaten them if they dare demand better for themselves.

Didn't seem like a threat. Just reality.


"We wont raise your wages because that would force us to look at our finances for several years from now and all we care about is next week's numbers. So if you dare want higher wages, which would damage our next week's numbers, then we'll go out of our way to pour loads of money into the research and application of automation, which is a long term finance issue which will lower next week's numbers, in order to remove you for to daring to question us and/or wanting better for yourself."
 
2014-04-23 11:34:33 AM  

anuran: Just another Heartland Weirdass: If you start paying the people who actually do the work then prices will get so high that they won't be able to buy the big macs they are making. Then everyone goes on welfare. If thats what you want you can move to Europe, but you should know my friend went there and said this guy told him he would rather live in the US because he had to wait in line to see a doctor once. If we weren't number one why would every person in the world want to live here.

They've done the math. Prices would rise less than five percent


They've done the literal math. The problem is never THAT simple. This is why a Big Mac in Texas is 3.89, where a Big Mac in Cali is 5.89. That's more than a 5% increase (and before you say taxes, the price is nearly the same in Oregon).
 
2014-04-23 11:38:23 AM  

king_nacho: a good CEO that can run a large scale corporation is much harder to come by than a person that can create and serve food in a restaurant.


Duh. However in the 1970s CEOs of large corporations made about 30 times the median pay of their workers. Now they make 300 times it. How is that remotely justifiable? What made a CEO worth several hundred times an average worker when they use to be worth far less?

It's simple. These assholes are a small club of super wealthy people who sit on each others' boards of directors and approve pay raises.

SpectroBoy: [cdn-www.i-am-bored.com image 700x876]

But worst of all, he makes some seriously shiatty pizza. And THAT I can not forgive.


Yeah, that guy's a dick.

Tetrazphere: Papa John Schnatter himself had $2,750,000 earnings in 2010, split that yearly earning with all 20,700 Papa John's employee's equally (they all deserve equal portions, not on actual value to the company) and everyone get's a check for $132.85. The guy who actually established the brand that is employing thousands of people is the bad guy? Insanity.


He's worth $600 million.Apparently 2010 was a slow year for him.
I guess you're also ignoring the shiat that comes out of his mouth. He's an ass.
 
2014-04-23 11:47:02 AM  

People_are_Idiots: anuran: Just another Heartland Weirdass: If you start paying the people who actually do the work then prices will get so high that they won't be able to buy the big macs they are making. Then everyone goes on welfare. If thats what you want you can move to Europe, but you should know my friend went there and said this guy told him he would rather live in the US because he had to wait in line to see a doctor once. If we weren't number one why would every person in the world want to live here.

They've done the math. Prices would rise less than five percent

They've done the literal math. The problem is never THAT simple. This is why a Big Mac in Texas is 3.89, where a Big Mac in Cali is 5.89. That's more than a 5% increase difference (and before you say taxes, the price is nearly the same in Oregon).


FTFY.  The difference in price already exists.  The increase in price for either wont be much more than 5% either way.
 
2014-04-23 12:02:39 PM  

Bullseyed: Given that the minimum wage has gone up since 2000, there is zero chance that the pay of workers has declined.

Also, hourly workers don't have salaries.


You forget our lovely friend inflation.

Also, many places fark around with hours to avoid full-time benefits. Obama lowered the "full-time" threshold from 40 to 35 hours. So instead of working 38 hours a week, they are working 32.

/Need a Canadian system
//Why should businesses pay for health care?
 
2014-04-23 12:11:18 PM  

GoldSpider: fusillade762:

I'd like to know more about that. Got a link?


Yeah someone has to make sure the name of some greedy shiatstain like John Schnatter isn't sullied by some naive eat-the-rich type Farker.

That someone is you, GoldSpider.
 
2014-04-23 12:11:43 PM  
This thread didn't have near as much "well, duh, why don't we just pay everyone 50 million dollars then!"  strawman derpidy doo as I expected.  Maybe because I made the mistake of reading the comments under CNN articles.

/don't do that
 
2014-04-23 12:20:06 PM  

Danger Mouse: He actually owns 3 mansions around the country.

You start a billion dollar business out of your home and employy tens of thousands of people all over the world and you to can live in a mansion.


He's not some fat cat wallstreeter, or CEO who got his job/$$ via conenctions or was in the born lucky club. He was a guy like you or I who made a businees.

I think everyone should live like that. You think no one should.


You got me. That was exactly my point and you have called me on it.

Well done.

You must be the smartest one in your class.
 
2014-04-23 12:20:32 PM  

shortymac: Also, many places fark around with hours to avoid full-time benefits. Obama lowered the "full-time" threshold from 40 to 35 hours. So instead of working 38 hours a week, they are working 32.


So it's Obama's fault business are greedy assholes?  So before ACA business were having people work 38 hours so they couldn't be called full time and get benefits.  So Obama says look assholes stop it, 35 hours is full time.  So what do the greedy assholes do?  Let's cut hours to 32 hours per week.

So we can lower it to 30 hours and the assholes will lower it to 28.... it's a never ending cycle with assholes.
 
2014-04-23 12:28:14 PM  
balial: Presumably the CEO's salary is up 4x because there's 4x the number of stores and responsibility he/she is presiding over. The there's ample opportunity for workers to do 4x the hours and get the same benefit.

Why is this even a question?


There are 4x more fast food restaurants now than in 2000?

Excellent derp there.


Thanks! I was trying my hardest.
 
2014-04-23 12:28:15 PM  

SpectroBoy: Danger Mouse: He actually owns 3 mansions around the country.

You start a billion dollar business out of your home and employy tens of thousands of people all over the world and you to can live in a mansion.


He's not some fat cat wallstreeter, or CEO who got his job/$$ via conenctions or was in the born lucky club. He was a guy like you or I who made a businees.

I think everyone should live like that. You think no one should.

You got me. That was exactly my point and you have called me on it.

Well done.

You must be the smartest one in your class.


That's weird.  I thought your point was that someone who lives that should't biatch about caring for his employees.  I'm glad this gentlemen came along and cleared that up, then.
 
2014-04-23 12:33:58 PM  

The Flexecutioner: The difference in price already exists. The increase in price for either wont be much more than 5% either way.


But usually it's driven by more than just market forces. It's driven by cost of living in the states and cost of shipping the product (in this case the "mystery meat") Cali has a definite higher cost of living than Texas ($120,000 can buy a 5-bedroom house brand new in Texas, where it'd barely buy an older 2-bed house in Cali), so to keep up as a business they have to pay the employees more (It does cost a bit more to train new employees than to retain old ones). Cost to ship usually only comes into play when you ship over longer distances (ie Alaska and Hawaii).
 
2014-04-23 12:37:14 PM  

king_nacho: a good CEO that can run a large scale corporation is much harder to come by than a person that can create and serve food in a restaurant.


But less hard to come buy than an medical doctor or an engineer.

Here's how you calculate the value of a CEO.

First invent a time machine.
Second let time pass until the CEO's involvement in the company ends (either quits, is fired, dies, or the company goes out of business). Measure the total profitability of the company, keep in mind investment of any kind is debt.
Rewind time, fire the CEO and don't replace him. The people that would report to him run the company democratically with each person getting one vote (senator-ally). Those CEO duties that aren't purely managerial are delegated to those that reported to him. Run the company until it goes out of business or the same amount of time has passed as the first timeline. Record profit in the same manner as the first timeline.
Rewind time again, fire the CEO and don't replace him. The people that would report to him run the company democratically with each person getting votes proportional to the people who report to them in aggregate (representational). Again run the timeline until the business fails or the same amount of time as the first timeline passes. And again record profits.

The maximum pay the CEO should get over the course of his tenure is the difference in profit from its timeline and the greater profit of the two democratic timelines. Note that it is possible that the CEO would actually have to pay money for the privilege if either of the two timelines make more money (unlikely). Now from this maximum we adjust pay downward based on supply and demand. Demand is extremely low at 1/large company but supply is ambiguous probably proportionate to the number of MBAs. Supply is also higher now because for the last 60 years computers have been automating the job of CEO. Couple that with the fact that the CEO is a non-critical job (i.e. you can run McDonald's democratically without a CEO but you can't run McDonald's without cooks, therefore cooks are critical while the CEO is not), and you probably end up with a mid-range five figure salary. Management simply doesn't not have the multiplicative effect of automation that engineering introduces (compare textile production pre and post the flying shuttle); therefore engineers are more valuable to the company than management. Couple that with higher demand and more or less equivalent supply, therefore engineers should likely make more money than CEOs in a capitalistic society.
 
