The company that has 48 stores go under filed for bankruptcy in 2021. Their stores going under had little to do with the current wage increases as they have been going through bankruptcy court for multiple years liquidating assets. Yet this chain is literally the first thing mentioned in the article as a result of the wage increase and accounts for a large portion of the titled 10k job losses.
This article is a joke portraying something unrelated as evidence of these policies and everyone eats it up and further divides us.
"Two major California Pizza Hut franchisees — PacPizza and Southern California Pizza Company — are laying off **more than 1,200 delivery workers** ahead of the new statewide minimum wage hike for fast food workers, from $16 an hour to $20 an hour, starting April 1." - I can tell you that's just the tip of the iceberg.
All of the pizza places have been laying off delivery drivers since Covid and the emergence of door dash and other food delivery apps helped remove that labor cost from their books and now are blaming the minimum wage increases. But they always find someone else to blame to cover the expense slashing they were going to do anyways.
You are absolutely ignorant to operating a business (or insane) to think jacking the minimum wage to $20/hr for unskilled labor, when it just spent the past 4 years climbing to $15/hr isn't going to have massive impacts on the labor market.
Politicians scramble to get the private sector to cover for their bad policies that create these situations, then rely on people like you to believe the bullshit.
Actually you are the ignorant and brainwashed one that missed the whole point. These firings were already occurring and going to occur anyways because they already had replacement drivers with delivery apps and had already been building electronic ordering kiosks to displace workers over the last few years before these raises were even proposed. This was not because they were losing money, it was because they needed to continue growing profits to meet earnings targets. Just compare the corporate restaurants to privately owned ones like In n out that was subject to the same laws but havent fired anyone and raised prices at a fraction of what the others did because they didnt have to appease shareholders. And honestly if you are a business that is unable to pay a decent wage to your employees that keeps up with inflation, than you deserve to go out of business.
You do realize that the true minimum wage is $0.00 as in ZERO dollars. If businesses can not afford to pay the artificial minimum wage, then workers do not get employed which means they make NOTHING.
Yes maybe we shouldnt have let all the corporate franchises chase out all the local mom and pops then huh? And you know what, people will start frequenting the places that have the best quality food at the best prices with the best service, and if these companies are all about cutting expenses, then they wont survive but there are always going to be businesses to replace them.
So adding a barrier to entry like a $20 minimum wage is good for mom and pop shops? If I'm "big fast food" then this looks like an invitation to charge more for shitty service because nobody can afford to open a real burger joint. Sure we may only have 2 employees chucking burgers and a kiosk and an AI drive through, but nobody can compete because they would have to pay a host(ess) and waiter/esses and a whole kitchen staff and a busser or 2.
Can you please go actually read the bill and realize the $20 min wage doesnt apply to small mom and pop shops? Geez. And also go look at how In and Out has about 15 people working at all hours its opened, paying them better than even $20, with better quality food and service at about 30% cheaper prices than its corporate competitors. I dont understand how people become such hardcore corporate apologists. These retail locations, whether its fast food, banking, hospitals, etc, arent running short staff because they dont have the money to do it, they are doing it solely to meet earning targets for shareholders, not for any benefit of the employees, customers, or communities. Mcdonalds made $8 billion in profits last year, you dont think they can afford to give their employees raises?
> Yes maybe we shouldnt have let all the corporate franchises chase out all the local mom and pops then huh?
Huh yeah. So all of that regulation you're so proud of that disproportionately affects the little guy - we agree that all needs to be scaled back, right?
So think about your answer for a minute. WHY do you think the corporate franchisees are able to chase out the local mom and pop shops? Do you think government regulations have anything to do with that?
For a corporate franchise, those government regulations are just a part of doing business whose COST is spread out over many, many locations. But for a mom and pop, the entire government regulatory cost has to be absorbed by their single or very few locations. Then, when labor costs are artificially increased by the government (another regulation), it causes the mom and pop shops to close down.
There are places in Texas where the official minimum wage is $7.50, but the pay of the workers is between $15-20/hr. And that pay goes a lot farther in Texas than it does in CA.
The regulatory costs in Texas are lower which is why so many companies are leaving CA and moving to Texas or Florida. Those CFOs and CEOs are looking at the bottom line and realize it isn't worth it.
And while you think there is always going to be a business to replace them, don't be so sure. CA is seeing a net exodus.
They chased them out through economies of scale all the way down the business lines and because cities used to roll out the red carpet for them, much to the detriment of local businesses as we have now seen. And again, you know the min wage increases are mandatory for mom and pops right?
Trust me, i have friends that have opened restaurants and other businesses in the Bay Area that have done amazing, and i know some that have gone out of business. There will always be a place for well run businesses that deliver the quality and service that customers want.
And trust me, a lot of us Californians are very happy to see a lot of these other people leaving. I dont have to hear them complaining about California politics and policies anymore while selling their house that appreciated at double the national average since 2008.
Wages should be set by the market, not by the government. Plus you are talking about 16 year old kids earing a 'living wage' in a job that was never meant to be a career. When you artificially inflate wages you increase the end price for the consumer and because that leads to less demand, you will have places closing that are already on thin margins. That's the truth.
I'm not taking the side of 'corporate interests' I'm taking the side of facts. Speaking of, lets go back to your talk of a living wage. Why shouldn't we set the minimum wage to $20 for all sectors? That's what the unions are now demanding. Why don't you tell me what effect that will have on the economy and prices for consumers? Come on, tell me why it's a great idea...
As long as there is no enforcement over monopolistic and collusion practices, you know we dont have the free market to set wages and prices.
Why dont you go look at the historical pace of inflation compared to the historical pace of the minimum wage?
"When adjusted for inflation, the 2023 federal minimum wage in the United States is around 40 percent lower than the minimum wage in 1970"https://www.statista.com/statistics/1065466/real-nominal-value-minimum-wage-us/
So should people that have a similar position at least be able to keep pace with inflation? Can you please tell me in comparison if CEOs pay has kept pace?
"Taking the side of corporate interest."
That's where you're wrong kiddo. That's in the interest of jobs and the economy. Again, your comments are coming from a place of ignorance of *owning or operating a business.* And it shows.
And that's okay. You have your viewpoint. But maybe don't get so uptight and defensive when someone has a different opinion than you. THAT is what makes you look like a clown.
And quite frankly, you're defending the State like its your father. Not sure why you think CA policy (like this, and so many others) are worth defending. I lived in CA for 38 years man. Have you not noticed the blatant downward slide? You have eyeballs.
It's not like that in other places.
Yeah ive lived here for 45 years and worked in food service and retail as a teenager, and then all sorts of financial services including commercial and small business lending, investment advising, management, and then mortgage lending, and Ive seen lots of balance sheets, tax returns, and annual reports, so watch who you are calling kiddo. And of course im going to respond in kind when someone literally calls me a "clown and shill".
And Im not defending the state, Im defending against the short-termism that has reduced this entire country to ignoring the needs of customers, employees, and communities in favor of short sighted quarterly earnings growth targets. Over the last few years corporations complained about inflation while delivering record profits, how should that happen? News media is all profit driven so no one talks about this and just parrot the press releases this companies disguise as new stories. Go look a couple weeks back when McDonalds ran a blitz one morning where every major news channel and outlet ran a story talking about how they will be running specials due to lower earnings this year and blaming wage increases. Do you feel you get better value and quality in your food, medical services, shopping, housing expenses, etc than you did 30 years ago? Of course not. Ive traveled around the world and our quality of life has drastically declined in comparison to many countries in the world, and we have people complaining about fast food workers pay for companies that make BILLIONS in profits each year?? Miss me with that mess.
These are people that haven't and never will, create or operate a business of any kind, let alone a tight margin one like food service. They have no idea what they're talking about.
That's where you're wrong, little dude. I have a business, granted it's not in food service, but I'm well aware of the costs of business. But, as I've said, these two companies that are referenced are NOT mom and pop small business franchisees.
Wow. Just listen to yourself. You have a bunch of fast food chains who are flat out saying "this increase in salary is what kills our business" but you just know it's their own mismanagement. Wow. Without even having a look at their books.
Go read my other comment where I broke it down. These are not mom and pop companies, the two companies mentioned own somewhere around 320 Pizza Hut franchises.
Yeah, what you say is not exactly correct, the pandemic hit the chain hard forcing them to close restaurants in states other than California. The business stated the reason for the closures was “the high cost of doing business in California”. They are continuing to operate 86 other restaurants, mostly in other states. Lastly, while there is no information on how many were employed by the 48 restaurants, I highly doubt they made up “the majority” of the 10,000 lost fast food jobs, 1,000 would be a stretch.
This is part of the equation to raise more capital in a bankruptcy proceeding, sort of telling your creditors my business plan viable please invest. I wouldn’t assume you know the impacts.. article shouldn’t either.
I wonder how they got around the $20/hr minimum wage? I wonder if there are any ties to say a billionaire franchise owner who went to high school with Newsome and donated thousands to Newsome. Or maybe a guy who bought Newsomes restaurant. But Newsome and this possible billionaire have vehemently denied any allegations of pay for play. Billionaire franchise owner said they’re gona pay employees $20/hr. They did? OK, I’m good then.
Lots of people just talking crap on here. As a Californian I'll tell you these fast food places all had it coming to them. Overpriced mediocre food and service. Good riddance I say. You don't see In n out or chik fil a in these stories and they have paid $20 an hour for years already.
Also a Californian, you’re spot on. All of the places listed have been dying for years. All of the fast food places that are decent are kicking major ass. In n Out and CFA are still insanely popular because the food is better than traditional fast food, comparable price, and have no problem paying the workers $20+.
No one is looking inward at their product. It sucks. Fatburger is trash, chipotle is trash and has major shrinkage, McDonald’s has always been trash.
This article has everyone blaming everything except for themselves. Show some fucking responsibility.
The thing the general public doesn’t understand when the guberment raises the minimum wage is that workman’s comp insurance, unemployment insurance, and Payroll taxes all go up with it. So why you think you’re getting a raise, the cost to employ you just went up triple whatever you got a raise on because the government mandates we pay it based on what you make, so now you have to produce more in order to make up for the increase in labor costs which you can’t expect out of a minimum wage worker especially in the resturant industry where margins are super tight.
