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.
I don't know, how do you define low profit? I was just using a term one of you guys used. Heck, I am still waiting to hear what the market value of a cashier at McDonalds would be.
Then I wonder, how do you guys know that a cashier at McDonalds is getting paid over market value if you don't even know what the market value for that position is.
Because people are working for $X already. The absolute maximum that the market value can be for that specific labor is what they're making already. By legislatively raising that wage, you're guaranteeing that the people working in those positions are being paid more than the market rate, because only yesterday they were making less.
Please tell me that you understand that simple concept. If you don't, then there's no reason to continue conversing about it with you, and I'd like to know if I'm actually beating my head against a brick wall, instead of just feeling like I am.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
For all was know they are getting paid below market value because employers can do that.
Not possible. Nobody who voluntarily enters into an employment contract can possibly be paid less than the market value for their labor. It's an economic impossibility.
So you choose to stick your head in the sand when the CEOs give themselves a raise as their company fails. How naive of you, but I imagine that is much better to ignore when these things happen.
Do I come to your home and tell you how you should raise your children or how you should treat your wife? No, as long as you stay within in the law, that's none of my business.
As long as they stay within the law, how they manage or unmanage their own company is none of our business unless we are their shareholders.
In the post I replied to, which was quoted in the post you just replied to.
Are you seriously having this hard of a time following the conversation you've involved yourself in?
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
I said I have an issue when a companies top executives all give themselves raises as their company fails.
If you don't have something which proves that the compensation you're disputing wasn't included in their employment contract, then you have nothing to complain about. You already agreed that contracts should be upheld.
Also I would add, not everyone would get a $5/hr raise. My guess is we would see minimum wage go up to at most $10/hr and we have about 19 states that have set their minimum wage higher than federal minimum, therefore they would receive less money extra than someone in a federal minimum wage state. The guess on hours an employee works is fair enough without knowing the actual numbers. Also, I wouldn't imagine those making over minimum wage would see the equal amount of increase as other minimum wage employees.
My guess is you would see a dip in their yearly profits and a slight increase in their products to counterbalance the extra amount, but at the same time McDonalds can only increase their prices so much because they don't want to overprice themselves from their competition....
AS already stated, I'm pretty neutral. I favor an increase in minimum wage in principal, but I realize that you can wreak havoc on the economy by moving to far too fast on it. To be perfectly straight, I looked up the figures, popped open Calculator on my computer and started multiplying it out. I had absolutely no clue what the numbers would look like.
That said, very important to note that the $5.4 billion profit they reported is the worldwide franchise and not just the USA. The international non-USA McDonald's side is a bigger than the domestic alone. There are 1.8 million employees worldwide, with only 440K of those working in the USA. I haven't been able to find the profit figures for McDonald's just in the USA but I expect they're out there. But you don't want to cut into your profits if at all possible. The goal is to have zero net impact on the company. Just shifting money from one fixed expense to another. If you start cutting profits you start hurting the health of the company.
So if we just say that everyone's pay goes up by $2.50 per hour (instead of $5 per hour), then you just cut that $3.4 billion figure in half. Now you just need to find $1.7 billion. The states that have their own higher minimum wage will likely all raise their minimum wages if the federal minimum wage increases, so you can safely expect that 440K employees would see the same pay increase. But even if we're just talking about finding $1 billion, that's still a lot of money. It's more likely McDonald's can find $1.7 billion than $3.4 billion. But just finding $1 billion ain't easy.
We'd have to actually look at their books to know for sure of course.
Quote:
though for me their competition is called better, healthier food.
Personally I would love to see most fast food restaurants go the way of the dinosaur and be replaced by fast food companies like Chipotle, which pays their employees more by reducing menu items and focusing on simple, good food and not wasting time and money on advertising promotional food items. Also with Chipotle, their business model tends to go into existing buildings rather than need stand alone buildings. Chipotle Hourly Pay | Glassdoor
I despise McDonald's food and I love Chipotle. Fine and good for me, but the facts are that the average McDonald's sees an astounding volume of sales. Nobody comes close. McDonald's grosses $32 billion annually. The next closest competitor -- Subway -- grosses $10 billion per year. So our mutual dislike for Micky D's notwithstanding, American's are voting with their wallets and McDonald's wins by a landslide. That is where we're at right now. We'll see what happens over the next 30 years or so.
Because people are working for $X already. The absolute maximum that the market value can be for that specific labor is what they're making already. By legislatively raising that wage, you're guaranteeing that the people working in those positions are being paid more than the market rate, because only yesterday they were making less.
Please tell me that you understand that simple concept. If you don't, then there's no reason to continue conversing about it with you, and I'd like to know if I'm actually beating my head against a brick wall, instead of just feeling like I am.
Not possible. Nobody who voluntarily enters into an employment contract can possibly be paid less than the market value for their labor. It's an economic impossibility.
I understand that you have no idea what the market rate is for a cashier.
Do I come to your home and tell you how you should raise your children or how you should treat your wife? No, as long as you stay within in the law, that's none of my business.
As long as they stay within the law, how they manage or unmanage their own company is none of our business unless we are their shareholders.
If you were beating your wife and child, I would hope someone would come in to put a stop to your abuse.
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.
