Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The leasee's require them to be corporations in order to limit liability to the property owners. One would be a complete fool to operate businesses like this as a sole proprietorship
p.s. S Corp, are corporations. and LLC's are indeed forms of corporations as well.. So your list two actually validate what I said as correct.
So when you said your employees were part timers, you lied?
Used to own a bar and a hotel, but what the hells that got to do with you only hiring part time employees? My employee/employer relationship has nothing to do with yours..
You don't know the format of my business. Once again. You'd be a dumbass.
I knew a guy that owned a franchise. It's no walk in the park.
You always owe to the "mother ship" and you have to buy what they tell you even if you can get it cheaper elsewhere. When all was said and done he was making what a middle manager at a big company was making without all the stress. He eventually got out of it. That's just the one person I know.
Owning one franchise is no cakewalk for the owner.
The economies of scale come into play when multiple stores are owned. The largest franchise is Arcos Dorados, a publicly -traded company, with almost 2000 stores and 90,000 employees in 20 countries.
Only if you want to ignore the fact that when you raise the minimum wage, you have to lay people off, especially in a recession.. Where the hell do you think the money will come from?
Obviously, the employer had work to perform that these people were hired to do or they wouldn't have been hired in the first place. It is not evident that raising the minimum wage necessitates reducing the workforce, who have tasks to perform.
Obviously, the employer had work to perform that these people were hired to do or they wouldn't have been hired in the first place. It is not evident that raising the minimum wage necessitates reducing the workforce, who have tasks to perform.
Oh it is evident when you see the manager taking orders behind the cash register during blips of high customer volume.
They won't staff to cover 1/2 hour of high volume. They cover themselves.
The good times of ever increasing profits are long gone.
Every penny counts now.
a) there is nothing stopping you and others of like mind from setting up a foundation to directly donate the money to McDonald's workers. This would actually be a better solution, because a high minimum wage tends to result in job loss, hurting those whom it is supposed to help.
b) another approach would be to provide gov't subsidies to the workers, similar to how ag price supports work. If the price received by farmers falls below a certain level, the gov't makes up the difference. Thus farmers do not suffer from reduced demand for their products due to a higher market price. The same could be done with McDonalds workers--if their wages fall below a given level (say $15/hr) the gov't would make up the difference.
c)Lefties almost never advocate either (a) which would cost them directly in donations, or (b) which would mean either higher taxes or gov't spending cuts elsewhere. Instead the advocate for the very approach that would tend to hurt these workers by causing job loss: the fiat minimum wage increase. Hmmm maybe lefties don't really care as much as their box of tissues would suggest.
Obviously, the employer had work to perform that these people were hired to do or they wouldn't have been hired in the first place. It is not evident that raising the minimum wage necessitates reducing the workforce, who have tasks to perform.
Then explain why there was so many layoffs during the recession if your theories are that businesses dont lay off employees during a recession..
One of the dumbest things I've ever heard you say..
Computer Science was a lucrative career with job stability and plenty of room for advancement and opportunities as tech evolved.
That came to a screeching halt in the mid 90's when the offshoring started.
Here today..job shipped off to India/China/Brazil/etc. tomorrow.
Apple might be the last high tech big company that still has majority US based programming.
Mobil, security and networking are the hot areas today.
But many graduates are coming from the business side with java and web programming backgrounds.
Help desk did, but I am not talking about help desk, I am talking about network engineering. Those jobs they outsourced are for lackeys who look through a preset response book to trouble shoot. If you have ever dealt with a company through the stages of such, watch what happens. First you are pushed to some idiot in another country who can't speak the language well and his knowledge is that of a brain dumping some entry cert. Then, you get pushed up the chain, which ultimately leads back to someone back in the states (or is competent and can speak the language) who can deal with the issue.
Outsourcing like that was mainly to send jobs that required "some" technical understanding, but is really just a secretary who passes on the messages. Anyone in networking who was mad because they had that job shipped out, well... they were just riding the gravy train anyway.
There are plenty of jobs for the technical focus, but you have to be able to produce. The days of the "technical guy" sitting, playing games in his cubical because he "knows" about something are going away. It isn't enough to simply know "about" programming, networking, etc... you have to be a "professional" in it these days to get paid well and unfortunately, too many people don't know their head from their arse when it comes to these topics. They were taking advantage of the fact that the majority of people when it comes to technology... are freaking clueless.
Those bitching about losing their jobs because of that were wanting to get paid for a name tag and nothing more.
Well, my degree in computer science was old school, tons of mathematics course (it only took 3 more classes to get a degree in mathematics) and all of the physics courses minus 1. The entire focus of computer science was software development (hardware was computer engineering). These days, computer science is all over the place. I have seen guys with a CS degree who don't know any of the core aspects of the field. Their ability in math is that of a semester or two of calculus, no physics, and they specialize in one thing or another. So I guess you are right, saying "computer science" these days is meaningless to programming. Some of them couldn't even do basic assembly programming, but... to be fair.. computer science was primarily programing focused in its early years.
Actually, raising the minimum wage in a recession puts money in worker's hands who now become your customers.
/makes some popcorn and watches intently
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
