Carl's Jr wants to move its Headquarters (Los Angeles, Sacramento: rent, low crime)

[yeahthatguy]

Originally Posted by .highnlite

Look, half the state is already empty, (not barren) but land where people cannot live, by law, so we don't really need more public land, we need less people, the few people the better the quality of life.

Hardworking people can stay, ranchers, farmers, oilmen Fishermen etc. people with calluses on their hands.. The city slickers are welcome to Texas and Texas will welcome them.

Glad we cleared that up .highnlite. I fully understand what drives your remarks now .. Make sure to understand that less city slickers = less tax revenue and less tax revenue = less money to pay for the debt and deficits this state runs. So, even w/o us city slickers, you'll have to (Hardworking people can stay, ranchers, farmers, oilmen Fishermen etc) confront the issue of taxes/spending ... albeit w/ a less than average overall GDP. But feel free to call someone pointing that out for the present situation a whiner.

Your entitled to your desires... However, on the issues of taxes/spending/business, your desires cause you to be heavily biased and thus your quite often remarks invalid.
*Cheers

[Highpointer]

Originally Posted by yeahthatguy

Companies that left California for cheaper locations :
Company total for 12 months of 2010: 204
Company total for all of 2009: 51
Complete Carl's Jr. reasoning : A Texas-Sized Move for Carl’s Jr.? | CalWatchDog

Here is an interesting quote from the article. It states, "Because California requires overtime to be paid after eight hours everyday, restaurant managers can’t determine their own hours based on actual production needs, and instead must take mandatory breaks, and collect overtime, instead of being flexible and working when and where needed."

I have never worked in California, but I do live in Arizona and I have lived and worked in several other states during my life. I have held both hourly and salaried jobs. Every time I worked at an hourly job, I was paid overtime for working hours greater than 40 hours per week but never paid for working for hours over eight in one day.

How does requiring California employers to pay overtime for hours worked over eight in one day benefit the employee? For example, in a state like Arizona that does not have such overtime rules, a company can offer the option to employees to work four 10-hour days per week instead of five 8-hour days. This is beneficial to employees, because it gives them three days off per week instead of two, and employees save time and money because they only have to make four round-trip commuting trips per week instead of five. Having at least one non-weekend day off per week allows employees to take care of personal business and errands, such as doctor's appointments and trips to the bank, on such days without having to take time off work.

I expect most employees, if presented the choice to work four 10-hour days per week instead of five 8-hour days, would chose four 10-hour days. However, in California, employers are not able to present this option to employees, because if employees work four 10-hour days, then they have to paid at the overtime rate for 20% of the hours worked per week.

For example, I know that Amazon.com has two large warehouses in west Phoenix and they hire their employees to work four 10-hour days per week on a normal schedule. I worked at a temporary assignment during the past Christmas season at both of these warehouses, working as many as 11½ hours on a shift. I noted that Amazon.com does not have any warehouses in California even though California is the nation's most populous state, and a large percentage of the products that Amazon.com does sell is manufactured in Asia and arrives on ships at California ports. Amazon.com does have multiple warehouses in the two states to California's east, Arizona and Nevada.

I have no doubt that a major reason why Amazon.com has no warehouses in California is due to these labor and pay regulations that make it considerably more expensive for the company to do business in California than in other states. Therefore, why doesn't California repeal these laws so they are more in line with other states? It is obvious that these laws are particularly harmful to lower-paid hourly workers because it discourages companies with operations like warehousing and manufacturing from establishing or growing their facilities in California, particularly when they could do it at a lower cost in other states while providing more opportunities and flexibility to employees.

[Jowel]

While there's some great discussion here about California's labor and tax policies, I won't address that.

Maybe Carl Jr is moving because California doesn't fit its brand image of the stereotypically slobby, Neanderthal blue collar single male in his 20's who chomps down, at obscene speeds , lard encrusted burgers, dripping condiments all over his clothes and face with reckless abandon, belching and dispelling flatulence and ogling similarly classy female callers.

Incidentally, I think Hardee's on the east coast is owned by the same company, as the commercials are of similar ilk.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Jowel

...stereotypically slobby, Neanderthal blue collar single male in his 20's who chomps down, at obscene speeds , lard encrusted burgers, dripping condiments all over his clothes and face with reckless abandon, belching and dispelling flatulence and ogling similarly classy female callers.

You say it like that's a bad thing.

Originally Posted by Jowel

...Incidentally, I think Hardee's on the east coast is owned by the same company, as the commercials are of similar ilk.

It is.

[.highnlite]

9th Poorest State: Texas

Total residents living in poverty in 2009: 4,150,242 (17.2% of population)

Increase from previous year: 358,673 residents

....

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by TimC2462

CKE Restaurants, Inc., which is the parent company of Carl's Jr. and Hardee's on the east coast, has over 3000 locations in 48 states and 18 countries. They rake in over 1,000 million dollars in revenue on a annual basis, much of which are subjected to taxes and regulation in California -- since they are based in Carpinteria, CA. In 2007 alone, they earned approximately 1.5 billion dollars.

The family founded company was began in Los Angeles and grew since its inception in 1914. But I'm sure that others will continue to downplay their significance to the state of California. After all, taxing their annual revenue of more than 1,000 million is not that big of a deal.

CKE Restaurants, Inc. Announces Preliminary, Unaudited Fourth Quarter and Full Year Fiscal 2011 Results | CKE Restaurants

Really? Carpinteria?

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

In this economy, I don't care how you parse, crow about, minimize or celebrate it, the loss of even one job is one too many.

Gotta agree with you there

[NorCal Dude]

Originally Posted by Jowel

While there's some great discussion here about California's labor and tax policies, I won't address that.

Maybe Carl Jr is moving because California doesn't fit its brand image of the stereotypically slobby, Neanderthal blue collar single male in his 20's who chomps down, at obscene speeds , lard encrusted burgers, dripping condiments all over his clothes and face with reckless abandon, belching and dispelling flatulence and ogling similarly classy female callers.

Incidentally, I think Hardee's on the east coast is owned by the same company, as the commercials are of similar ilk.

So basically you wont address the issue as to why the headquarters is relocating and instead come up with a hair-brained analysis which entails taking a swipe at blue collar people. Way to add to the conversation.

[TimC2462]

CKE International is headquartered in Carpinteria.

[TimC2462]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Really? Carpinteria?

The company was founded in Los Angeles, but CKE International, Inc. the parent company of Carl's Jr. and Hardee's is headquartered in the Santa Barbara County.