2014-04-23 12:58:27 PM  

Cubansaltyballs: Sticky Hands: I'm sorry I did make it clear that I do not consider smash and grabbers as anything other than thieves. I do not measure success as what they take home, but how much better the company is than when they started.

But even if one did measure success by how much they take home... Mr Bezos is worth some 23 billion dollars... so there appears to be some correlation there.

yeah, but Amazon makes nothing.

My overall point is that I think the vast majority of CEOs are parasites that bring no value, increase nothing, and basically give themselves raised based on the inertia and brands that were built by someone else. Sears is a great example, so is lehman brothers.


We've got a BINGO.
i1.ytimg.com
 
2014-04-23 01:00:53 PM  

TNel: shortymac: Also, many places fark around with hours to avoid full-time benefits. Obama lowered the "full-time" threshold from 40 to 35 hours. So instead of working 38 hours a week, they are working 32.

So it's Obama's fault business are greedy assholes?  So before ACA business were having people work 38 hours so they couldn't be called full time and get benefits.  So Obama says look assholes stop it, 35 hours is full time.  So what do the greedy assholes do?  Let's cut hours to 32 hours per week.

So we can lower it to 30 hours and the assholes will lower it to 28.... it's a never ending cycle with assholes.


I'm not saying it's Obama's "fault" that people are greedy assholes.

I was trying to explain why fast food workers wages have declined given the increases. No politics, just numbers.

/Don't like Obamacare, we need to get with the program and get Single-Payer
//Loving my Canadian healthcare
///I have no idea why businesses are anti-SP, they spend so much money on insurance it's ridiculous!
 
2014-04-23 01:08:20 PM  

shortymac: I'm not saying it's Obama's "fault" that people are greedy assholes.


I figured that and I wanted to revise the wording a bit but forgot by the end.
 
2014-04-23 01:09:50 PM  
Nah, it's okay.  As I understand it, being poor is a choice.  These people just need to choose to make more money.  Like these CEOs, for instance, chose to make LOTS more money.
 
2014-04-23 01:22:16 PM  

Joe Blowme: HotWingConspiracy: Gentoolive: TNel: Gentoolive: A machine can make a bigmac, keep crying and soon enough your entry level job will be nonexistent.

Then when we are at 30% unemployment and people are stealing everything that isn't bolted down then what?  Be like China and build cities for the hell of it then just let them sit around rotting?

Perhaps they can go make 6 figures in the oil fields.

Oh, fartbongo's still preventing that.. Never mind, I guess they farking die.

We're producing more oil and gas than we have in decades.

in-spite of Obama, not because of


That doesn't make any sense.
 
2014-04-23 01:42:13 PM  

People_are_Idiots: The Flexecutioner: The difference in price already exists. The increase in price for either wont be much more than 5% either way.

But usually it's driven by more than just market forces. It's driven by cost of living in the states and cost of shipping the product (in this case the "mystery meat") Cali has a definite higher cost of living than Texas ($120,000 can buy a 5-bedroom house brand new in Texas, where it'd barely buy an older 2-bed house in Cali), so to keep up as a business they have to pay the employees more (It does cost a bit more to train new employees than to retain old ones). Cost to ship usually only comes into play when you ship over longer distances (ie Alaska and Hawaii).


None of that has anything to do with how 5% increase is inaccurate.  All of those things are already known and accounted for as a cost of doing business somewhere.  Maybe that 5% becomes 7 or 8 as an adjustment based on the state but going from $5.89 to either $6.25 or $6.33 wont mean squat to the consumer.  They'll still buy them and workers will still get a pay increase.
 
2014-04-23 01:43:32 PM  

Brainsick: Bonzo_1116: Yeah_Right: I case anyone hasn't done the math....

CEO make $22,000,000
Yum Brands has about 17,000 fast food stores (KFC, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut combined)
Assume there are ~10 fast food workers at each store.
Take every last dime from the CEO's compensation and divvy it up among the workers...

22,000,000/177000 =  and extra $124.30 per year.

Feel better yet...?

The $22,000,000.00 would be better spent researching how to keep the inner hard shell crunchy on their multi-layered taco things.

$1294.11 without adding an extra 70,000 franchises into your math...

Your point is still stupid because it's not a 1/1 exchange. CEO's get things like company cars (sometimes with a driver), paid accomodations when they travel, benefits packages that often include perks like (personal) cars, houses, and stock portfolio's...there's a lot more to what a Fortune 1000 CEO 'makes' than their salary


/college football and basketball coaches are even more greedy


And the point here is even more stupid because even if you double your 1294.11 you still don't take an every employee from minimum wage to anything that resembles a middle class salary.

Which is fine, because minimum wage jobs should not be middle class. Call me what you will, but the janitor who vacuums after the <insert professional trained occupation here> gets done for the day should not make as much as a said professional with years of training and experience. Unskilled labor by definition is not worth as much because it requires no skill.

The same goes for pulling a basket of fries out of the grease, flipping burgers etc. If your cash register has pictures rather than numbers, perhaps you are not expected to be as sharp as a tack.
 
2014-04-23 01:44:30 PM  

nocturnal001: Saiga410: shortymac: kling_klang_bed: "But, but, but......... if we pay them more, we'll have to raise prices!"

That's the first answer you'd hear from these CEO's.

Fine, I'm willing to pay an extra buck for a cheeseburger to get your workers off the dole.

I'm tried of my tax dollars subsidizing artificially low wages.

Easy, remove the subsidy.


And watch people riot and starve during the 6 months it takes to stabilize wages? Bonus points because there are laws limiting worker's right to collectively bargain.

Perhaps a tax on companies whose employees receive government assistance to cover that amount would be in order. Don't want to pay the tax? Give your employees more money so they don't qualify for food stamps.


"Riot and starve". Yeah, whatever.

But let's say that ridiculous speculation is correct. Just phase the subsidies out over 6 mos. to match the "stabilization of wages". Heck, I'll generously grant you a 12 month phase out. That should be plenty of time for wages to adjust, if you are correct that such subsidies actually facilitate low wages.
 
2014-04-23 01:47:57 PM  

Thallone1: ... but the janitor who vacuums after the <insert professional trained occupation here> gets done for the day should not make as much as a said professional with years of training and experience

, suggested no one ever.

FTFY.  Extrapolate much?
 
2014-04-23 01:48:34 PM  
weird.  that's not at all what my post looked like before hitting 'enter'.
 
kab
2014-04-23 01:49:27 PM  

ImpendingCynic: MrBallou: If those workers want a decent wage, they should study and all become CEOs themselves.

I know you're being snarky, but this is what many people believe, and it's the great lie of our system.


Exactly.   There is, and will continue to be, fewer well paying jobs than there are people who can do them.   I do recall the great trend here for a while was parroting the notion that if you aren't going to college for an engineering degree, you're wasting your money, since they're in incredible demand.

Not so fast:   http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-is-a-myth

America has a somewhat delusional love affair with the success story, and simply doesn't ever want to hear that these aren't majority cases, or that circumstances beyond sheer talent played a part.   It's true in arts and entertainment (ie, Dave Grohl preaching that "anyone can do this!"), it's true in sports, and certainly true in the economy.

Debeo Summa Credo: No, just some clown who thinks a manager of a few convenience stores could run GE or Morgan Stanley or International Paper.


Do tell, what decisions do you think the CEO of any of these companies makes all by himself?
 
2014-04-23 01:53:34 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: nocturnal001: Saiga410: shortymac: kling_klang_bed: "But, but, but......... if we pay them more, we'll have to raise prices!"

That's the first answer you'd hear from these CEO's.

Fine, I'm willing to pay an extra buck for a cheeseburger to get your workers off the dole.

I'm tried of my tax dollars subsidizing artificially low wages.

Easy, remove the subsidy.


And watch people riot and starve during the 6 months it takes to stabilize wages? Bonus points because there are laws limiting worker's right to collectively bargain.

Perhaps a tax on companies whose employees receive government assistance to cover that amount would be in order. Don't want to pay the tax? Give your employees more money so they don't qualify for food stamps.

