NFL95MelGrayDomination Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 Again, this post demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the franchise business model, and the profit margins of the restaurant industry. McDonalds is a franchising business which enlists small business owners, rather than a megalith corporate stucture, to service it's customers at the retail level. Individual store owners usually opperate between 3-10 box locations; each of which, when running at peak efficiency, generates a profit margin of 8-12%. The restaurant industry abides by the following natural structural rules: roughly 30% of all revenue goes to food costs, another estimated 30% goes to overhead and opperational costs, and finally, again roughly, 30% goes to labor. The 10% remaining (or the 8-12% prior mentioned) is profit. Noting this information, a doubling of the minimum wage would drive labor costs to 60% of revenue. The 30% food costs and 30% opperations and overhead costs are both fixed and efficient, and account for another 60% of revenues combined. Your proposal ensures that restaurants actually run at a 20% loss for it's owners, nevermind cutting into it's profit margin. Why would anyone opperate a restaurant under these conditions? Please learn to spell the word operate, operational, and operations. It's no wonder you can't make a compelling argument. Most store owners I know operate much larger businesses than the little cookie-cutter you talk about here. Your facts are dead wrong. And you are forgetting that the majority of corporate food chain franchises are big time corporations with massive capital at their disposal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 (edited) Please learn to spell the word operate, operational, and operations. It's no wonder you can't make a compelling argument. Most store owners I know operate much larger businesses than the little cookie-cutter you talk about here. Your facts are dead wrong. And you are forgetting that the majority of corporate food chain franchises are big time corporations with massive capital at their disposal. You're demonstrating a complete ignorance of the franchise model. Most stores are not corporately owned. Take McD's for example, not exactly a little cookie-cutter operation, which only owned 6,598 of its 34,480 worldwide stores (19%) as of the end of 2012. The rest of these stores are owned by individuals which pay McD's management fees. For facts, pull a 10-K. Or read through this. Its got pictures and graphs to keep your attention. http://www.aboutmcdo...eport Final.pdf McD's corporate ownership is actually pretty high relative to competitors. Checkout The King which only owns and operates ~3% of its stores. Edited December 11, 2013 by Jauronimo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 Please learn to spell the word operate, operational, and operations. It's no wonder you can't make a compelling argument. Most store owners I know operate much larger businesses than the little cookie-cutter you talk about here. Your facts are dead wrong. And you are forgetting that the majority of corporate food chain franchises are big time corporations with massive capital at their disposal. i also wonder what percentage of owners own multiple stores.what does your name and photo mean? mel gray, chiefs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 all the liberals here seem to agree that less than $15 will be achieved. colleagues and coworkers i've discussed it with don't believe $15 is gonna happen. i don't believe it's gonna happen. no, i don't have a poll. so what? the likelihood is that mcd workers won't be upped to a $15 minimum wage. i think they will likely get a raise. and asking for $15 to start will likely be instrumental in gettng it. Well stop right now, because that's been achieved! Back in the '80's many union contracts were tied to the minimum wage. Is that still the case? If so, isn't this more about the D's core constituency than the high school kid w/ an entry level job? Yes indeedy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 In addition, this is not simply about reducing poverty, it's also trying to remedy the rise in inequality that's a result of policies that began in the 1980s. Policies that de-regulated finance (and other industries) and increased globalization shifted power in favor of capital over labor, profits over wages. As I stated in my last post on this topic, workers' bargaining power has been decimated, so all of the gains from productivity have gone to capital. This generates a "demand gap" over time, because even though we are able to produce more, workers' earnings are stagnant. Some results from this over time: the US has the worst inequality among the advanced economies; workers/households increased reliance on debt to maintain living standards; an economy prone to asset bubbles and speculation as the more money that goes to the top means more money searching for financial investment outlets. The end result of these policies was an accumulation of private sector debt = 300% of GDP, which exceeded the 240% level in 1929. The private sector debt ratio was relatively stable around 120% of GDP from 1960-1980, then began a steady rise to the peak of 300% in 2008.This rise in private sector debt "masked" the underlying long term weaknesses in the economy caused by the shift of income from wages to profits. Conclusion: you can't fix this problem by continuing the policies that try to raise profits without raising demand for products. An increase in the minimum wage is one way to raise all wages relative to profits. It may not be the best way, but it's definitely needed in an economy where the main problem is demand, not supply. Interesting info but what I think is a big missing piece in your comments about wages is that the total cost to employ people during the period you cite has risen a lot. FICA costs for employers and employees have risen, workers comp insurance has been mandated and is very expensive in some industries, unemployment insurance rates have risen dramatically and health insurance becoming customary and now mandated is a huge expense compared to the '80's. There are other greater expenses as well but I'll leave it at that. All of these are part of compensation cost but don't put money in paychecks. I have often said to people that we ought to publish business inflation rates (an index that shows business cost inflation) by industry. People would likely see that the goods and services costs for businesses often rise faster than those of consumers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 Interesting info but what I think is a big missing piece in your comments about wages is that the total cost to employ people during the period you cite has risen a lot. FICA costs for employers and employees have risen, workers comp insurance has been mandated and is very expensive in some industries, unemployment insurance rates have risen dramatically and health insurance becoming customary and now mandated is a huge expense compared to the '80's. There are other greater expenses as well but I'll leave it at that. All of these are part of compensation cost but don't put money in paychecks. I have often said to people that we ought to publish business inflation rates (an index that shows business cost inflation) by industry. People would likely see that the goods and services costs for businesses often rise faster than those of