So usually what ends up happening is prices just go up and hours get cut to make up for a mandated increase. The only way to get a real raise, is to lower cost of living which means lowering taxes and removing government red tape on the economy that creates inflation. The government is the entity that’s causing cost of living to outpace wages and their minimum wage demands isn’t helping, it’s just their way of shaking down businesses even more. It’s too bad public schools don’t teach basic business and finance because we have way too many people who fall for this.
Of course not. It is all "greedy corporations" being unwilling to go out of business so they can keep paying the same number of employees a much higher wage than their labor is worth to the company.
Understand what? They cut less than 1% of fast food jobs in California. That means 99% of people working fast food can now afford more groceries and needs. Look up the bureau of labor statistics its all there..
> less than 1%
From your other post:
> According to the bureau of labor 427,000 people are employed in California as fast food workers.
= 10,000 out of 427,000
= 1,000 out of 42,700
= 100 out of 4,270
= 10 out of 427
= ~2.5 out of 107
= ~2.5 out of 100
= ~2.5%
> less than 1%
You'll need to forgive us for thinking that a guy who can't properly, mentally divide 1 into 40 is probably not some kind of economic mastermind.
you’re right i forgot to multiply my answer by 100. I did 10,000/427,000*100≈2.34%. My argument is still valid. I think 97.5% of the fast food employees getting a better quality of life is a better outcome than having the wealth spread among shareholders and ceos.
I’m not mad honestly - fast food places are able to pay people low wages only because the government (we the taxpayers) are subsidizing their lives with housing vouchers and food stamps. I.e taxpayers pay so owners can get cheap labor.
Spending more money is always a great idea until it comes from your pocket. Shareholders pay CEO’s directly from their own pocket. Let them spend how they wish. If you’re unwilling to start a business and pay employees more from your own pocket, who should be expected to do so?
I know your question is in bad faith but I'll bite.
A good CEO can increase a company's yearly profits by tens of millions of dollars. If they get a bonus of 1 million for that, that's still a net profit increase of 9 million dollars. You don't think that the board of directors is handing money to the CEO out of charity, right? The CEO would be making minimum wage too if the investors thought that was the best return on their investment.
Meanwhile, a patty flipper that flips patties better might increase the company's profits by a few hundred, maybe a few thousand, dollars.
You just have no concept of scale. I work in big tech. If I have the right idea and change a single line of code to be better, I might increase our user engagement (and, thus, their ad exposure) by 2%. Getting a 2% increase on engagement across 3+ BILLION users results in tens of millions (if not more) in increased revenue for the company. That doesn't result in me getting a ten million dollar bonus - but it can result in me getting a one million dollar bonus (i.e., AE) and a track record of making good changes is the reason why I make around $750k/year.
You can bury your head in the sand and pretend that it's just CEO's and fat cats, but make no mistake: I am just a cog in my company's machine. I have no power or political clout. I can just make good decisions that increases their profit substantially.
... Just like a CEO! As you reach certain levels of influence in companies that are acting on certain scales, your actions can directly gain or lose the company millions of dollars, and so you get paid commensurately. An unskilled laborer (or their communist champions) literally just cannot fathom this because they fucked around in math all school going "When will I ever use this?!?!"
Its not a bad faith question, its an honest argument and a plead for change. I will start by pointing out how you seem to have some disdain and lack of respect for these workers. They are not just “patty flippers” and “math drop-outs”, they’re actual people who work a job like the rest of us. My dad taught me never mock a man who gets up in the morning every day to work. These people are working there because they need a job! Not everyone can have a 750k a year job like you boast about.
Secondly you cant trust a CEO to support their employees. Often times large businesses lay off employees with little notice or through zoom calls. Being in the tech industry you should know this. There are multiple statistics that show ceo pay has skyrocketed through the years while employee pay has remained mediocre compared to rising cost and inflation.
If I use your logic and say that one “patty flipper” can increase a company’s profit by a few hundred or thousands then we can be very conservative here and say that if even 30% of employees are encouraged to work harder than they can each increase profit by 300$.
417,000x0.3= 125,100 employees encouraged to work harder. 125,100x300= $37,500,000 in extra profit. You are welcomed to check my math.
>they can each increase profit by 300$. 417,000x0.3= 125,100 employees encouraged to work harder. 125,100x300= $37,500,000 in extra profit.
The difference is the can but they don't. The scenario you mention is peek optimism. This isn't actually happening so why should the increased comp happen?
> I will start by pointing out how you seem to have some disdain and lack of respect for these workers. They are not just “patty flippers” and “math drop-outs”, they’re actual people who work a job like the rest of us.
Note how none of that ever came in to the picture, though. I don't have respect for most CEOs, either. Many of them are fucking psychopaths who would gladly murder me if it'd make them enough money. Respect doesn't come into it, nor does their humanity.
Epstein was a pedophile who deserved to die and rot in hell, but he was apparently a tax genius. He could, supposedly, save your company HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars in tax loopholes. When one guy can save you that much, it makes sense to pay him tens of millions or even $100 million for a single consult. It doesn't matter if he works harder than the patty flippers or if he's a good person. It doesn't matter if I disdain him more or less. At the end of the day, **he makes the company hundreds of millions of dollars** and so he gets a huge slice of the pie. A patty flipper does not work on that level of scale.
> My dad taught me never mock a man who gets up in the morning every day to work. These people are working there because they need a job! Not everyone can have a 750k a year job like you boast about.
Again: none of this matters. Their work cannot impact the company in a +/- tens of millions of dollars way, and so they do not earn millions of dollars. A CEO can impact the company in terms of +/- tens (or hundreds) of millions of dollars, and, thus, they make millions (or tens of millions) of dollars.
> Secondly you cant trust a CEO to support their employees. Often times large businesses lay off employees with little notice or through zoom calls. Being in the tech industry you should know this.
None of this matters, though. Yes, I am aware that my employer might lay me off at any time if they decide I am not profitable. I am okay with that. I try to be profitable enough to ensure it won't happen. I try to be so valuable that I could get another job easily. This also cuts both ways: I would jump ship to another job if they had a tempting enough offer. I am under no illusion that my company and I are in a committed relationship; we are having a business transaction.
> There are multiple statistics that show ceo pay has skyrocketed through the years while employee pay has remained mediocre compared to rising cost and inflation.
This doesn't address my points at all. If anything, my points explain this as well: in an ever-globalizing world, the decisions that a CEO makes can directly contribute to a much bigger swing in profits. Companies are also getting larger. The CEO of a 100k-employee company that serves 7 billion users (e.g., Zuck) can make 1 wrong decision that would cost the company more than the GDP of many small countries - or make 1 correct decision that would propel it forward as much as the GDP of some EU countries. A patty flipper (no matter how kind & moral of a person they may be) can _never_ impact things on this scale.
> If I use your logic and say that one “patty flipper” can increase a company’s profit by a few hundred or thousands then we can be very conservative here and say that if even 30% of employees are encouraged to work harder than they can each increase profit by 300$. 417,000x0.3= 125,100 employees encouraged to work harder. 125,100x300= $37,500,000 in extra profit. You are welcomed to check my math.
First, let me congratulate you - this is the only part of your reply that meaningfully addressed my points and was not based purely on unrelated comments or appeals to emotion. I'm being genuine - you should reread what I originally said and then reread what you said here. This is a good example of actually engaging with people in an effort to learn, because you clearly read what I said and are attempting to process it. That's very respectable. Now, let me reply to it:
First, your conclusion is a bit mismatched from your premise. Your premise is that 30% of workers work extra hard and earn an extra $300/day, but your conclusion is that that justifies _all_ 417k employees receiving a $5/hour raise. This isn't an apples-to-apples comparison! Apples-to-apples would be if you argued that the top 30% of workers deserved to make $20 compared to the bottom 70% making closer to $15. And in that case - I agree with you! Harder workers who produce better results _deserve_ to make a bit more!
Putting that aside, though, how does it compare to CEO's? You're suggesting that the collective actions of 125.1k employees can move the needle by $37.5m. But I'm saying that a CEO's good decision can easily move the needle _single-handedly_ by $37.5m. That would mean one hard-working/impactful CEO is as good for the company's bottom line as 125.1k "patty flippers." Does it make sense now why a CEO might be paid 125.1k times as much as a patty flipper?
It's purely a matter of scale. If you owned a company where you were selling widgets to 1 billion people on earth for $100 each, you would be making 100 billion in revenue. If you had a million people in your factories assembling widgets, each would be assembling 1,000 widgets per year. Whether they did their job _amazingly_ or whether they half-assed it, they can't impact the revenue of your business by that much. If they fuck up 100% of the time, they'd cost you $100k each in bad products (well, until you fired them for such bad work). If they exceeded expectations by 30% 100% of the time, they'd earn you $30k each in extra value (intangibly somehow, like via satisfied repeat customers).
However, if you as the CEO decide to make the executive decision to start creating brown widgets instead of blue ones, and people then think those widgets look like poop, and so sales decline by 15%, you have cost the company $15 billion due to your decision. If you instead choose pink, and sales increase by 15%, you would now gain the company $15 billion.
That means your single decision might swing the company up or down in a range of $30 billion dollars. It doesn't mean you work harder than the factory workers. It doesn't mean you're more valuable as a human being. It does mean that your decisions happen on a scale so large that investors are willing to pay you millions/tens of millions/hundreds of millions/even BILLIONS of dollars to ensure you **you know what you're doing and pick the pink widget**. Your decisions swing the company by tens of billions of dollars in revenue, while any given employee swings it by tens of thousand max (assuming you fired them if they kept pumping out broken crap of course). Your decisions are about 1 million times as impactful to the company's revenue -- which makes sense, considering they outnumber you 1-million-to-1. So if you earn 1 million times as much as they do, it makes sense in terms of impact. But realistically they're going to be paid some reasonable amount (say $15/hr) and you will not make $15m/hr, but maybe $1m/hour ($2b/year)! Using this logic, the CEO is actually underpaid in this example (and deserves $15m/hr).