"Riot and starve". Yeah, whatever.

But let's say that ridiculous speculation is correct. Just phase the subsidies out over 6 mos. to match the "stabilization of wages". Heck, I'll generously grant you a 12 month phase out. That should be plenty of time for wages to adjust, if you are correct that such subsidies actually facilitate low wages.


Bass ackwards. Completely bass-ackwards. The subsidies are what make the below poverty compensation possible. Wages will not adjust when there are still three applicants for every open position. Hell, it's harder to get hired at Walmart in Washington DC than it is to get into Harvard, based on the percentage of applicants accepted.

Bottom line: Taking the subsidies away still leaves the power in the hands of the company.

And your repeated "challenge" is conclusive proof that you can't even apply the extremely simple and basic economic principle of supply and demand to a potato simple real-life situation.
 
2014-04-23 01:53:54 PM  

kab: ImpendingCynic: MrBallou:

Do tell, what decisions do you think the CEO of any of these companies makes all by himself?


For one, what kind of golf ball they'll be playing with on that outing to schmooze vendors, investors, etc.  Don't forget they also need to know which Rolex to coordinate with any ensemble.  It takes a HIGH level of skill to make these decisions.
 
2014-04-23 01:56:15 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: But let's say that ridiculous speculation is correct. Just phase the subsidies out over 6 mos. to match the "stabilization of wages". Heck, I'll generously grant you a 12 month phase out. That should be plenty of time for wages to adjust, if you are correct that such subsidies actually facilitate low wages.


easier to just force companies to pay more using minimum wage law and their workers simply won't qualify for subsidies at that point.
 
2014-04-23 01:56:22 PM  

rwdavis: king_nacho: a good CEO that can run a large scale corporation is much harder to come by than a person that can create and serve food in a restaurant.

But less hard to come buy than an medical doctor or an engineer.

Here's how you calculate the value of a CEO.

First invent a time machine.
Second let time pass until the CEO's involvement in the company ends (either quits, is fired, dies, or the company goes out of business). Measure the total profitability of the company, keep in mind investment of any kind is debt.
Rewind time, fire the CEO and don't replace him. The people that would report to him run the company democratically with each person getting one vote (senator-ally). Those CEO duties that aren't purely managerial are delegated to those that reported to him. Run the company until it goes out of business or the same amount of time has passed as the first timeline. Record profit in the same manner as the first timeline.
Rewind time again, fire the CEO and don't replace him. The people that would report to him run the company democratically with each person getting votes proportional to the people who report to them in aggregate (representational). Again run the timeline until the business fails or the same amount of time as the first timeline passes. And again record profits.

The maximum pay the CEO should get over the course of his tenure is the difference in profit from its timeline and the greater profit of the two democratic timelines. Note that it is possible that the CEO would actually have to pay money for the privilege if either of the two timelines make more money (unlikely). Now from this maximum we adjust pay downward based on supply and demand. Demand is extremely low at 1/large company but supply is ambiguous probably proportionate to the number of MBAs. Supply is also higher now because for the last 60 years computers have been automating the job of CEO. Couple that with the fact that the CEO is a non-critical job (i.e. you can run McDonald's democratically without a CEO but you can't run McDonald's without cooks, therefore cooks are critical while the CEO is not), and you probably end up with a mid-range five figure salary. Management simply doesn't not have the multiplicative effect of automation that engineering introduces (compare textile production pre and post the flying shuttle); therefore engineers are more valuable to the company than management. Couple that with higher demand and more or less equivalent supply, therefore engineers should likely make more money than CEOs in a capitalistic society.


Here's how you calculate the value of a CEO (or any other employee): take whatever his employer (or any other prospective employer) is willing to pay the employee/CEO and multiply by 1.
 
2014-04-23 02:02:07 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Here's how you calculate the value of a CEO (or any other employee): take whatever his employer (or any other prospective employer) is willing to pay the employee/CEO and multiply by 1.


Alternative method: Calculate the employee's direct contribution to revenue on a goods produced/services sold basis.

Used to be, back Before Reagan, the increased revenue from increased productivity was pretty much evenly shared among all stakeholders alike - worker bees, management, and stockholders. And all of society prospered and the economy grew faster than it has since.
 
2014-04-23 02:04:19 PM  
It all looks the same in the cubicle in the IT Dept.
 
2014-04-23 02:08:35 PM  

Headso: Debeo Summa Credo: But let's say that ridiculous speculation is correct. Just phase the subsidies out over 6 mos. to match the "stabilization of wages". Heck, I'll generously grant you a 12 month phase out. That should be plenty of time for wages to adjust, if you are correct that such subsidies actually facilitate low wages.

easier to just force companies to pay more using minimum wage law and their workers simply won't qualify for subsidies at that point.


LOL. No, it's easier to eliminate the problem causing subsidy in the first place rather than place regulations to counteract the problem subsidy.

When is it easier to fix a problem than to avoid the problem in the first place?

Not to mention, clearly there are difficult political issues in raising the minimum wage. Tough to make any headway there. You guys could fool the GOP by proposing a plan to cut these subsidies. They love cutting this type of spending, so they'll go for it easy. But what they won't know is that you're only cutting food stamps etc. because we know that absent them, big companies like Walmart and fast food will be forced to pay higher wages. LOL stupid GOP!!! They don't know economics like fark does.
 
2014-04-23 02:12:25 PM  

 Debeo Summa Credo: LOL. No, it's easier to eliminate the problem causing subsidy in the first place rather than place regulations to counteract the problem subsidy.


why is that "easier"? please elaborate...
 
2014-04-23 02:22:04 PM  
I make my own pizza, so I don't care about Papa John's crappy pizza. Or Domino's or Pizza Hut and their sodium laden pizzas, that are too salty to eat.
 
2014-04-23 02:26:37 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: nocturnal001: Saiga410: shortymac: kling_klang_bed: "But, but, but......... if we pay them more, we'll have to raise prices!"

That's the first answer you'd hear from these CEO's.

Fine, I'm willing to pay an extra buck for a cheeseburger to get your workers off the dole.

I'm tried of my tax dollars subsidizing artificially low wages.

Easy, remove the subsidy.


And watch people riot and starve during the 6 months it takes to stabilize wages? Bonus points because there are laws limiting worker's right to collectively bargain.

Perhaps a tax on companies whose employees receive government assistance to cover that amount would be in order. Don't want to pay the tax? Give your employees more money so they don't qualify for food stamps.

"Riot and starve". Yeah, whatever.

But let's say that ridiculous speculation is correct. Just phase the subsidies out over 6 mos. to match the "stabilization of wages". Heck, I'll generously grant you a 12 month phase out. That should be plenty of time for wages to adjust, if you are correct that such subsidies actually facilitate low wages.


So you don't think that ending all government support overnight would cause starvation or probably riots?

Whelp, since you obviously don't pay attention to what has happened before when these benefits are even slightly decreased in other nations this conversation is kinda pointless.
 
2014-04-23 02:42:02 PM  

The Flexecutioner: None of that has anything to do with how 5% increase is inaccurate. All of those things are already known and accounted for as a cost of doing business somewhere. Maybe that 5% becomes 7 or 8 as an adjustment based on the state but going from $5.89 to either $6.25 or $6.33 wont mean squat to the consumer. They'll still buy them and workers will still get a pay increase.


Accounted for, meaning passing the cost to the consumer, hence the almost 52% increase from Texas to California. You have to think in a business sense: When you have a small increase do to some political wrangling, you double it (or triple, or in this case... decuple) and pass the cost to the consumer as a way of defiance. So yeah, your employees make more money, but then... they STILL can't afford any more than the "dollar menu."
 
2014-04-23 03:03:24 PM  

whidbey: Yeah someone has to make sure the name of some greedy shiatstain like John Schnatter isn't sullied by some naive eat-the-rich type Farker.


You know, Schnatter has said some stupid, farked-up things (and that lie on the Facebook image that was posted is not one of them), but it's hard to argue that the man isn't a good example of how hard, dogged determination could at one time lead to success if it just happened to cross paths with opportunity.