consumers. Firms treat those just like any other cost, and pass them along in prices as you imply. These make it more difficult on smaller businesses than large. As I've said about regulations in general, they act to make small business less competitive because they can't distribute the costs like larger companies can. Regardless, the share of profits in the economy has increased, and the wage share has decreased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 (edited) Please learn to spell the word operate, operational, and operations. It's no wonder you can't make a compelling argument. Most store owners I know operate much larger businesses than the little cookie-cutter you talk about here. Your facts are dead wrong. And you are forgetting that the majority of corporate food chain franchises are big time corporations with massive capital at their disposal. I see. So your argument boils down to, "you've misspelled "operate" so your points are invalid." Great new spin on the Wookie Defense. Actually, it's not. All you've managed to do is display an incredible amount of ignorance about industry specific business practices. I also noted that you hinted that busniesses should be forced to utilize capital reserves to pay for salay increases that break the business model and lead to annualized losses. That's just about the dumbest thing I've ever head. /golfclap Edited December 11, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 It's telling how libs always approach this issue from a moral standpoint rather than one of economic feasibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 It's telling how libs always approach this issue from a moral standpoint rather than one of economic feasibility. They have something for moralities that don't report to the real world: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 It's telling how libs always approach this issue from a moral standpoint rather than one of economic feasibility. If I'm counted as a "lib," I didn't make a moral argument. Though, the level of inequality in this country is immoral... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 If I'm counted as a "lib," I didn't make a moral argument. Though, the level of inequality in this country is immoral... I don't think you qualify as a true lib. Possibly a dem. You might be an independent, but you're not a bear. Definitely not a twink. Probably not a top. Maybe a power-bottom? Does speed have anything to do with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 talk to me after you've won the nobel prize for economics and land a job a princeton. Yeah, because no one ever wins an award they don't deserve and then parlays it into better employment opportunities. Is there no amount of liberal choad you're not willing to gargle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 Yeah, because no one ever wins an award they don't deserve ...? Wait, so are you implying that Emperor Obama may not have actually deserved the Nobel Peace Prize? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 If I'm counted as a "lib," I didn't make a moral argument. Though, the level of inequality in this country is immoral... Then what is your argument? And how is it immoral? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 (edited) If I'm counted as a "lib," I didn't make a moral argument. Though, the level of inequality in this country is immoral... There is always going to be inequality due to lots of things. None of them immoral. A few are born into wealth thats true. But I'm ok with that because someone else in the family worked and thought their ass off to accumulate it. Some are born into cultures that don't value education enough. Some are born into cultures that don't value family enough. This has more of an effect on "equality" than some rich guy tha you think makes to much. Some are born good looking. Some are born that have elite athletic ability and go one to make big bucks in the NFL. I ask you is that fair to me? I'd love the chance to do that but will never get it because my skills are not equal. I'm pissed at the inequality of it all so I think AP should be stripped 2/3 of his cash and redistribute it to some of the rb's that have to play in the CFL or better yet me. That would be the equality of outcome you are looking for. Edited December 12, 2013 by Dante Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 There is always going to be inequality due to lots of things. None of them immoral. A few are born into wealth thats true. But I'm ok with that because someone else in the family worked and thought their ass off to accumulate it. Some are born into cultures that don't value education enough. Some are born into cultures that don't value family enough. This has more of an effect on "equality" than some rich guy tha you think makes to much. Some are born good looking. Some are born that have elite athletic ability and go one to make big bucks in the NFL. I ask you is that fair to me? I'd love the chance to do that but will never get it because my skills are not equal. I'm pissed at the inequality of it all so I think AP should be stripped 2/3 of his cash and redistribute it to some of the rb's that have to play in the CFL or better yet me. That would be the equality of outcome you are looking for. I actually like that analogy. Is it immoral for Peyton Manning to be a sure-fire first ballot hall of famer, while Ryan Leaf, who arguably had similar physical abilities and opportunities as Manning, is out of the league? Is it immoral that Peyton Manning is making ~$20 million per season while Leaf would be lucky to earn 20 cents per hour in prison? Or is it a simply a matter of Manning putting in the work necessary to earn what he has, while Leaf busted out by being a lazy nutjob junkie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 I actually like that analogy. Is it immoral for Peyton Manning to be a sure-fire first ballot hall of famer, while Ryan Leaf, who arguably had similar physical abilities and opportunities as Manning, is out of the league? Is it immoral that Peyton Manning is making ~$20 million per season while Leaf would be lucky to earn 20 cents per hour in prison? Or is it a simply a matter of Manning putting in the work necessary to earn what he has, while Leaf busted out by being a lazy nutjob junkie? It's immoral that Peyton Manning gets all that money and I have to work for a relative pittance because I can work just as hard as he does and still not make a fraction of his salary because I don't have his natural talent. He is depraved scum, apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 It's immoral that Peyton Manning gets all that money and I have to work for a relative pittance because I can work just as hard as he does and still not make a fraction of his salary because I don't have his natural talent. He is depraved scum, apparently. I agree. We should forcibly redistribute his wealth, as it's only "fair". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 I agree. We should forcibly redistribute his wealth, as it's only "fair". Why stop there. These QBs get to !@#$ really hot women. I only get to !@#$ moderately hot women. Where's the justice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Why stop there. These QBs get to !@#$ really hot women. I only get to !@#$ moderately hot women. Where's the justice? Probably seems awfully just to the really hot women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts