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 294
    More: Sick, fast food restaurant chains, CEO, reductions, proxy statement, Yum!, salary, Scott Stringer  
•       •       •

5073 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Apr 2014 at 9:46 PM (13 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 294 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report