I think it's naive the way people latch onto him as an example of corporatism and greed gone wild. Yes, he's a greedy dickhole. Yes, he holds the sort of self-important holier-than-thou attitude of a lot of the rich that have completely lost all perspective on life from inside their little gilded bubbles. But as stories go of the American dream, he's actually a hell of a lot closer to a rags-to-riches fairy tail than you're going to find in most of the worthless chaff that our country has made wealthy through the application of nothing. At least he actually built up a business that produces something. That's a hell of a lot more than you can say for the most of the garbage on most investment banks' payrolls or the brainless "entertainers" we've decided to venerate in our modern-day minstrel shows.

I'm not going to buy his crap (mostly because there's a good pizza joint literally around the corner from me that makes real pizza that's far better and cheaper, but I like to pretend it's a moral stand), but as modern day gilded assholes go, you'd have to work your way faaaar down my list before I would start glowering at him and his stupid, selfish, hateful comments about his own workers. There's a hell of a lot of other people out there doing less, making more and treating their workers just as badly, after all.
 
2014-04-23 03:07:21 PM  

People_are_Idiots: The Flexecutioner: None of that has anything to do with how 5% increase is inaccurate. All of those things are already known and accounted for as a cost of doing business somewhere. Maybe that 5% becomes 7 or 8 as an adjustment based on the state but going from $5.89 to either $6.25 or $6.33 wont mean squat to the consumer. They'll still buy them and workers will still get a pay increase.

Accounted for, meaning passing the cost to the consumer, hence the almost 52% increase from Texas to California. You have to think in a business sense: When you have a small increase do to some political wrangling, you double it (or triple, or in this case... decuple) and pass the cost to the consumer as a way of defiance. So yeah, your employees make more money, but then... they STILL can't afford any more than the "dollar menu."


No, accounted for, as in already understood what those costs ALREADY are.  As in, the discrepancy between Texas/Cali already exists regardless of any wage changes and that the wage changes will change none of that discrepancy.
 
2014-04-23 03:25:13 PM  

TNel: shortymac: I'm not saying it's Obama's "fault" that people are greedy assholes.

I figured that and I wanted to revise the wording a bit but forgot by the end.


Yeah on seconding reading I realize my wording wasn't obvious, redo:

A lot of fast food companies fark with employee hours to prevent a worker from being "full-time", to avoid various legal requirements.

In 2000, full-time was 40 hours a week, a lot of places would have someone work no more than 38 hours
Obama changed it from 40 hours to 35, a lot of places responded by cutting hours to 33

Now, the problem is that labor costs are an easy to track so management tends to focus on it way too much on it, instead of something like customer service.

Mix that in with the short sighted strategy of linking CEO pay to stock price, labor costs have a target on them if they are performing per quarter.
 
2014-04-23 03:28:08 PM  

Pick: I make my own pizza, so I don't care about Papa John's crappy pizza. Or Domino's or Pizza Hut and their sodium laden pizzas, that are too salty to eat.


I love their garlic dipping sauce though... do you have a recipe?

/Not snarky, serious
 
2014-04-23 03:36:06 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Debeo Summa Credo: Here's how you calculate the value of a CEO (or any other employee): take whatever his employer (or any other prospective employer) is willing to pay the employee/CEO and multiply by 1.

Alternative method: Calculate the employee's direct contribution to revenue on a goods produced/services sold basis.

Used to be, back Before Reagan, the increased revenue from increased productivity was pretty much evenly shared among all stakeholders alike - worker bees, management, and stockholders. And all of society prospered and the economy grew faster than it has since.


I think we're at a turning point here, wages haven't kept up with inflation for a long time and big business is going to start hurting soon when no one can afford to buy their stuff.

Cheap credit for everyone was a stop-gap measure and everyone is tapped out.

/I hope everyone can get their heads of their asses to fix it
 
2014-04-23 04:08:38 PM  

shortymac: demaL-demaL-yeH: Debeo Summa Credo: Here's how you calculate the value of a CEO (or any other employee): take whatever his employer (or any other prospective employer) is willing to pay the employee/CEO and multiply by 1.

Alternative method: Calculate the employee's direct contribution to revenue on a goods produced/services sold basis.

Used to be, back Before Reagan, the increased revenue from increased productivity was pretty much evenly shared among all stakeholders alike - worker bees, management, and stockholders. And all of society prospered and the economy grew faster than it has since.

I think we're at a turning point here, wages haven't kept up with inflation for a long time and big business is going to start hurting soon when no one can afford to buy their stuff.

Cheap credit for everyone was a stop-gap measure and everyone is tapped out.

/I hope everyone can get their heads of their asses to fix it


You'd think that after three and a half decades of gutting management and UCIA(unsolicited corporation in anus)-ing the worker bees, they'd figure some of this out.
But then you have obvious tripe, like that shiat out by Capitalist pig latin, which is digested whole by entire sectors of the population, including an unhealthy majority of Wall Street (which goes a long way toward explaining the Great Recession). That anybody publicly espousing Reaganomics isn't immediately put down by a crowd toting a rail, feathers and hot tar is just mind-buggering.
 
2014-04-23 04:12:58 PM  

nocturnal001: Debeo Summa Credo: nocturnal001: Saiga410: shortymac: kling_klang_bed: "But, but, but......... if we pay them more, we'll have to raise prices!"

That's the first answer you'd hear from these CEO's.

Fine, I'm willing to pay an extra buck for a cheeseburger to get your workers off the dole.

I'm tried of my tax dollars subsidizing artificially low wages.

Easy, remove the subsidy.


And watch people riot and starve during the 6 months it takes to stabilize wages? Bonus points because there are laws limiting worker's right to collectively bargain.

Perhaps a tax on companies whose employees receive government assistance to cover that amount would be in order. Don't want to pay the tax? Give your employees more money so they don't qualify for food stamps.

"Riot and starve". Yeah, whatever.

But let's say that ridiculous speculation is correct. Just phase the subsidies out over 6 mos. to match the "stabilization of wages". Heck, I'll generously grant you a 12 month phase out. That should be plenty of time for wages to adjust, if you are correct that such subsidies actually facilitate low wages.

So you don't think that ending all government support overnight would cause starvation or probably riots?

Whelp, since you obviously don't pay attention to what has happened before when these benefits are even slightly decreased in other nations this conversation is kinda pointless.


We're not eliminating all government support. Just the portion that goes to supplement people with jobs. And I'm offering a one year phase out period, which is twice the time you estimate is needed for wages to "adjust".
 
2014-04-23 04:18:36 PM  

The Flexecutioner: People_are_Idiots: The Flexecutioner: None of that has anything to do with how 5% increase is inaccurate. All of those things are already known and accounted for as a cost of doing business somewhere. Maybe that 5% becomes 7 or 8 as an adjustment based on the state but going from $5.89 to either $6.25 or $6.33 wont mean squat to the consumer. They'll still buy them and workers will still get a pay increase.

Accounted for, meaning passing the cost to the consumer, hence the almost 52% increase from Texas to California. You have to think in a business sense: When you have a small increase do to some political wrangling, you double it (or triple, or in this case... decuple) and pass the cost to the consumer as a way of defiance. So yeah, your employees make more money, but then... they STILL can't afford any more than the "dollar menu."

No, accounted for, as in already understood what those costs ALREADY are.  As in, the discrepancy between Texas/Cali already exists regardless of any wage changes and that the wage changes will change none of that discrepancy.


The discrepancy will remain but higher wages in both places would result in higher prices in both places.
 
2014-04-23 04:19:25 PM  

king_nacho: a good CEO that can run a large scale corporation is much harder to come by than a person that can create and serve food in a restaurant.


Evidently it is pretty easy to find a CEO that will run your company into the ground, too.

http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/executive-excess-2013
 
2014-04-23 04:32:12 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: nocturnal001: Debeo Summa Credo: nocturnal001: Saiga410: shortymac: kling_klang_bed: "But, but, but......... if we pay them more, we'll have to raise prices!"

That's the first answer you'd hear from these CEO's.

Fine, I'm willing to pay an extra buck for a cheeseburger to get your workers off the dole.

I'm tried of my tax dollars subsidizing artificially low wages.

Easy, remove the subsidy.


And watch people riot and starve during the 6 months it takes to stabilize wages? Bonus points because there are laws limiting worker's right to collectively bargain.

Perhaps a tax on companies whose employees receive government assistance to cover that amount would be in order. Don't want to pay the tax? Give your employees more money so they don't qualify for food stamps.

"Riot and starve". Yeah, whatever.