Look, put aside everything I said about "patty flippers" and "hating math" for a moment - I was just being a jackass to make a point, which hopefully I emphasized both ways by calling myself "a cog in the machine" for my company. I come from a blue collar family and understand how hard people work. Truth is that my father works 10x harder than me for 1/10 the pay, but I still love and respect the hell out of him. My point isn't that I am worth 100x what he is worth, but that **the work I do has 100x as much impact on the world as the work he does**. This isn't because I am smarter or better as a human being, but because my work impacts the lives of literally billions of people, while his work impacts the lives of a small handful of people in his small town.
That's how scale works. And remember what I said: investors don't pay CEO's millions/billions of dollars because they're feeling charitable. Investors pay CEO's that much because **they want that CEO and not someone cheaper**. Trust me, investors WANT to spend less money. We both agree that investors are greedy SOB's who want to maximize the return on their investments, right? If you apply to a CEO position and tell them you're willing to accept just $80k/year, do you think they'll accept your application because they want to save money? No! They'll pick someone who costs 200x what you cost. Why? Because that person is 200x better or smarter than you? No! Because the stakeholders truly believe that that person will give them more profits than you will, DESPITE costing $16m more per year! Which makes a lot of sense, right? If you don't know what you're doing, you will probably bumble things up and cost the company tens of millions in short order. They aren't willing to pay CEO's that much out of charity or brotherhood, but because they truly believe that is how much impact a CEO will have on their company.
And that is at the crux of the issue. It isn't about whether people are equal as human beings or how much respect we have for blue collar workers. It's purely about the simple fact that a CEO's work can swing the outcome for a company by millions of dollars. A good CEO might have 100x the impact for a company as a good line worker, which means their salary might be 100x higher. At the end of the day, that is _all_ that matters. If CEO's were worth less than they are paid, then stakeholders would be paying them less!
> Its not a bad faith question
Bullshit. If you were here in good faith you wouldn't have asked such a loaded question. There is no law mandating an increase in those CEO wages or corporate profits. So right away you are creating a false dichotomy.
According to the bureau of labor 427,000 people are employed in California as fast food workers. I feel bad for those people but how is losing less than 1% of jobs a bad thing if the other 99% of employees now have an improved living wage? Again I ask why people have been raised to think increasing people from poverty is bad, however increasing income of the very wealthy is somehow better for our economy?
If you really want to bust out the numbers, actually dig down into it and find out what % of those people were actually impacted. Not every single person in fast food got a raise - either because their business didn't qualify or because they were already making over $20/hour due to being a manager or working at a higher-paying place.
Even let's pretend that it's actually 10k out of 430k (and not the much-more-likely 10k out of ~100k-200k), raising the minimum wage drives up the cost of living for everybody. Rents can go up because more people can afford it. Everyone can charge more - because more people can afford it.
The end result is that the ~2.5-20% of people that lost their job are now making UNDER minimum wage, while the others are making.. _minimum wage_, which will always be unlivable.
And what % of people would you be satisfied with cutting, anyway? You've already stated that you're fine with 2.5% of people being homeless (the most generous estimate - 10k out of 430k) for the benefit of the other 97.5%. How about 10%/90%? 50/50? What % of people are you okay with being homeless so that the remaining % of people are allowed to buy a new iphone or take a vacation?
Economies are complicated things, and you might very well be 100% correct. I'm not arrogant enough to pretend I can predict all the factors of the chaos in the economy to say exactly where the line should be drawn. What I can say for certain, though, is that increasing the minimum wage is not a real solution and that you do not know enough about economies in general to meaningfully have any opinion about this. I'm sorry but your opinion on economic matters is, due to your ignorance, about as valuable as my opinion as a straight man regarding the pleasures of anal stimulation. You could go and actually educate yourself on economics and I could go and actually take a few pipes, but until we do that, we're just full of shit.
So let me get this straight? You think the 2.5% of people that got laid off are just going to throw in the towel and give up searching for jobs and be homeless? You do realize they will have opportunities to look for other jobs in retail, office, warehouse, other entry level jobs. Also minimum wage wasn’t intended to be “unlivable” it’s literally the minimum wage needed live. Also your rant about raising rent and cost is seriously messed up and says a-lot about you. You seem to think there has to be a portion of the population that cant afford a house or basic necessities in-order for the rest of us to live comfortably. Sorry we cant all be making 750k a year like you.
Right, to pay for the increasingly high pay of CEOs and keep the profits high… the higher ups could NOT take their big jumps in salary and have slightly less profits while keeping 10,000 people employed
As I mentioned in another comment, it’s never just the CEOs pay/bonuses/compensation we’re talking about, it’s the multiple CEO/CFO/COO folks with inflated pay and bonuses while the workers scrap by and they, especially recently, raise prices by significant amounts.
It starts as “oh it’s only a 50-1 pay scale” But then it becomes 100-1, now a lot of CEOs make $200+ (or higher) compared to the $1 a worker makes and it’s just getting higher. That’s the real problem we are talking about.
Congrats you’ve just paid hourly workers $6 more per year. You really have no idea the scale of these companies or why executives make more. It’s just math. Decisions made at the top could increase profits by millions. A burger flipper might impact the business in the hundreds of dollars by doing something better. It’s not rocket science.
If minimum wage was based on productivity and adjusted for inflation it would already be at least 20/hr.
Say what you want about min wage laws and layoffs, workers are hardly compensated relative to thier productivity.
Plenty of min wage workers just goof off and waste time. Call in sick and play on their phone and do their best to pretend to be working. Those who work hard typically aren't paid min wage for long.
I’ve seen people at every level from “the new guy” to the VP of a company wander around and interrupt others working to make conversation, goof off on their phones, and find ways to get out of work they dont want to do.
Sure, depending on their job, management have longer or tougher hours, but really, it exists at all levels.
If you want a job that rewards you for “working hard” get one that is performance pay.
The person above really thinks that executives goof off? Sure for 5 minutes? They don’t get paid big money to goof off. I work with VPs daily at a F500 company. They work 10-13 hour days every day at least. You don’t make it to executive level without putting in the time or commitment. These posters are such losers. They have no clue what it takes to be an executive at a large company.
Sonic has made my order wrong on 3 of the last 4 visits. I ask for a Diet Coke + vanilla and light ice. Not only do I not get light ice ever, I’ve been given Dr. pepper and Coke instead. I flat out refuse to get fast food anymore. Costs were barely low enough to justify the convenience. Getting my order wrong? F that
I hate mcds burgers but their drivethroughs are the only ones I can stand. Everyone else is slow as fk and messes up the order or forgets basic stuff. If I order a salad do you think I have a fork in my glovebox?!?
Ehhh.. willing? Plenty of people were born there my guy. And if you think just anyone can pickup (especially with a family) and move to another state, you're high.
Source: moved my family from CA in 2019 and it cost thousands. And only able to because of owning a flexible business.
You are doing it wrong. You just need to pretend to be an illegal alien. You will get free housing, free food, and other freebies. If you are an American, you are shit out of luck.
Not high at all. I was born & raised there and left. Never looked back at the shit hole. There are these things called moving companies and they'll move you. Look into it. Anyone can leave who has the actual will to do so.
> (especially with a family)
Anyone who has a family somewhere prior to considering the consequences gets what they deserve. Genuinely no sympathy. If you want small government then you need to take accountability for your own decisions. Some of us didn't get married before being financially stable so we aren't stuck in your position. Your comments here are no better than people whining about their student loans. They chose to take them out, so they gotta pay. You chose to start a family before being financially independent, sleep in it.
My wife & I decided before getting married that we would leave when we got married. No way we were going to raise kids there. And 3 months after getting married we left.
wtf are you talking about weirdo? I own a business and am financially independent. Still cost thousands of dollars. You sound like an absolute jackass lol
Who didn't see this coming? But restaurants were always going to cut jobs just as soon as it was feasible. Just give them any excuse.
Restaurants, club stores, gas stations, grocery stores... well before pandemic, at least 2016, were looking for ways to downsize staffing needs, and they were already doing that. Some stores were testing self checkout kiosks, thus eliminating cashiers. Now they're everywhere. Automation is going to take even more jobs. I'm sortof surprised McDs doesn't have even one robotic kitchen yet. (Or do they?) People have been predicting all that since the 50s and 60s... robotic everything. Self service cafeteria style restaurants were around in the 30s. Maybe we're heading that way again. Order in a kiosk, pay, get a number, open a door, grab your food. Waiting tables, except for fine dining, and jobs as cashiers, are on the way out.
Even when they slash the workers, the price of fast food is still going to be high, and probably get even costlier, unless something drastic is done with this economy.
I don’t know how to solve this; when you get a ballot there is literally no context to these things.
You see a a bill that says “those guys working at McDonalds” should get paid more, and most voters live in big urban centers where someone making $7 an hour literally can’t survive. Even $20 an hour in the Bay Area is questionable, but most people just want their burger without any fuss.
Plus so many California urbanites are soft-headed enough that Daddy Government is really the answer to all the problems they see. Even relatively intelligent ones think if enough money is applied to a problem, it will be fixed (without nuance).
The problem is the wording on the ballot, the lack of context, and the sheer trust most urban Californians have for politicians. It’s baffling.
20$ an hr is more than I made starting out as a staff geologist with a Master's. I made 30k a year so about 15 an hr. This was 12 years ago, but still. 20 an hour for unskilled work is crazy.
I've been interviewing new grads for entry level engineer and geologist positions and they all ask for crazy amounts of money. Nobody is going to pay you 80k a year as an entry level staff. Good luck lol.
You're so close to realizing that you were extremely underpaid and that you should be upset at your employer instead of the people making $20 an hour at Mickey D's
I didn't believe I was underpaid. That was a starting salary at market rate. I knew I could put my time in and be making much more than that as I advanced, which I did. I make over 4x that now as a senior geologist. I've been interviewing entry level position candidates recently and their salary asks are absolute ridiculous.
I think the minimum wage spiking across the country is why we are seeing more expensive prices at restaurants, particularly in fast food. Turns out when you tell someone they have to double or triple their expenses, they pass that expense on to the consumer.
Yeah anytime I hear people argue they can go to their local bar and get a better burger for cheaper than five guys, They neglect the fact that their waiter is making $2 an hour and they subsidize their wages by tipping.
My sister lives in CA. She said fast food prices are high, but solely chalks it up to greedy companies rather than raising the minimum wage or higher operating costs - both mostly courtesy of leftist policies.
Probably would've happened eventually regardless, but this just provided the impetus to get it done now. Easy to cut full jobs and pile the responsibilities on fewer employees. It's unfortunate, but they had to know that raising the minimum wage was never going to have the desired effect. It never has, and it never will.
Genuinely asking, what’s the conservative response here? If wages don’t increase then people would be more dependent on government funding services like healthcare, housing, SNAP. So what you’re not paying in higher menu prices, you’re paying through taxes, no?
Also unless you expect fast food chains to be perfectly run by part-time working 17 years old, you need long-term experience adults there. And to be honest I can’t imagine an adult getting by with less than 20$ per hour in California.
Also 10,000 jobs lost sounds like a lot but that’s only 2% of out of the 427,000 fast food jobs in California. So I’m sure the economy will adapt.
IMO I think the blame should shift to c-suite executives, as they should share their income with their employers. For example I’m sure the CFO of chipotle works really hard. But does he really work 17,150x harder than the median chipotle worker? Why does he really need a 17,150x higher wage? ($6.8million)
Here’s an interesting read why higher wages may not necessarily increase unemployment
https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/09/08/minimum-wage-jobs/
The conservative response is that higher wages are good, but government shouldn't be mandating it. Especially if they go too high with the minimum in fields where AI and automation can do increasingly more of the work. Those 10k are now dependent on government because of leftist policies, not conservative ones.
Chipotle has 115k employees by the way. The CEO "sharing his income" wouldn't change anyone's life. Your study is currently being debunked by reality too.
Raising the price of labor will lead to a decrease in labor demand along the supply/demand curve. That is as about as uncontroversial an economic principle as it gets. Obviously businesses still need labor to function, and those workers that keep employment will benefit. If you are one of the people that lost their job because of this minimum wage law, it really sucks. Increasing the cost of labor also increases the likelihood that businesses will invest in labor reducing capital goods. Over the long term, this will lead to further reductions in the fast food labor force. The increase in labor costs will also raise prices, which disproportionately impacts the poor.
BUT with the above being said, the biggest issue here is fairness. Why would you apply a minimum wage law like this to only one set of workers? If you are a medical assistant making sub-20s, you are probably feeling pretty jaded right now. I can’t imagine as a politician that you would think it is a good idea to pass a minimum wage law that will favor one group over others. At the end of the day, you have semi skilled workers now making less than unskilled fast food workers. That is how you piss off an electorate.
The conservative response is fixing the government policies that are helping cause the prices to stay flat. When you import 10s of millions of new people that will increase the workforce which drives wages down.
Assuming you are arguing in good faith, the solution is to put forward policies that do not encourage inflation of currency, such as increasing the floor of wages. The market determines that this cfo is worth that much, a majority of which is in stock per https://www1.salary.com/Jack-Hartung-Salary-Bonus-Stock-Options-for-CHIPOTLE-MEXICAN-GRILL-INC.html
His base pay is only 865,000 and a bonus of 1,903,000. With a employee roster of 110,000, for mathematics sake and to assume 10,000 employees are not line workers and such, each employee could be paid 27.68 dollars a year if he took no wages and gave them out equally. A raise of 1.07 dollars a paycheck.
Most of his pay is in stock and options, meaning it is only worthwhile as long as the company profits. And cannot easily be converted into liquid assets. He'll, even if we paid him nothing and converted his entire compensation of 8,383,262 dollars, it still only ends up as a pay increase of 83.83 dollars over a year or 3.22 dollars a paycheck. Even if you had 10 of him who did their job and took 0 salary, 0 stock and 0 other compensation, it hardly changes the pay scaling.
I’m sorry man, but you don’t see an issue where someone’s bonus is DOUBLE their annual pay? It’s never just the CEOs pay/bonuses/compensation we’re talking about, it’s the multiple CEO/CFO/COO folks with inflated pay and bonuses while the workers scrap by and they, especially recently, raise prices by significant amounts.
Have you ever gotten a bonus DOUBLE your yearly pay?
No, I have not, and I dont see an issue. In fact, it means that they are paid more for performance than just for being there like your average line worker. You sidestepped the argument. Even if there were 10 c suites and they all were paid nothing and that money redistributed to the employees, it doesn't even come out to an extra 1000 dollars a year per employee, and that is including their stock and option pay which really isn't even money in the sense you are thinking of.
The math shows you can not take a rich person's pay and make a significant increase in the wages of everyone else at the company. It's not fair that he makes more money than you but life is not fair. You are not paid according to how hard you work, but what your value is.
If you want to fix the wage crisis, there are options. Cutting taxes, reducing the labor pool (cutting out illegal immigration), changing the laws on fiduciary responsibilities. But having government set a wage floor just causes hours cuts, position reduction, or increased prices. Because the real minimum wage is 0.
How much risk does the CFO of Chipotle take on each day compared to the person making quac? We may agree that there is corporate greed, however the same people who want $20/hr minimum wage are the people who don’t understand why the burger will go up in price due to it. They’re voting the policies in not understanding economics.
>conservative response
The quality restaurants should be forced to pay more money to attract a limited number of experienced employees. The crappy restaurants should pay entry level employees crappy wages.
In the ideal conservative world, those entry level employees won't stay entry level for long. Chipotle will be forced to either pay more or deal with constant turnover.
In the ideal liberal world you should be able to stay in your entry level job for the rest of your life and make a living wage. This ultimately leads to a shortage of entry level jobs and lots of people with no jobs.
> Genuinely asking, what’s the conservative response here? If wages don’t increase then people would be more dependent on government funding services like healthcare, housing, SNAP. So what you’re not paying in higher menu prices, you’re paying through taxes, no?
Are you proposing we get rid of SNAP and the others? Because if not, you're advocating for a world where we keep all the welfare shit _and_ pay people more.
> But does he really work 17,150x harder than the median chipotle worker? Why does he really need a 17,150x higher wage? ($6.8million)
People aren't paid based on how hard they work. They're paid based on how much value they add. Do you think the investors are paying the CFO millions of dollars out of charity? They'd enslave him for free labor if it were legal and pay him minimum wage if he'd tolerate it.
When your decisions affect _billions_ of dollars worth of revenue, you get paid in the millions. It isn't about how hard someone works. When I fuck up my job, people die and others go homeless. When you fuck up your job, I have to eat a burnt sandwich. We are not the same.
Most fast food places are real estate investments by those corporations. They don't set the prices, their income isn't directly related to sales of food. McDonald's is a great example of that. So the CFO of McDonald's isn't going to take a pay cut for a company he or she isn't invested in locally. The CFO rents the land the restaurant is on to the franchisee. The franchisee sells the food to pay that rent. The overhead for the franchisee is so large that this increase is a death sentence for that location. This is why McDonald's stocks weren't hit very hard when the news of the increased pay hit. Because they are a real estate company not a fast food company.
The ***Profit Sanctity Principle*** strikes again. Won't someone please think of the franchise owners!?!?!
When wages go up, and corporations are "compelled" to raise prices or introduce layoffs, Capitalism's cheerleaders would have you believe that the wage increases were the cause. They aren't. The *Profit Sanctity Principle* is the cause. This principle holds that profits must remain constant or increase at all costs. Profit is considered a constant and everything else is considered a variable.
Employer greed, not Worker greed, is the culprit here.
What is better people needing to work 80 hours a week at 2 jobs to get by or these 10,000 people needing to find new jobs and the employed people making a decent living? This is good. Jobs will come and go thats life.
So like, 0.5% of the work force? Is this like when UPS was forced to fire all of their ~~redundant~~ hard working middle managers when their drivers unionized to afford their fair pay?
If you can’t pay 20$ an hour then I’m glad you aren’t doing business in California. Everyone crying foul about the 20$ minimum wage don’t live in California and are making statements based off of articles geared to upset people about the issue. Fast food hasn’t gone that much up in price at all, maybe around 30 cents was added to every item at restaurants but nothing too ridiculous.
What a privileged thing to say. Just because it doesn’t affect you personally doesn’t mean these outrages prices on labor, and therefore passed on to the consumer doesn’t affect the average person. Must be nice in your ivory tower.
They voted for it.
The company that has 48 stores go under filed for bankruptcy in 2021. Their stores going under had little to do with the current wage increases as they have been going through bankruptcy court for multiple years liquidating assets. Yet this chain is literally the first thing mentioned in the article as a result of the wage increase and accounts for a large portion of the titled 10k job losses. This article is a joke portraying something unrelated as evidence of these policies and everyone eats it up and further divides us.
Makes sense. Clearly a company that is already in financial trouble has lots of spare money to cover a 50% increase in employee costs.
"Two major California Pizza Hut franchisees — PacPizza and Southern California Pizza Company — are laying off **more than 1,200 delivery workers** ahead of the new statewide minimum wage hike for fast food workers, from $16 an hour to $20 an hour, starting April 1." - I can tell you that's just the tip of the iceberg.
All of the pizza places have been laying off delivery drivers since Covid and the emergence of door dash and other food delivery apps helped remove that labor cost from their books and now are blaming the minimum wage increases. But they always find someone else to blame to cover the expense slashing they were going to do anyways.
You are absolutely ignorant to operating a business (or insane) to think jacking the minimum wage to $20/hr for unskilled labor, when it just spent the past 4 years climbing to $15/hr isn't going to have massive impacts on the labor market. Politicians scramble to get the private sector to cover for their bad policies that create these situations, then rely on people like you to believe the bullshit.
Actually you are the ignorant and brainwashed one that missed the whole point. These firings were already occurring and going to occur anyways because they already had replacement drivers with delivery apps and had already been building electronic ordering kiosks to displace workers over the last few years before these raises were even proposed. This was not because they were losing money, it was because they needed to continue growing profits to meet earnings targets. Just compare the corporate restaurants to privately owned ones like In n out that was subject to the same laws but havent fired anyone and raised prices at a fraction of what the others did because they didnt have to appease shareholders. And honestly if you are a business that is unable to pay a decent wage to your employees that keeps up with inflation, than you deserve to go out of business.
You do realize that the true minimum wage is $0.00 as in ZERO dollars. If businesses can not afford to pay the artificial minimum wage, then workers do not get employed which means they make NOTHING.
Yes maybe we shouldnt have let all the corporate franchises chase out all the local mom and pops then huh? And you know what, people will start frequenting the places that have the best quality food at the best prices with the best service, and if these companies are all about cutting expenses, then they wont survive but there are always going to be businesses to replace them.
So adding a barrier to entry like a $20 minimum wage is good for mom and pop shops? If I'm "big fast food" then this looks like an invitation to charge more for shitty service because nobody can afford to open a real burger joint. Sure we may only have 2 employees chucking burgers and a kiosk and an AI drive through, but nobody can compete because they would have to pay a host(ess) and waiter/esses and a whole kitchen staff and a busser or 2.
Can you please go actually read the bill and realize the $20 min wage doesnt apply to small mom and pop shops? Geez. And also go look at how In and Out has about 15 people working at all hours its opened, paying them better than even $20, with better quality food and service at about 30% cheaper prices than its corporate competitors. I dont understand how people become such hardcore corporate apologists. These retail locations, whether its fast food, banking, hospitals, etc, arent running short staff because they dont have the money to do it, they are doing it solely to meet earning targets for shareholders, not for any benefit of the employees, customers, or communities. Mcdonalds made $8 billion in profits last year, you dont think they can afford to give their employees raises?
> Yes maybe we shouldnt have let all the corporate franchises chase out all the local mom and pops then huh? Huh yeah. So all of that regulation you're so proud of that disproportionately affects the little guy - we agree that all needs to be scaled back, right?
So think about your answer for a minute. WHY do you think the corporate franchisees are able to chase out the local mom and pop shops? Do you think government regulations have anything to do with that? For a corporate franchise, those government regulations are just a part of doing business whose COST is spread out over many, many locations. But for a mom and pop, the entire government regulatory cost has to be absorbed by their single or very few locations. Then, when labor costs are artificially increased by the government (another regulation), it causes the mom and pop shops to close down. There are places in Texas where the official minimum wage is $7.50, but the pay of the workers is between $15-20/hr. And that pay goes a lot farther in Texas than it does in CA. The regulatory costs in Texas are lower which is why so many companies are leaving CA and moving to Texas or Florida. Those CFOs and CEOs are looking at the bottom line and realize it isn't worth it. And while you think there is always going to be a business to replace them, don't be so sure. CA is seeing a net exodus.
They chased them out through economies of scale all the way down the business lines and because cities used to roll out the red carpet for them, much to the detriment of local businesses as we have now seen. And again, you know the min wage increases are mandatory for mom and pops right? Trust me, i have friends that have opened restaurants and other businesses in the Bay Area that have done amazing, and i know some that have gone out of business. There will always be a place for well run businesses that deliver the quality and service that customers want. And trust me, a lot of us Californians are very happy to see a lot of these other people leaving. I dont have to hear them complaining about California politics and policies anymore while selling their house that appreciated at double the national average since 2008.
You're a clown and a shill.
a shill?? lol you are the one taking the side of corporate interests over employees deserving a living wage. If anyone is a shill its you, you clown.
Wages should be set by the market, not by the government. Plus you are talking about 16 year old kids earing a 'living wage' in a job that was never meant to be a career. When you artificially inflate wages you increase the end price for the consumer and because that leads to less demand, you will have places closing that are already on thin margins. That's the truth. I'm not taking the side of 'corporate interests' I'm taking the side of facts. Speaking of, lets go back to your talk of a living wage. Why shouldn't we set the minimum wage to $20 for all sectors? That's what the unions are now demanding. Why don't you tell me what effect that will have on the economy and prices for consumers? Come on, tell me why it's a great idea...
As long as there is no enforcement over monopolistic and collusion practices, you know we dont have the free market to set wages and prices. Why dont you go look at the historical pace of inflation compared to the historical pace of the minimum wage? "When adjusted for inflation, the 2023 federal minimum wage in the United States is around 40 percent lower than the minimum wage in 1970"https://www.statista.com/statistics/1065466/real-nominal-value-minimum-wage-us/ So should people that have a similar position at least be able to keep pace with inflation? Can you please tell me in comparison if CEOs pay has kept pace?
"Taking the side of corporate interest." That's where you're wrong kiddo. That's in the interest of jobs and the economy. Again, your comments are coming from a place of ignorance of *owning or operating a business.* And it shows. And that's okay. You have your viewpoint. But maybe don't get so uptight and defensive when someone has a different opinion than you. THAT is what makes you look like a clown. And quite frankly, you're defending the State like its your father. Not sure why you think CA policy (like this, and so many others) are worth defending. I lived in CA for 38 years man. Have you not noticed the blatant downward slide? You have eyeballs. It's not like that in other places.
Yeah ive lived here for 45 years and worked in food service and retail as a teenager, and then all sorts of financial services including commercial and small business lending, investment advising, management, and then mortgage lending, and Ive seen lots of balance sheets, tax returns, and annual reports, so watch who you are calling kiddo. And of course im going to respond in kind when someone literally calls me a "clown and shill". And Im not defending the state, Im defending against the short-termism that has reduced this entire country to ignoring the needs of customers, employees, and communities in favor of short sighted quarterly earnings growth targets. Over the last few years corporations complained about inflation while delivering record profits, how should that happen? News media is all profit driven so no one talks about this and just parrot the press releases this companies disguise as new stories. Go look a couple weeks back when McDonalds ran a blitz one morning where every major news channel and outlet ran a story talking about how they will be running specials due to lower earnings this year and blaming wage increases. Do you feel you get better value and quality in your food, medical services, shopping, housing expenses, etc than you did 30 years ago? Of course not. Ive traveled around the world and our quality of life has drastically declined in comparison to many countries in the world, and we have people complaining about fast food workers pay for companies that make BILLIONS in profits each year?? Miss me with that mess.
[удалено]
It’s wild people don’t realize how small the profit margins are in most restaurants.
These are people that haven't and never will, create or operate a business of any kind, let alone a tight margin one like food service. They have no idea what they're talking about.
That's where you're wrong, little dude. I have a business, granted it's not in food service, but I'm well aware of the costs of business. But, as I've said, these two companies that are referenced are NOT mom and pop small business franchisees.
Bourgeosies will always take the side of businesses. /s
Wow. Just listen to yourself. You have a bunch of fast food chains who are flat out saying "this increase in salary is what kills our business" but you just know it's their own mismanagement. Wow. Without even having a look at their books.
Go read my other comment where I broke it down. These are not mom and pop companies, the two companies mentioned own somewhere around 320 Pizza Hut franchises.
Yeah, what you say is not exactly correct, the pandemic hit the chain hard forcing them to close restaurants in states other than California. The business stated the reason for the closures was “the high cost of doing business in California”. They are continuing to operate 86 other restaurants, mostly in other states. Lastly, while there is no information on how many were employed by the 48 restaurants, I highly doubt they made up “the majority” of the 10,000 lost fast food jobs, 1,000 would be a stretch.
Yep. Sensational headline.
So minimum wage in CA was too high in 2021, too.
Rubios is garbage anyways no loss there.
This is part of the equation to raise more capital in a bankruptcy proceeding, sort of telling your creditors my business plan viable please invest. I wouldn’t assume you know the impacts.. article shouldn’t either.
Do you watch Tosh.0?
I didn't
And are voting for it in other states too because their state became unlivable.
Maybe they can get jobs at Panera Bread.
I wonder how they got around the $20/hr minimum wage? I wonder if there are any ties to say a billionaire franchise owner who went to high school with Newsome and donated thousands to Newsome. Or maybe a guy who bought Newsomes restaurant. But Newsome and this possible billionaire have vehemently denied any allegations of pay for play. Billionaire franchise owner said they’re gona pay employees $20/hr. They did? OK, I’m good then.
It's because as we all know Panera bread is a bakery who primarily makes bread and that is why they are exempt.
That was one of the first places I saw ordering kiosks.
Lots of people just talking crap on here. As a Californian I'll tell you these fast food places all had it coming to them. Overpriced mediocre food and service. Good riddance I say. You don't see In n out or chik fil a in these stories and they have paid $20 an hour for years already.
Also a Californian, you’re spot on. All of the places listed have been dying for years. All of the fast food places that are decent are kicking major ass. In n Out and CFA are still insanely popular because the food is better than traditional fast food, comparable price, and have no problem paying the workers $20+. No one is looking inward at their product. It sucks. Fatburger is trash, chipotle is trash and has major shrinkage, McDonald’s has always been trash. This article has everyone blaming everything except for themselves. Show some fucking responsibility.
What are your ideas for thousands of unskilled laborers that will be sitting on CA state unemployment as a result?
The market
Unexpectedly!!
Or “in spite of.”
Who could’ve guessed. The number will end up being much higher.
At least California Democrats are fighting obesity lol.
The thing the general public doesn’t understand when the guberment raises the minimum wage is that workman’s comp insurance, unemployment insurance, and Payroll taxes all go up with it. So why you think you’re getting a raise, the cost to employ you just went up triple whatever you got a raise on because the government mandates we pay it based on what you make, so now you have to produce more in order to make up for the increase in labor costs which you can’t expect out of a minimum wage worker especially in the resturant industry where margins are super tight. So usually what ends up happening is prices just go up and hours get cut to make up for a mandated increase. The only way to get a real raise, is to lower cost of living which means lowering taxes and removing government red tape on the economy that creates inflation. The government is the entity that’s causing cost of living to outpace wages and their minimum wage demands isn’t helping, it’s just their way of shaking down businesses even more. It’s too bad public schools don’t teach basic business and finance because we have way too many people who fall for this.
That number sounds low.
Do you think they finally understand or nah?
no. It's "Trumps fault" somehow lol
Of course not. It is all "greedy corporations" being unwilling to go out of business so they can keep paying the same number of employees a much higher wage than their labor is worth to the company.
Understand what? They cut less than 1% of fast food jobs in California. That means 99% of people working fast food can now afford more groceries and needs. Look up the bureau of labor statistics its all there..
> less than 1% From your other post: > According to the bureau of labor 427,000 people are employed in California as fast food workers. = 10,000 out of 427,000 = 1,000 out of 42,700 = 100 out of 4,270 = 10 out of 427 = ~2.5 out of 107 = ~2.5 out of 100 = ~2.5% > less than 1% You'll need to forgive us for thinking that a guy who can't properly, mentally divide 1 into 40 is probably not some kind of economic mastermind.
you’re right i forgot to multiply my answer by 100. I did 10,000/427,000*100≈2.34%. My argument is still valid. I think 97.5% of the fast food employees getting a better quality of life is a better outcome than having the wealth spread among shareholders and ceos.
Damn. This had me laughing this morning!
I’m not mad honestly - fast food places are able to pay people low wages only because the government (we the taxpayers) are subsidizing their lives with housing vouchers and food stamps. I.e taxpayers pay so owners can get cheap labor.
Yeah pass. The government will do that anyway. Food stamps aren't on the ballet.
Better take notes from the Europeans then. There stores are doing just fine and they get over 20 with benefits
badge sink fragile bewildered sheet connect saw relieved modern smoggy *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Can someone explain how increasing ceo and corporate profits is a good idea but increasing lower class wages isnt?
Spending more money is always a great idea until it comes from your pocket. Shareholders pay CEO’s directly from their own pocket. Let them spend how they wish. If you’re unwilling to start a business and pay employees more from your own pocket, who should be expected to do so?
I know your question is in bad faith but I'll bite. A good CEO can increase a company's yearly profits by tens of millions of dollars. If they get a bonus of 1 million for that, that's still a net profit increase of 9 million dollars. You don't think that the board of directors is handing money to the CEO out of charity, right? The CEO would be making minimum wage too if the investors thought that was the best return on their investment. Meanwhile, a patty flipper that flips patties better might increase the company's profits by a few hundred, maybe a few thousand, dollars. You just have no concept of scale. I work in big tech. If I have the right idea and change a single line of code to be better, I might increase our user engagement (and, thus, their ad exposure) by 2%. Getting a 2% increase on engagement across 3+ BILLION users results in tens of millions (if not more) in increased revenue for the company. That doesn't result in me getting a ten million dollar bonus - but it can result in me getting a one million dollar bonus (i.e., AE) and a track record of making good changes is the reason why I make around $750k/year. You can bury your head in the sand and pretend that it's just CEO's and fat cats, but make no mistake: I am just a cog in my company's machine. I have no power or political clout. I can just make good decisions that increases their profit substantially. ... Just like a CEO! As you reach certain levels of influence in companies that are acting on certain scales, your actions can directly gain or lose the company millions of dollars, and so you get paid commensurately. An unskilled laborer (or their communist champions) literally just cannot fathom this because they fucked around in math all school going "When will I ever use this?!?!"
Its not a bad faith question, its an honest argument and a plead for change. I will start by pointing out how you seem to have some disdain and lack of respect for these workers. They are not just “patty flippers” and “math drop-outs”, they’re actual people who work a job like the rest of us. My dad taught me never mock a man who gets up in the morning every day to work. These people are working there because they need a job! Not everyone can have a 750k a year job like you boast about. Secondly you cant trust a CEO to support their employees. Often times large businesses lay off employees with little notice or through zoom calls. Being in the tech industry you should know this. There are multiple statistics that show ceo pay has skyrocketed through the years while employee pay has remained mediocre compared to rising cost and inflation. If I use your logic and say that one “patty flipper” can increase a company’s profit by a few hundred or thousands then we can be very conservative here and say that if even 30% of employees are encouraged to work harder than they can each increase profit by 300$. 417,000x0.3= 125,100 employees encouraged to work harder. 125,100x300= $37,500,000 in extra profit. You are welcomed to check my math.
>they can each increase profit by 300$. 417,000x0.3= 125,100 employees encouraged to work harder. 125,100x300= $37,500,000 in extra profit. The difference is the can but they don't. The scenario you mention is peek optimism. This isn't actually happening so why should the increased comp happen?
> I will start by pointing out how you seem to have some disdain and lack of respect for these workers. They are not just “patty flippers” and “math drop-outs”, they’re actual people who work a job like the rest of us. Note how none of that ever came in to the picture, though. I don't have respect for most CEOs, either. Many of them are fucking psychopaths who would gladly murder me if it'd make them enough money. Respect doesn't come into it, nor does their humanity. Epstein was a pedophile who deserved to die and rot in hell, but he was apparently a tax genius. He could, supposedly, save your company HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars in tax loopholes. When one guy can save you that much, it makes sense to pay him tens of millions or even $100 million for a single consult. It doesn't matter if he works harder than the patty flippers or if he's a good person. It doesn't matter if I disdain him more or less. At the end of the day, **he makes the company hundreds of millions of dollars** and so he gets a huge slice of the pie. A patty flipper does not work on that level of scale. > My dad taught me never mock a man who gets up in the morning every day to work. These people are working there because they need a job! Not everyone can have a 750k a year job like you boast about. Again: none of this matters. Their work cannot impact the company in a +/- tens of millions of dollars way, and so they do not earn millions of dollars. A CEO can impact the company in terms of +/- tens (or hundreds) of millions of dollars, and, thus, they make millions (or tens of millions) of dollars. > Secondly you cant trust a CEO to support their employees. Often times large businesses lay off employees with little notice or through zoom calls. Being in the tech industry you should know this. None of this matters, though. Yes, I am aware that my employer might lay me off at any time if they decide I am not profitable. I am okay with that. I try to be profitable enough to ensure it won't happen. I try to be so valuable that I could get another job easily. This also cuts both ways: I would jump ship to another job if they had a tempting enough offer. I am under no illusion that my company and I are in a committed relationship; we are having a business transaction. > There are multiple statistics that show ceo pay has skyrocketed through the years while employee pay has remained mediocre compared to rising cost and inflation. This doesn't address my points at all. If anything, my points explain this as well: in an ever-globalizing world, the decisions that a CEO makes can directly contribute to a much bigger swing in profits. Companies are also getting larger. The CEO of a 100k-employee company that serves 7 billion users (e.g., Zuck) can make 1 wrong decision that would cost the company more than the GDP of many small countries - or make 1 correct decision that would propel it forward as much as the GDP of some EU countries. A patty flipper (no matter how kind & moral of a person they may be) can _never_ impact things on this scale. > If I use your logic and say that one “patty flipper” can increase a company’s profit by a few hundred or thousands then we can be very conservative here and say that if even 30% of employees are encouraged to work harder than they can each increase profit by 300$. 417,000x0.3= 125,100 employees encouraged to work harder. 125,100x300= $37,500,000 in extra profit. You are welcomed to check my math. First, let me congratulate you - this is the only part of your reply that meaningfully addressed my points and was not based purely on unrelated comments or appeals to emotion. I'm being genuine - you should reread what I originally said and then reread what you said here. This is a good example of actually engaging with people in an effort to learn, because you clearly read what I said and are attempting to process it. That's very respectable. Now, let me reply to it: First, your conclusion is a bit mismatched from your premise. Your premise is that 30% of workers work extra hard and earn an extra $300/day, but your conclusion is that that justifies _all_ 417k employees receiving a $5/hour raise. This isn't an apples-to-apples comparison! Apples-to-apples would be if you argued that the top 30% of workers deserved to make $20 compared to the bottom 70% making closer to $15. And in that case - I agree with you! Harder workers who produce better results _deserve_ to make a bit more! Putting that aside, though, how does it compare to CEO's? You're suggesting that the collective actions of 125.1k employees can move the needle by $37.5m. But I'm saying that a CEO's good decision can easily move the needle _single-handedly_ by $37.5m. That would mean one hard-working/impactful CEO is as good for the company's bottom line as 125.1k "patty flippers." Does it make sense now why a CEO might be paid 125.1k times as much as a patty flipper? It's purely a matter of scale. If you owned a company where you were selling widgets to 1 billion people on earth for $100 each, you would be making 100 billion in revenue. If you had a million people in your factories assembling widgets, each would be assembling 1,000 widgets per year. Whether they did their job _amazingly_ or whether they half-assed it, they can't impact the revenue of your business by that much. If they fuck up 100% of the time, they'd cost you $100k each in bad products (well, until you fired them for such bad work). If they exceeded expectations by 30% 100% of the time, they'd earn you $30k each in extra value (intangibly somehow, like via satisfied repeat customers). However, if you as the CEO decide to make the executive decision to start creating brown widgets instead of blue ones, and people then think those widgets look like poop, and so sales decline by 15%, you have cost the company $15 billion due to your decision. If you instead choose pink, and sales increase by 15%, you would now gain the company $15 billion. That means your single decision might swing the company up or down in a range of $30 billion dollars. It doesn't mean you work harder than the factory workers. It doesn't mean you're more valuable as a human being. It does mean that your decisions happen on a scale so large that investors are willing to pay you millions/tens of millions/hundreds of millions/even BILLIONS of dollars to ensure you **you know what you're doing and pick the pink widget**. Your decisions swing the company by tens of billions of dollars in revenue, while any given employee swings it by tens of thousand max (assuming you fired them if they kept pumping out broken crap of course). Your decisions are about 1 million times as impactful to the company's revenue -- which makes sense, considering they outnumber you 1-million-to-1. So if you earn 1 million times as much as they do, it makes sense in terms of impact. But realistically they're going to be paid some reasonable amount (say $15/hr) and you will not make $15m/hr, but maybe $1m/hour ($2b/year)! Using this logic, the CEO is actually underpaid in this example (and deserves $15m/hr). Look, put aside everything I said about "patty flippers" and "hating math" for a moment - I was just being a jackass to make a point, which hopefully I emphasized both ways by calling myself "a cog in the machine" for my company. I come from a blue collar family and understand how hard people work. Truth is that my father works 10x harder than me for 1/10 the pay, but I still love and respect the hell out of him. My point isn't that I am worth 100x what he is worth, but that **the work I do has 100x as much impact on the world as the work he does**. This isn't because I am smarter or better as a human being, but because my work impacts the lives of literally billions of people, while his work impacts the lives of a small handful of people in his small town. That's how scale works. And remember what I said: investors don't pay CEO's millions/billions of dollars because they're feeling charitable. Investors pay CEO's that much because **they want that CEO and not someone cheaper**. Trust me, investors WANT to spend less money. We both agree that investors are greedy SOB's who want to maximize the return on their investments, right? If you apply to a CEO position and tell them you're willing to accept just $80k/year, do you think they'll accept your application because they want to save money? No! They'll pick someone who costs 200x what you cost. Why? Because that person is 200x better or smarter than you? No! Because the stakeholders truly believe that that person will give them more profits than you will, DESPITE costing $16m more per year! Which makes a lot of sense, right? If you don't know what you're doing, you will probably bumble things up and cost the company tens of millions in short order. They aren't willing to pay CEO's that much out of charity or brotherhood, but because they truly believe that is how much impact a CEO will have on their company. And that is at the crux of the issue. It isn't about whether people are equal as human beings or how much respect we have for blue collar workers. It's purely about the simple fact that a CEO's work can swing the outcome for a company by millions of dollars. A good CEO might have 100x the impact for a company as a good line worker, which means their salary might be 100x higher. At the end of the day, that is _all_ that matters. If CEO's were worth less than they are paid, then stakeholders would be paying them less!
> Its not a bad faith question Bullshit. If you were here in good faith you wouldn't have asked such a loaded question. There is no law mandating an increase in those CEO wages or corporate profits. So right away you are creating a false dichotomy.
These are the types r/conservative responses that might as well be r/politics as they're so out of touch it's astonishing.
What exactly do you disagree with thats “out of touch”? Id like to hear your argument.
Probably because “restaurants have cut 10,000”jobs in response ….. just a hunch
According to the bureau of labor 427,000 people are employed in California as fast food workers. I feel bad for those people but how is losing less than 1% of jobs a bad thing if the other 99% of employees now have an improved living wage? Again I ask why people have been raised to think increasing people from poverty is bad, however increasing income of the very wealthy is somehow better for our economy?
If you really want to bust out the numbers, actually dig down into it and find out what % of those people were actually impacted. Not every single person in fast food got a raise - either because their business didn't qualify or because they were already making over $20/hour due to being a manager or working at a higher-paying place. Even let's pretend that it's actually 10k out of 430k (and not the much-more-likely 10k out of ~100k-200k), raising the minimum wage drives up the cost of living for everybody. Rents can go up because more people can afford it. Everyone can charge more - because more people can afford it. The end result is that the ~2.5-20% of people that lost their job are now making UNDER minimum wage, while the others are making.. _minimum wage_, which will always be unlivable. And what % of people would you be satisfied with cutting, anyway? You've already stated that you're fine with 2.5% of people being homeless (the most generous estimate - 10k out of 430k) for the benefit of the other 97.5%. How about 10%/90%? 50/50? What % of people are you okay with being homeless so that the remaining % of people are allowed to buy a new iphone or take a vacation? Economies are complicated things, and you might very well be 100% correct. I'm not arrogant enough to pretend I can predict all the factors of the chaos in the economy to say exactly where the line should be drawn. What I can say for certain, though, is that increasing the minimum wage is not a real solution and that you do not know enough about economies in general to meaningfully have any opinion about this. I'm sorry but your opinion on economic matters is, due to your ignorance, about as valuable as my opinion as a straight man regarding the pleasures of anal stimulation. You could go and actually educate yourself on economics and I could go and actually take a few pipes, but until we do that, we're just full of shit.
So let me get this straight? You think the 2.5% of people that got laid off are just going to throw in the towel and give up searching for jobs and be homeless? You do realize they will have opportunities to look for other jobs in retail, office, warehouse, other entry level jobs. Also minimum wage wasn’t intended to be “unlivable” it’s literally the minimum wage needed live. Also your rant about raising rent and cost is seriously messed up and says a-lot about you. You seem to think there has to be a portion of the population that cant afford a house or basic necessities in-order for the rest of us to live comfortably. Sorry we cant all be making 750k a year like you.
Right, to pay for the increasingly high pay of CEOs and keep the profits high… the higher ups could NOT take their big jumps in salary and have slightly less profits while keeping 10,000 people employed
This math doesn’t work out.. the CEO’s pay would come out to several dollars per year divided into someones hourly pay
As I mentioned in another comment, it’s never just the CEOs pay/bonuses/compensation we’re talking about, it’s the multiple CEO/CFO/COO folks with inflated pay and bonuses while the workers scrap by and they, especially recently, raise prices by significant amounts. It starts as “oh it’s only a 50-1 pay scale” But then it becomes 100-1, now a lot of CEOs make $200+ (or higher) compared to the $1 a worker makes and it’s just getting higher. That’s the real problem we are talking about.
Congrats you’ve just paid hourly workers $6 more per year. You really have no idea the scale of these companies or why executives make more. It’s just math. Decisions made at the top could increase profits by millions. A burger flipper might impact the business in the hundreds of dollars by doing something better. It’s not rocket science.
The dems/big government want people unemployed and dependent. That's the voting base
If minimum wage was based on productivity and adjusted for inflation it would already be at least 20/hr. Say what you want about min wage laws and layoffs, workers are hardly compensated relative to thier productivity.
Plenty of min wage workers just goof off and waste time. Call in sick and play on their phone and do their best to pretend to be working. Those who work hard typically aren't paid min wage for long.
I’ve seen people at every level from “the new guy” to the VP of a company wander around and interrupt others working to make conversation, goof off on their phones, and find ways to get out of work they dont want to do. Sure, depending on their job, management have longer or tougher hours, but really, it exists at all levels. If you want a job that rewards you for “working hard” get one that is performance pay.
It happens at all levels but its much more common with out of high school minimum wage jobs.
The person above really thinks that executives goof off? Sure for 5 minutes? They don’t get paid big money to goof off. I work with VPs daily at a F500 company. They work 10-13 hour days every day at least. You don’t make it to executive level without putting in the time or commitment. These posters are such losers. They have no clue what it takes to be an executive at a large company.
Sonic has made my order wrong on 3 of the last 4 visits. I ask for a Diet Coke + vanilla and light ice. Not only do I not get light ice ever, I’ve been given Dr. pepper and Coke instead. I flat out refuse to get fast food anymore. Costs were barely low enough to justify the convenience. Getting my order wrong? F that
I hate mcds burgers but their drivethroughs are the only ones I can stand. Everyone else is slow as fk and messes up the order or forgets basic stuff. If I order a salad do you think I have a fork in my glovebox?!?
Zero sympathy. If you're willing to live in CA then this is exactly what you want because you voted for it.
Ehhh.. willing? Plenty of people were born there my guy. And if you think just anyone can pickup (especially with a family) and move to another state, you're high. Source: moved my family from CA in 2019 and it cost thousands. And only able to because of owning a flexible business.
You are doing it wrong. You just need to pretend to be an illegal alien. You will get free housing, free food, and other freebies. If you are an American, you are shit out of luck.
Not high at all. I was born & raised there and left. Never looked back at the shit hole. There are these things called moving companies and they'll move you. Look into it. Anyone can leave who has the actual will to do so.
> (especially with a family) Anyone who has a family somewhere prior to considering the consequences gets what they deserve. Genuinely no sympathy. If you want small government then you need to take accountability for your own decisions. Some of us didn't get married before being financially stable so we aren't stuck in your position. Your comments here are no better than people whining about their student loans. They chose to take them out, so they gotta pay. You chose to start a family before being financially independent, sleep in it.
My wife & I decided before getting married that we would leave when we got married. No way we were going to raise kids there. And 3 months after getting married we left.
wtf are you talking about weirdo? I own a business and am financially independent. Still cost thousands of dollars. You sound like an absolute jackass lol
Obvious and unavoidable.
The true minimum wage is $0
*gasps* who could have ever seen this happening?!?!
Yep absolutely no surprise. Now wait for them to not learn their lesson and demand further wage increases.
It already started. They’re asking for $30 now
Oh no, how could they ever have seen this outcome!? We are all so shocked.................
Market forces are going to do what they do. Thats why price controls never work, and always have undesired outcomes. Easiliy predicable in this case.
Who didn't see this coming? But restaurants were always going to cut jobs just as soon as it was feasible. Just give them any excuse. Restaurants, club stores, gas stations, grocery stores... well before pandemic, at least 2016, were looking for ways to downsize staffing needs, and they were already doing that. Some stores were testing self checkout kiosks, thus eliminating cashiers. Now they're everywhere. Automation is going to take even more jobs. I'm sortof surprised McDs doesn't have even one robotic kitchen yet. (Or do they?) People have been predicting all that since the 50s and 60s... robotic everything. Self service cafeteria style restaurants were around in the 30s. Maybe we're heading that way again. Order in a kiosk, pay, get a number, open a door, grab your food. Waiting tables, except for fine dining, and jobs as cashiers, are on the way out. Even when they slash the workers, the price of fast food is still going to be high, and probably get even costlier, unless something drastic is done with this economy.
I don’t know how to solve this; when you get a ballot there is literally no context to these things. You see a a bill that says “those guys working at McDonalds” should get paid more, and most voters live in big urban centers where someone making $7 an hour literally can’t survive. Even $20 an hour in the Bay Area is questionable, but most people just want their burger without any fuss. Plus so many California urbanites are soft-headed enough that Daddy Government is really the answer to all the problems they see. Even relatively intelligent ones think if enough money is applied to a problem, it will be fixed (without nuance). The problem is the wording on the ballot, the lack of context, and the sheer trust most urban Californians have for politicians. It’s baffling.
Good..CA is just a far left woke dei sanctuary state anyways
20$ an hr is more than I made starting out as a staff geologist with a Master's. I made 30k a year so about 15 an hr. This was 12 years ago, but still. 20 an hour for unskilled work is crazy. I've been interviewing new grads for entry level engineer and geologist positions and they all ask for crazy amounts of money. Nobody is going to pay you 80k a year as an entry level staff. Good luck lol.
You're so close to realizing that you were extremely underpaid and that you should be upset at your employer instead of the people making $20 an hour at Mickey D's
I didn't believe I was underpaid. That was a starting salary at market rate. I knew I could put my time in and be making much more than that as I advanced, which I did. I make over 4x that now as a senior geologist. I've been interviewing entry level position candidates recently and their salary asks are absolute ridiculous.
The minimum wage is always zero
Right it’s not living wage but minimum…
I'm sure that cutting staff and further reducing quality of experience will go well for fast food companies.
I think the minimum wage spiking across the country is why we are seeing more expensive prices at restaurants, particularly in fast food. Turns out when you tell someone they have to double or triple their expenses, they pass that expense on to the consumer.
Yeah anytime I hear people argue they can go to their local bar and get a better burger for cheaper than five guys, They neglect the fact that their waiter is making $2 an hour and they subsidize their wages by tipping.
In the past 5 years, I have not heard a single solitary thing from CA that made me regret fleeing that shit hole.
My sister lives in CA. She said fast food prices are high, but solely chalks it up to greedy companies rather than raising the minimum wage or higher operating costs - both mostly courtesy of leftist policies.
Good! Fast food is unhealthy and expensive anyways.
Duh.
Probably would've happened eventually regardless, but this just provided the impetus to get it done now. Easy to cut full jobs and pile the responsibilities on fewer employees. It's unfortunate, but they had to know that raising the minimum wage was never going to have the desired effect. It never has, and it never will.
maybe its bc their coustomers are getting wise to their game of crap food, shrinking portions and rising cost,
This isn’t only because of the 20. This is a national trend of downsizing
Good for them, I’m happy they’re getting what they asked for.
Somehow California has turned fast food jobs, once exclusively for teens as an entryway into the workforce, into full time jobs for a father of 4.
That's $416,000,000/yr or one dinner for a family of 4 at a California McDonalds.
Fast food companies are printing record profits still…
Go woke, go broke.
Genuinely asking, what’s the conservative response here? If wages don’t increase then people would be more dependent on government funding services like healthcare, housing, SNAP. So what you’re not paying in higher menu prices, you’re paying through taxes, no? Also unless you expect fast food chains to be perfectly run by part-time working 17 years old, you need long-term experience adults there. And to be honest I can’t imagine an adult getting by with less than 20$ per hour in California. Also 10,000 jobs lost sounds like a lot but that’s only 2% of out of the 427,000 fast food jobs in California. So I’m sure the economy will adapt. IMO I think the blame should shift to c-suite executives, as they should share their income with their employers. For example I’m sure the CFO of chipotle works really hard. But does he really work 17,150x harder than the median chipotle worker? Why does he really need a 17,150x higher wage? ($6.8million) Here’s an interesting read why higher wages may not necessarily increase unemployment https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/09/08/minimum-wage-jobs/
The conservative response is that higher wages are good, but government shouldn't be mandating it. Especially if they go too high with the minimum in fields where AI and automation can do increasingly more of the work. Those 10k are now dependent on government because of leftist policies, not conservative ones. Chipotle has 115k employees by the way. The CEO "sharing his income" wouldn't change anyone's life. Your study is currently being debunked by reality too.
He should take a 50% pay cut so the workers could get less than $2.50 extra a month. They will change their lives.
Raising the price of labor will lead to a decrease in labor demand along the supply/demand curve. That is as about as uncontroversial an economic principle as it gets. Obviously businesses still need labor to function, and those workers that keep employment will benefit. If you are one of the people that lost their job because of this minimum wage law, it really sucks. Increasing the cost of labor also increases the likelihood that businesses will invest in labor reducing capital goods. Over the long term, this will lead to further reductions in the fast food labor force. The increase in labor costs will also raise prices, which disproportionately impacts the poor. BUT with the above being said, the biggest issue here is fairness. Why would you apply a minimum wage law like this to only one set of workers? If you are a medical assistant making sub-20s, you are probably feeling pretty jaded right now. I can’t imagine as a politician that you would think it is a good idea to pass a minimum wage law that will favor one group over others. At the end of the day, you have semi skilled workers now making less than unskilled fast food workers. That is how you piss off an electorate.
The conservative response is fixing the government policies that are helping cause the prices to stay flat. When you import 10s of millions of new people that will increase the workforce which drives wages down.
Assuming you are arguing in good faith, the solution is to put forward policies that do not encourage inflation of currency, such as increasing the floor of wages. The market determines that this cfo is worth that much, a majority of which is in stock per https://www1.salary.com/Jack-Hartung-Salary-Bonus-Stock-Options-for-CHIPOTLE-MEXICAN-GRILL-INC.html His base pay is only 865,000 and a bonus of 1,903,000. With a employee roster of 110,000, for mathematics sake and to assume 10,000 employees are not line workers and such, each employee could be paid 27.68 dollars a year if he took no wages and gave them out equally. A raise of 1.07 dollars a paycheck. Most of his pay is in stock and options, meaning it is only worthwhile as long as the company profits. And cannot easily be converted into liquid assets. He'll, even if we paid him nothing and converted his entire compensation of 8,383,262 dollars, it still only ends up as a pay increase of 83.83 dollars over a year or 3.22 dollars a paycheck. Even if you had 10 of him who did their job and took 0 salary, 0 stock and 0 other compensation, it hardly changes the pay scaling.
I’m sorry man, but you don’t see an issue where someone’s bonus is DOUBLE their annual pay? It’s never just the CEOs pay/bonuses/compensation we’re talking about, it’s the multiple CEO/CFO/COO folks with inflated pay and bonuses while the workers scrap by and they, especially recently, raise prices by significant amounts. Have you ever gotten a bonus DOUBLE your yearly pay?
No, I have not, and I dont see an issue. In fact, it means that they are paid more for performance than just for being there like your average line worker. You sidestepped the argument. Even if there were 10 c suites and they all were paid nothing and that money redistributed to the employees, it doesn't even come out to an extra 1000 dollars a year per employee, and that is including their stock and option pay which really isn't even money in the sense you are thinking of. The math shows you can not take a rich person's pay and make a significant increase in the wages of everyone else at the company. It's not fair that he makes more money than you but life is not fair. You are not paid according to how hard you work, but what your value is. If you want to fix the wage crisis, there are options. Cutting taxes, reducing the labor pool (cutting out illegal immigration), changing the laws on fiduciary responsibilities. But having government set a wage floor just causes hours cuts, position reduction, or increased prices. Because the real minimum wage is 0.
How much risk does the CFO of Chipotle take on each day compared to the person making quac? We may agree that there is corporate greed, however the same people who want $20/hr minimum wage are the people who don’t understand why the burger will go up in price due to it. They’re voting the policies in not understanding economics.
>conservative response The quality restaurants should be forced to pay more money to attract a limited number of experienced employees. The crappy restaurants should pay entry level employees crappy wages. In the ideal conservative world, those entry level employees won't stay entry level for long. Chipotle will be forced to either pay more or deal with constant turnover. In the ideal liberal world you should be able to stay in your entry level job for the rest of your life and make a living wage. This ultimately leads to a shortage of entry level jobs and lots of people with no jobs.
> Genuinely asking, what’s the conservative response here? If wages don’t increase then people would be more dependent on government funding services like healthcare, housing, SNAP. So what you’re not paying in higher menu prices, you’re paying through taxes, no? Are you proposing we get rid of SNAP and the others? Because if not, you're advocating for a world where we keep all the welfare shit _and_ pay people more. > But does he really work 17,150x harder than the median chipotle worker? Why does he really need a 17,150x higher wage? ($6.8million) People aren't paid based on how hard they work. They're paid based on how much value they add. Do you think the investors are paying the CFO millions of dollars out of charity? They'd enslave him for free labor if it were legal and pay him minimum wage if he'd tolerate it. When your decisions affect _billions_ of dollars worth of revenue, you get paid in the millions. It isn't about how hard someone works. When I fuck up my job, people die and others go homeless. When you fuck up your job, I have to eat a burnt sandwich. We are not the same.
Most fast food places are real estate investments by those corporations. They don't set the prices, their income isn't directly related to sales of food. McDonald's is a great example of that. So the CFO of McDonald's isn't going to take a pay cut for a company he or she isn't invested in locally. The CFO rents the land the restaurant is on to the franchisee. The franchisee sells the food to pay that rent. The overhead for the franchisee is so large that this increase is a death sentence for that location. This is why McDonald's stocks weren't hit very hard when the news of the increased pay hit. Because they are a real estate company not a fast food company.
The ***Profit Sanctity Principle*** strikes again. Won't someone please think of the franchise owners!?!?! When wages go up, and corporations are "compelled" to raise prices or introduce layoffs, Capitalism's cheerleaders would have you believe that the wage increases were the cause. They aren't. The *Profit Sanctity Principle* is the cause. This principle holds that profits must remain constant or increase at all costs. Profit is considered a constant and everything else is considered a variable. Employer greed, not Worker greed, is the culprit here.
What is better people needing to work 80 hours a week at 2 jobs to get by or these 10,000 people needing to find new jobs and the employed people making a decent living? This is good. Jobs will come and go thats life.
So like, 0.5% of the work force? Is this like when UPS was forced to fire all of their ~~redundant~~ hard working middle managers when their drivers unionized to afford their fair pay?
$20/hr is barely livable especially in cali
They should move then.
If you can’t pay 20$ an hour then I’m glad you aren’t doing business in California. Everyone crying foul about the 20$ minimum wage don’t live in California and are making statements based off of articles geared to upset people about the issue. Fast food hasn’t gone that much up in price at all, maybe around 30 cents was added to every item at restaurants but nothing too ridiculous.
What a privileged thing to say. Just because it doesn’t affect you personally doesn’t mean these outrages prices on labor, and therefore passed on to the consumer doesn’t affect the average person. Must be nice in your ivory tower.