But let's say that ridiculous speculation is correct. Just phase the subsidies out over 6 mos. to match the "stabilization of wages". Heck, I'll generously grant you a 12 month phase out. That should be plenty of time for wages to adjust, if you are correct that such subsidies actually facilitate low wages.

So you don't think that ending all government support overnight would cause starvation or probably riots?

Whelp, since you obviously don't pay attention to what has happened before when these benefits are even slightly decreased in other nations this conversation is kinda pointless.

We're not eliminating all government support. Just the portion that goes to supplement people with jobs. And I'm offering a one year phase out period, which is twice the time you estimate is needed for wages to "adjust".


So, then you admit that simply ending this support would be disastrous. Good. Then your derision directed towards my riot and starve comment is taken back.

Wages would have to adjust though right? If you are a person barely getting by on food stamps plus $6 an hour from Wal Mart, are you going to just show up Monday morning knowing that that $6 won't be enough to get by on now that food stamps are gone?

No. You are going to say screw it and try to collect other forms of welfare, you are going to burn some shiat, or you are going to show up at Wal Mart with a few hundred other employees and demand a raise to $10 an hour.
 
2014-04-23 04:49:56 PM  

nocturnal001: Debeo Summa Credo: nocturnal001: Debeo Summa Credo: nocturnal001: Saiga410: shortymac: kling_klang_bed: "But, but, but......... if we pay them more, we'll have to raise prices!"

That's the first answer you'd hear from these CEO's.

Fine, I'm willing to pay an extra buck for a cheeseburger to get your workers off the dole.

I'm tried of my tax dollars subsidizing artificially low wages.

Easy, remove the subsidy.


And watch people riot and starve during the 6 months it takes to stabilize wages? Bonus points because there are laws limiting worker's right to collectively bargain.

Perhaps a tax on companies whose employees receive government assistance to cover that amount would be in order. Don't want to pay the tax? Give your employees more money so they don't qualify for food stamps.

"Riot and starve". Yeah, whatever.

But let's say that ridiculous speculation is correct. Just phase the subsidies out over 6 mos. to match the "stabilization of wages". Heck, I'll generously grant you a 12 month phase out. That should be plenty of time for wages to adjust, if you are correct that such subsidies actually facilitate low wages.

So you don't think that ending all government support overnight would cause starvation or probably riots?

Whelp, since you obviously don't pay attention to what has happened before when these benefits are even slightly decreased in other nations this conversation is kinda pointless.

We're not eliminating all government support. Just the portion that goes to supplement people with jobs. And I'm offering a one year phase out period, which is twice the time you estimate is needed for wages to "adjust".

So, then you admit that simply ending this support would be disastrous. Good. Then your derision directed towards my riot and starve comment is taken back.

Wages would have to adjust though right? If you are a person barely getting by on food stamps plus $6 an hour from Wal Mart, are you going to just show up Monday morning knowing that that $6 won't be enough to get by on now that food stamps are gone?

No. You are going to say screw it and try to collect other forms of welfare, you are going to burn some shiat, or you are going to show up at Wal Mart with a few hundred other employees and demand a raise to $10 an hour.


First off, nobody makes $6 per hour anymore. Before you start calling for an increase in minimum wage maybe have an idea what it is now.

And the workers would still show up (they dont want to lose their wages and their benefits). In fact, it is likely that in the absence of benefits, workers would want more hours to make up for the lost benefits. Contrary to the ridiculous theory that public benefits subsidize walmarts wage cost, the opposite is true. Absent govt benefits, labor supplied would go up.
 
2014-04-23 04:56:36 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: nocturnal001: Debeo Summa Credo: nocturnal001: Debeo Summa Credo: nocturnal001: Saiga410: shortymac: kling_klang_bed: "But, but, but......... if we pay them more, we'll have to raise prices!"

That's the first answer you'd hear from these CEO's.

Fine, I'm willing to pay an extra buck for a cheeseburger to get your workers off the dole.

I'm tried of my tax dollars subsidizing artificially low wages.

Easy, remove the subsidy.


And watch people riot and starve during the 6 months it takes to stabilize wages? Bonus points because there are laws limiting worker's right to collectively bargain.

Perhaps a tax on companies whose employees receive government assistance to cover that amount would be in order. Don't want to pay the tax? Give your employees more money so they don't qualify for food stamps.

"Riot and starve". Yeah, whatever.

But let's say that ridiculous speculation is correct. Just phase the subsidies out over 6 mos. to match the "stabilization of wages". Heck, I'll generously grant you a 12 month phase out. That should be plenty of time for wages to adjust, if you are correct that such subsidies actually facilitate low wages.

So you don't think that ending all government support overnight would cause starvation or probably riots?

Whelp, since you obviously don't pay attention to what has happened before when these benefits are even slightly decreased in other nations this conversation is kinda pointless.

We're not eliminating all government support. Just the portion that goes to supplement people with jobs. And I'm offering a one year phase out period, which is twice the time you estimate is needed for wages to "adjust".

So, then you admit that simply ending this support would be disastrous. Good. Then your derision directed towards my riot and starve comment is taken back.

Wages would have to adjust though right? If you are a person barely getting by on food stamps plus $6 an hour from Wal Mart, are you going to just show up Monday morning knowing ...



Are we quibbling over the dollar amount now? Fine. The average wal mart associate makes $8.81.

Yes, people are going to show up and be peachy with a job that now doesn't pay them enough to get by on. Right.

Also what sort of world do you live in where a worker at that level can just show up and ask for more hours? Even if they could, it's not like all of them could get those extra hours. That's not a theory, it's a fact. Those workers would not be there if not for the government subsidies they receive. You can debate if that is Wal Mart's fault, but without that assistance some sort of action would occur (unionizing, forcing a higher min wage etc.)   that would prevent Wal Mart from using their current business model of paying their workers so little they are literally in poverty.
 
2014-04-23 05:04:51 PM  

skozlaw: whidbey: Yeah someone has to make sure the name of some greedy shiatstain like John Schnatter isn't sullied by some naive eat-the-rich type Farker.

You know, Schnatter has said some stupid, farked-up things (and that lie on the Facebook image that was posted is not one of them), but it's hard to argue that the man isn't a good example of how hard, dogged determination could at one time lead to success if it just happened to cross paths with opportunity.

I think it's naive the way people latch onto him as an example of corporatism and greed gone wild. Yes, he's a greedy dickhole. Yes, he holds the sort of self-important holier-than-thou attitude of a lot of the rich that have completely lost all perspective on life from inside their little gilded bubbles. But as stories go of the American dream, he's actually a hell of a lot closer to a rags-to-riches fairy tail than you're going to find in most of the worthless chaff that our country has made wealthy through the application of nothing. At least he actually built up a business that produces something. That's a hell of a lot more than you can say for the most of the garbage on most investment banks' payrolls or the brainless "entertainers" we've decided to venerate in our modern-day minstrel shows.

I'm not going to buy his crap (mostly because there's a good pizza joint literally around the corner from me that makes real pizza that's far better and cheaper, but I like to pretend it's a moral stand), but as modern day gilded assholes go, you'd have to work your way faaaar down my list before I would start glowering at him and his stupid, selfish, hateful comments about his own workers. There's a hell of a lot of other people out there doing less, making more and treating their workers just as badly, after all.


If Schnatter is truly "rags to riches" as you say, then he shouldn't have any problem providing health care to his employees.

The truth is when you publicly flaunt your greedy dickbag persona, there are consequences. I mean, who knows? Maybe in 5-10 years someone like Schnatter might be forced to resign for having such a rude anti-humanist worldview.
 
2014-04-23 05:25:12 PM  

nocturnal001: Debeo Summa Credo: nocturnal001: Debeo Summa Credo: nocturnal001: Debeo Summa Credo: nocturnal001: Saiga410: shortymac: kling_klang_bed: "But, but, but......... if we pay them more, we'll have to raise prices!"

That's the first answer you'd hear from these CEO's.

Fine, I'm willing to pay an extra buck for a cheeseburger to get your workers off the dole.

I'm tried of my tax dollars subsidizing artificially low wages.

Easy, remove the subsidy.


And watch people riot and starve during the 6 months it takes to stabilize wages? Bonus points because there are laws limiting worker's right to collectively bargain.

Perhaps a tax on companies whose employees receive government assistance to cover that amount would be in order. Don't want to pay the tax? Give your employees more money so they don't qualify for food stamps.

"Riot and starve". Yeah, whatever.

But let's say that ridiculous speculation is correct. Just phase the subsidies out over 6 mos. to match the "stabilization of wages". Heck, I'll generously grant you a 12 month phase out. That should be plenty of time for wages to adjust, if you are correct that such subsidies actually facilitate low wages.

So you don't think that ending all government support overnight would cause starvation or probably riots?

Whelp, since you obviously don't pay attention to what has happened before when these benefits are even slightly decreased in other nations this conversation is kinda pointless.

We're not eliminating all government support. Just the portion that goes to supplement people with jobs. And I'm offering a one year phase out period, which is twice the time you estimate is needed for wages to "adjust".

So, then you admit that simply ending this support would be disastrous. Good. Then your derision directed towards my riot and starve comment is taken back.

Wages would have to adjust though right? If you are a person barely getting by on food stamps plus $6 an hour from Wal Mart, are you going to just show up Monday morning knowing ...


Are we quibbling over the dollar amount now? Fine. The average wal mart associate makes $8.81.

Yes, people are going to show up and be peachy with a job that now doesn't pay them enough to get by on. Right.

Also what sort of world do you live in where a worker at that level can just show up and ask for more hours? Even if they could, it's not like all of them could get those extra hours. That's not a theory, it's a fact. Those workers would not be there if not for the government subsidies they receive. You can debate if that is Wal Mart's fault, but without that assistance some sort of action would occur (unionizing, forcing a higher min wage etc.)   that would prevent Wal Mart from using their current business model of paying their workers so little they are literally in poverty.


They might not get those extra hours they want, but if some decide that they don't want the hours they were getting (which is nonsensical if they actually need the money) they will quit, in which case the other workers who want more hours because of the loss of govt benefits (either from Walmart or outside) will get them. That's a fact.

If 40 hours at Walmart plus govt benefits gives you a certain lifestyle, if you lose those govt benefits you'd probably want more hours to maintain that lifestyle.

You're belief that losing govt benefits would cause low wage workers to immediately starve to death or burn things down en masse is absurd. Like I said before, reduction in govt benefits would increase quantity of labor supplied to Walmart, not decrease it, allowing them to bring that $8.81 wage lower if they wished.

Now I am not endorsing cutting such benefits, just pointing out the obvious fact that such benefits are subsidies of the workers, not employers as so many farkers have been duped into thinking.
 
2014-04-23 05:29:00 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: The Flexecutioner: People_are_Idiots: The Flexecutioner: None of that has anything to do with how 5% increase is inaccurate. All of those things are already known and accounted for as a cost of doing business somewhere. Maybe that 5% becomes 7 or 8 as an adjustment based on the state but going from $5.89 to either $6.25 or $6.33 wont mean squat to the consumer. They'll still buy them and workers will still get a pay increase.

Accounted for, meaning passing the cost to the consumer, hence the almost 52% increase from Texas to California. You have to think in a business sense: When you have a small increase do to some political wrangling, you double it (or triple, or in this case... decuple) and pass the cost to the consumer as a way of defiance. So yeah, your employees make more money, but then... they STILL can't afford any more than the "dollar menu."

No, accounted for, as in already understood what those costs ALREADY are.  As in, the discrepancy between Texas/Cali already exists regardless of any wage changes and that the wage changes will change none of that discrepancy.

The discrepancy will remain but higher wages in both places would result in higher prices in both places.


This is what I was saying.  He's cropped out his original assertions so i wont rehash them for you but he was suggesting 5% could be a really high number, 10 times as much from his 'decuple' suggestion.
 
2014-04-23 05:41:06 PM  

The Flexecutioner: Debeo Summa Credo: The Flexecutioner: People_are_Idiots: The Flexecutioner: None of that has anything to do with how 5% increase is inaccurate. All of those things are already known and accounted for as a cost of doing business somewhere. Maybe that 5% becomes 7 or 8 as an adjustment based on the state but going from $5.89 to either $6.25 or $6.33 wont mean squat to the consumer. They'll still buy them and workers will still get a pay increase.

Accounted for, meaning passing the cost to the consumer, hence the almost 52% increase from Texas to California. You have to think in a business sense: When you have a small increase do to some political wrangling, you double it (or triple, or in this case... decuple) and pass the cost to the consumer as a way of defiance. So yeah, your employees make more money, but then... they STILL can't afford any more than the "dollar menu."

No, accounted for, as in already understood what those costs ALREADY are.  As in, the discrepancy between Texas/Cali already exists regardless of any wage changes and that the wage changes will change none of that discrepancy.

The discrepancy will remain but higher wages in both places would result in higher prices in both places.

This is what I was saying.  He's cropped out his original assertions so i wont rehash them for you but he was suggesting 5% could be a really high number, 10 times as much from his 'decuple' suggestion.


Okay. My bad.
 
2014-04-23 05:49:33 PM  

Bullseyed: fusillade762: [37.media.tumblr.com image 500x625]

Amusing, because it demonstrates you have no idea what trickle down economics is.


Why don't you enlighten us then, oh wise one?
 
2014-04-23 05:59:59 PM  

Delta1212: Bug spray is mostly water, but you don't see people demanding water be removed from all of their food and drink.


Slight difference here... water is something humans are supposed to have in their bodies. We need water. We cannot survive without water. Without water we die. Most of our bodies are made of water. I have yet to see anything in the ingredient list of a can of bug spray that meets those criteria, which is why chemicals used to make carpets and yoga mats should really not purposely be put into food..
 
2014-04-23 06:12:29 PM  

fusillade762: [37.media.tumblr.com image 500x625]


And this is why neither I nor any of my friends buy this asshole's pizza. He really showed his ass with his comments on the ACA.
Not that we bought that much before, but now we drive the extra two blocks right past one of his shops and buy from another pizza place.
 
2014-04-23 06:31:22 PM  

LordJiro: king_nacho: a good CEO that can run a large scale corporation is much harder to come by than a person that can create and serve food in a restaurant.

A good CEO is nothing without the people who work in their stores.


THIS. Corporations and their CEOs have conveniently forgotten who actually makes them their millions.
Hint: It's not the cum-lapping sh*tbags sitting in their boardrooms.
/thanks Cubansaltyballs
 
2014-04-23 06:35:33 PM  

rewind2846: Delta1212: Bug spray is mostly water, but you don't see people demanding water be removed from all of their food and drink.

Slight difference here... water is something humans are supposed to have in their bodies. We need water. We cannot survive without water. Without water we die. Most of our bodies are made of water. I have yet to see anything in the ingredient list of a can of bug spray that meets those criteria, which is why chemicals used to make carpets and yoga mats should really not purposely be put into food..


Um, water is the first thing on the ingredients list of most cans of bug spray and meets all of those criteria.

My entire point is that the argument "this chemical is found in things I would not want to eat, therefore this chemical is bad to eat" is fatuous. "X chemical shouldn't be used in food because it causes Y health problems" is a good argument against using that chemical in good. "X chemical shouldn't be used in food because it can also be used to make carpets" is stupid and bespeaks an overly simplistic view of chemistry and biology. You might as well say that we shouldn't eat corn because you can make gasoline out of it.
 
2014-04-23 06:46:28 PM  

patrick767: king_nacho: a good CEO that can run a large scale corporation is much harder to come by than a person that can create and serve food in a restaurant.

Duh. However in the 1970s CEOs of large corporations made about 30 times the median pay of their workers. Now they make 300 times it. How is that remotely justifiable? What made a CEO worth several hundred times an average worker when they use to be worth far less?

It's simple. These assholes are a small club of super wealthy people who sit on each others' boards of directors and approve pay raises.

SpectroBoy: [cdn-www.i-am-bored.com image 700x876]

But worst of all, he makes some seriously shiatty pizza. And THAT I can not forgive.

Yeah, that guy's a dick.

Tetrazphere: Papa John Schnatter himself had $2,750,000 earnings in 2010, split that yearly earning with all 20,700 Papa John's employee's equally (they all deserve equal portions, not on actual value to the company) and everyone get's a check for $132.85. The guy who actually established the brand that is employing thousands of people is the bad guy? Insanity.

He's worth $600 million.Apparently 2010 was a slow year for him.
I guess you're also ignoring the shiat that comes out of his mouth. He's an ass.



$600 million that he earned through branding, coming up with the concept, doing the hard work and taking the chances and becoming successful and basically dedicating his life to the business, and now employing thousands.Someone off the street who shows up is entitled to more money than his actual work is worth, just by virtue of his/her existence and not based on his/her value to the actual business?!?! That is completely nuts  Why not make yourself worth more by motivating yourself and and making yourself more valuable. I had a horrible job making minimum wage in 2006, it felt like slave labor ... I was cussing the business out in my mind for a couple months before i realized I was the lazy one not putting in applications elsewhere. I got a new job the first week of searching, I was the only thing keeping me from better conditions and pay.

Also if you didn't know almost all Papa John's are franchised out to local owner's who use the Papa John's name and overall system who pay a franchise fee of about 4-5% (and this holds true for most business' including retail.) If you talk to the owner's of small business' such as these, and tell them to pay those making minimum wage (most of the cooks and management are getting paid more than min wage, because of the extra value they are to the business) they will laugh at you and tell you they either have to raise prices which is dangerous in the competitive food industry or what is much more likely, they would have to cut hours and expect much more work out of the remaining employee's. Many of the worker's who are just not capable or unwilling to work that hard would not find a job as easily. Competition would occur and only the fittest or most productive. best attitude, reliability would have the jobs. This system is already happening but raising the minimum wage for unskilled labor would tighten the amount of those overall who are employed. Only the most capable and successful would be rewarded and the unsuccessful would be 'punished' by not having employment, the same system many anti-capitalist hate.
 
2014-04-23 06:53:19 PM  

Thunderpipes: This is why Farklibs will never be CEOs, and will be getting me my fries.

Liberal economics is funny. Punish anyone who makes money, and somehow that makes everyone happier and wealthier.....


I'm a Farklib, and own two corporations. DIAF.
 
2014-04-23 07:04:48 PM  

Tetrazphere: I got a new job the first week of searching, I was the only thing keeping me from better conditions and pay.


It's that easy, folks!
All you have to do is take a little time to look, and better pay and working conditions are all yours!

Skills? Nope.
Certifications? Nope.
Degrees? Nope.

All it take to having a great job is going out and looking. If jobs were water, you'd drown!
 
2014-04-23 07:26:11 PM  

whidbey: If Schnatter is truly "rags to riches" as you say...


I didn't say that, I said he's a lot closer to that fairy tale idea than you're going to get from most rich people in this country anymore.

And, no, there won't be consequences. Nobody cares about what he said except a few people on the internet. The reality is that, just like Chik-Fil-A, people aren't going to take a strong moral stand on their fast food choices.

Regardless, the point is that if you're going to try and invoke consequences on amoral dickbags, there are tens of thousands of people in this country that would be better served being hit by them than him. It's a waste of time to shriek about his dumb comments because in the grand scheme of things his comments and behavior aren't that bad by comparison and the odds anyone would care about them even if they were are pretty low. High effort, low payout. Not worthwhile.

TetrisBlock: I'm a Farklib, and own two corporations. DIAF.


You "own two corporations"? That really doesn't mean a whole lot without some more context. It doesn't really take anything special to incorporate.

Regardless, please don't egg that moron on. He loves to pretend to be rich and important on the internet. And if he just got his disability handout for the month, he's going to spend a hell of a lot of time doing it now.
 
2014-04-23 07:41:48 PM  

skozlaw: Regardless, the point is that if you're going to try and invoke consequences on amoral dickbags, there are tens of thousands of people in this country that would be better served being hit by them than him. It's a waste of time to shriek about his dumb comments because in the grand scheme of things his comments and behavior aren't that bad by comparison and the odds anyone would care about them even if they were are pretty low. High effort, low payout. Not worthwhile.


Well not Schlonger personally, but any awareness about corporate tyranny is important in this day and age. Many people don't even think about it, while working their 80-90 hour a week jobs to keep feeding the 1%.

And it's not about just fast food choices, it's about demanding that the rich and privileged give back to the system that got them there. If the CEO of Mozilla can be forced to resign for refusing to acknowledge a person's rights, so can a CEO somewhere else.
 
2014-04-23 08:38:10 PM  

Delta1212: You might as well say that we shouldn't eat corn because you can make gasoline out of it.


Your logic is faulty. Animal fat can be used to make explosives, but I have yet to see anyone turn down a juicy steak unless they were a vegetarian.
Point is that "what something is made into" is not the same as "what something is from the start". The ingredients in a can of bug spray or yoga mats (besides water) are mainly hydrocarbons derived from fossil fuels. Those hydrocarbons in their natural form are all poisonous to humans, every single one of them. That is what makes them such good bug killers, with just a little molecular rearrangement.

Is it too much to ask that poisons not be purposely put into our food just to save corporations money? I think we've made it for the last 10,000 or so years without them...
 
2014-04-23 10:31:23 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Tetrazphere: I got a new job the first week of searching, I was the only thing keeping me from better conditions and pay.

It's that easy, folks!
All you have to do is take a little time to look, and better pay and working conditions are all yours!

Skills? Nope.
Certifications? Nope.
Degrees? Nope.

All it take to having a great job is going out and looking. If jobs were water, you'd drown!


Sarge - If you were following the entirety of this discussion you would have seen I differentiated between skilled and unskilled workers countless times and atleast conveyed that pursuing a cert or degree is exactly the type of self-motivation and self-responsibility needed to make oneself of value in any economy. What I was disagreeing with is that someone working a typical minimum wage position should not automatically be entitled to forced overcompensation by their employer, that accommodation should be by  choice in the private sector. Handouts should be dealt out from the government's purse (yes the tax-payer's). I further stated that if min wage is raised to some ridiculous amount, employer's will just hire those that are willing and able to get more production from less overall positions, and unemployment will rise.
 
2014-04-23 11:11:35 PM  

Tetrazphere: Sarge - If you were following the entirety of this discussion you would have seen I differentiated between skilled and unskilled workers countless times and atleast conveyed that pursuing a cert or degree is exactly the type of self-motivation and self-responsibility needed to make oneself of value in any economy. What I was disagreeing with is that someone working a typical minimum wage position should not automatically be entitled to forced overcompensation by their employer, that accommodation should be by choice in the private sector. Handouts should be dealt out from the government's purse (yes the tax-payer's). I further stated that if min wage is raised to some ridiculous amount, employer's will just hire those that are willing and able to get more production from less overall positions, and unemployment will rise.


And most, if not all of that, is bullshiat that's been debunked and discredited a million times before.

Pushing for certs and degrees devalues those things, and shifting market conditions and fickle employers have shown that even those self-motivated and self-responsible can and often do get the shaft, skilled or not.
Enforcing compensation is the only way minimum wage workers will get paid, because in the private sector by choice is always going to be as little as possible, and in the words of Chris Rock, "Hey if I could pay you less, I would, but it's against the law."
Furthermore, any employer who isn't already hiring those that are willing and able to get more production from less overall positions is doing it wrong.

There's nothing left to do but ridicule you. "The only thing stopping you is you" and "If you'd just look for a job, you'd find a good one." are some of the most laughably ignorant things that can come out of someone's mouth in a discussion about wages.
 
2014-04-23 11:11:54 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Here's how you calculate the value of a CEO (or any other employee): take whatever his employer (or any other prospective employer) is willing to pay the employee/CEO and multiply by 1.


That's how you lose money, paying more money to an employee than they will ultimately bring in to the company is bad business.
 
2014-04-23 11:39:13 PM  
Sergeant Grumbles:

And most, if not all of that, is bullshiat that's been debunked and discredited a million times before.

Pushing for certs and degrees devalues those things, and shifting market conditions and fickle employers have shown that even those self-motivated and self-responsible can and often do get the shaft, skilled or not.
Enforcing compensation is the only way minimum wage workers will get paid, because in the private sector by choice is always going to be as little as possible, and in the words of Chris Rock, "Hey if I could pay you less, I would, but it's against the law."
Furthermore, any employer who isn't already hiring those that are willing and able to get more production from less overall positions is doing it wrong.
There's nothing left to do but ridicule you. "The only thing stopping you is you" and "If you'd just look for a job, you'd find a good one." are some of the most laughably ignorant things that can come out of someone's mouth in a discussion about wages.


-Look at what you are saying - Getting people to actively learn a skill or actually compete in the workforce through self responsibility is watering down the marketplace!?! You are way lost sir. If you legislate forced overcompensation the only thing that becomes watered-down is currency itself. Sometimes working people get the shaft, we live in a causal universe of infinite variables.

"However, minimum wage increases can lead to negative impacts. In the traditional economic theory, firms will respond to an increase in labor cost by reducing demand for labor or increasing the output prices . As a result, unemployment and inflation can be increased. Poor laborers, whom governments aim to protect by minimum wages, can be hurt by minimum wage increases." -(Hamermesh 1986; Brown 1999)

I do not disagree with increasing min wage for inflation, but even in anti-capitalist communistic philosophy "from each his ability" implies that earning $20.00 an hour for menial work doesn't pass any common sense test.

/Taking my personal example of me having success at improving my life conditions, in itself is not the main point I'm stating, it was meant as more of an option for many of those crying about min wage that are not interested in trying to better themselves.
 
2014-04-23 11:48:07 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Debeo Summa Credo: Here's how you calculate the value of a CEO (or any other employee): take whatever his employer (or any other prospective employer) is willing to pay the employee/CEO and multiply by 1.

Alternative method: Calculate the employee's direct contribution to revenue on a goods produced/services sold basis.

Used to be, back Before Reagan, the increased revenue from increased productivity was pretty much evenly shared among all stakeholders alike - worker bees, management, and stockholders. And all of society prospered and the economy grew faster than it has since.


That was ultimately the intent of my suggestion but the problem is it is extremely difficult to calculate the synergistic effects or long term effects of many types of employees. For example at what point does the income of the company completely replace the long term effects of the initial investments. Hard to know but it's critical to know because at this point the business should fire their investors (i.e. stop paying dividends) if they haven't already.
 
2014-04-24 12:07:07 AM  

Tetrazphere: Getting people to actively learn a skill or actually compete in the workforce through self responsibility is watering down the marketplace!?!


When the only consideration seems to be what employers are currently valuing, most definitely yes. You get people who are doing it for the money, whether or not they are good at it or even like it, and the person who graduates last in the architecture class is still called an architect, so you end up with a glut.
Look at what it's already done as employers are using degrees as an easy filter for job applicants. Cue some ignorant blowhard claiming they should have gotten a "valuable" degree, even as there's no guarantee what's valuable today will be valuable upon graduation.

Tetrazphere: If you legislate forced overcompensation the only thing that becomes watered-down is currency itself.


OH NOES. NOT HYPERINFLATION. WE'RE DOOMED.

Tetrazphere: "However, minimum wage increases can lead to negative impacts. In the traditional economic theory, firms will respond to an increase in labor cost by reducing demand for labor or increasing the output prices . As a result, unemployment and inflation can be increased. Poor laborers, whom governments aim to protect by minimum wages, can be hurt by minimum wage increases." -(Hamermesh 1986; Brown 1999)


And you remember what I said about debunked and discredited? This little gem just says it can happen, but history pretty much shows it never actually has. Like I said before, any employer who hasn't already reduced his demand for labor to the absolute minimum is doing it wrong, and prices may rise, but never in a 1/1 fashion.

Tetrazphere: I do not disagree with increasing min wage for inflation, but even in anti-capitalist communistic philosophy "from each his ability" implies that earning $20.00 an hour for menial work doesn't pass any common sense test.


I don't know what you're talking about, but I do know that you don't either.

Tetrazphere: it was meant as more of an option for many of those crying about min wage that are not interested in trying to better themselves.


And again, like I said, it's some of the most laughably ignorant things that can come out of someone's mouth in a discussion about wages.
It's that easy folks! Just go out and look! You'll be drowning in great jobs! The fact you don't have one just means you're not trying!
 
2014-04-24 01:28:43 AM  

The Flexecutioner: Debeo Summa Credo: The Flexecutioner: People_are_Idiots: The Flexecutioner: None of that has anything to do with how 5% increase is inaccurate. All of those things are already known and accounted for as a cost of doing business somewhere. Maybe that 5% becomes 7 or 8 as an adjustment based on the state but going from $5.89 to either $6.25 or $6.33 wont mean squat to the consumer. They'll still buy them and workers will still get a pay increase.

Accounted for, meaning passing the cost to the consumer, hence the almost 52% increase from Texas to California. You have to think in a business sense: When you have a small increase do to some political wrangling, you double it (or triple, or in this case... decuple) and pass the cost to the consumer as a way of defiance. So yeah, your employees make more money, but then... they STILL can't afford any more than the "dollar menu."

No, accounted for, as in already understood what those costs ALREADY are.  As in, the discrepancy between Texas/Cali already exists regardless of any wage changes and that the wage changes will change none of that discrepancy.

The discrepancy will remain but higher wages in both places would result in higher prices in both places.

This is what I was saying.  He's cropped out his original assertions so i wont rehash them for you but he was suggesting 5% could be a really high number, 10 times as much from his 'decuple' suggestion.


And I'm pointing out the worst rule of aggressive business: Charge 10 TIMES more than the increase ACTUALLY implies. If wages rise 5%, raise prices 50%. See?

/that or they'll pull a "Circuit City" on all the employees. Another aggressive tactic.
 
2014-04-24 01:54:22 AM  

rwdavis: demaL-demaL-yeH: Debeo Summa Credo: Here's how you calculate the value of a CEO (or any other employee): take whatever his employer (or any other prospective employer) is willing to pay the employee/CEO and multiply by 1.

Alternative method: Calculate the employee's direct contribution to revenue on a goods produced/services sold basis.

Used to be, back Before Reagan, the increased revenue from increased productivity was pretty much evenly shared among all stakeholders alike - worker bees, management, and stockholders. And all of society prospered and the economy grew faster than it has since.

That was ultimately the intent of my suggestion but the problem is it is extremely difficult to calculate the synergistic effects or long term effects of many types of employees. For example at what point does the income of the company completely replace the long term effects of the initial investments. Hard to know but it's critical to know because at this point the business should fire their investors (i.e. stop paying dividends) if they haven't already.


You know what? It isn't. Productivity is not that difficult a metric. Just make sure it can't be manipulated on a quarterly basis.
Since the goal is long-term stability and growth, there are specific behaviors that are rewarded now that should never be rewarded, and specific behaviors that should be rewarded that have not been rewarded in at least forty years.

You know what else? On a slightly less serious note, not only can I play MBA buzzword bingo, there are some terms I added to the board when I was much younger and even more of a prick. This shameful fact is one of my deepest regrets.
 
2014-04-24 07:50:15 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Frederick: demaL-demaL-yeH: whidbey: If we raise the minimum wage to 15.00 a Big Mac will cost 15 dollars.

Because somebody said so. Or something.

Oh, for fark's sake.
...
Now let's apply that only to the 25% of hourly workers making less than $14.50 an hour, and earn less than six percent (6%) of total US income: The inflationary effect of doubling minimum wage drops to less than 10%.


/Next step: Some math impaired, reality rejecting Austrian will enter the thread.
//Mark my words, whids: Some half-wit saying that, as an expert MBA, doubling minimum wage will double prices, guaran-damn-teed.

The whole "raising the minimum wage will just pass those costs on to the consumer" argument is a bluff by the "job creators" anyway.  And the correct response to that argument is to -in poker terms- call.

Go ahead McDonalds, charge that $15 dollars for a hamburger to offset the minimum wage -see what happens.  McDonalds will either eat the costs of the wage raise in other areas; optimally in the disproportionate CEO salaries, or in other equally easily manageable areas like their ridiculous, superfluous advertising, or they'll go out of business and another product will fill the void with an actual business model that accommodates living wages.

Killing the giant is probably in our best long term interests.

It is scary that people can be as utterly misguided as you.

"Business model that can accommodate a living wage". You actually typed that.


Well you sure do provide a compelling argument.
Do the thread a favor and leave the discussion.
 
2014-04-24 09:07:01 AM  
I feel like I'm the only person in the world who works for (now and in the past) a small company owned by a rich person that makes more than my peers.

Of course, I do technical work and I'm not easily replaceable because I provide low-cost solutions...  Not that that's any indication of what a person should be paid, their salary should always be a flat percentage of the CEOs salary divided by the number of employees, employee value is irrelevant.
 
Displayed 292 of 292 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and 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