• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

AS DEFICIT EXPLODES, GOP DEMANDS EMERGENCY TAX CUT FOR THE RICH

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,962
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
It looks like McDonald's is taking the lead in resolving the issue of low wages for its employees. They are automating the drive-thru and there is a McDonald's restaurant in Phoenix, Arizona that is going completely robotic. Apparently they will eventually no longer paying those 'slave wages' and will only need a couple employees at each franchise, a robot tech and someone to refill the bins holding the food.
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
It looks like McDonald's is taking the lead in resolving the issue of low wages for its employees. They are automating the drive-thru and there is a McDonald's restaurant in Phoenix, Arizona that is going completely robotic. Apparently they will eventually no longer paying those 'slave wages' and will only need a couple employees at each franchise, a robot tech and someone to refill the bins holding the food.

I agree, soon UBI will be the only reasonable solution.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,962
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
or that I claimed that fast food restaurants have the same margin as non chain restaurants.

Here is where I point out that I never said that you did. In fact, I said just the opposite, that you were comparing apples (fast food restaurant chains with huge margins) to oranges (restaurants in the small business sector).
Corporate McDonald's is not a fast food restaurant. It does not hire fry cooks, etc. It is a business that sells franchises and it has huge profits. Each franchise is an independent small business sector restaurant that just 'buys' the name McDonald's and agrees to make the meals as specified under the franchise. Those franchises do not make the huge profits that the corporate McDonald's does.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
35,782
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I'd need to see the figures.

Here's some figures that seem pretty relevant, but Harry, Loren, and the others on the "pay them shit wages" side of the argument won't be referencing this any time soon:

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/MCD/mcdonalds/gross-profit

McDonald's annual/quarterly gross profit history and growth rate from 2006 to 2019. Gross profit can be defined as the profit a company makes after deducting the variable costs directly associated with making and selling its products or providing its services.
McDonald's gross profit for the quarter ending December 31, 2019 was $2.846B, a 5.54% increase year-over-year.
McDonald's gross profit for the twelve months ending December 31, 2019 was $11.115B, a 3.05% increase year-over-year.
McDonald's annual gross profit for 2019 was $11.115B, a 3.05% increase from 2018.
McDonald's annual gross profit for 2018 was $10.786B, a 1.56% increase from 2017.
McDonald's annual gross profit for 2017 was $10.621B, a 4.08% increase from 2016.

Yeah, they are barely getting by. :thinking:

Note that you're using gross profit, that's not a good yardstick as it excludes plenty of costs. Cutting those numbers by 40% gets you much closer to the truth. On a per employee basis that's about $3k per employee they are making.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
12,982
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Basic Beliefs
˙uoıʇdǝɔǝp ɟlǝs ɟo ɯɹoɟ ɐ sı ɥʇıɐℲ
Why would anyone buy into a franchise if it was not expected to be profitable? Are these franchises selling lemons by using false market research and demographics?
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
35,782
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
These wage vs profit arguments end up mostly circular, imo. They never seem to get into the crux of the argument, which is - why should a business pay more when they're able to find a reasonable amount of employees to agree to the conditions of employment.

That might sound like a simple and obvious question, but when you get into it it's extremely complex, and really at the heart of the issue. My answer would be that a minimum wage should go up when it's empirically too low for the strength of businesses it provides. The question then is how do we know when it's too low.

The original idea of minimum wage is that it's the minimum you need to live on assuming you're working 40 hr/wk. It's what the left keeps pretending is "living wage".

The real problem is not minimum wage, the real problem is so many jobs are part time. Part time jobs are good for those in school but other than that they're bad for the economy. Government should be putting it's thumb on the scale a bit towards full time work rather than this obsession with minimum wage.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
35,782
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
or that I claimed that fast food restaurants have the same margin as non chain restaurants.

Here is where I point out that I never said that you did. In fact, I said just the opposite, that you were comparing apples (fast food restaurant chains with huge margins) to oranges (restaurants in the small business sector).
Corporate McDonald's is not a fast food restaurant. It does not hire fry cooks, etc. It is a business that sells franchises and it has huge profits. Each franchise is an independent small business sector restaurant that just 'buys' the name McDonald's and agrees to make the meals as specified under the franchise. Those franchises do not make the huge profits that the corporate McDonald's does.

A lot of the stores are owned directly.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,962
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
Why would anyone buy into a franchise if it was not expected to be profitable?
That is a silly strawman. People buy a franchise because it is expected to be profitable.
Are these franchises selling lemons by using false market research and demographics?
No. They are selling a name that is recognized by potential customers... a ready made clientele. They are also selling the solution to a lot of headaches that make most independent restaurants fail like advertising, inventory supply chain, marketing research, etc.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
29,866
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
or that I claimed that fast food restaurants have the same margin as non chain restaurants.

Here is where I point out that I never said that you did. In fact, I said just the opposite, that you were comparing apples (fast food restaurant chains with huge margins) to oranges (restaurants in the small business sector).
Corporate McDonald's is not a fast food restaurant. It does not hire fry cooks, etc. It is a business that sells franchises and it has huge profits. Each franchise is an independent small business sector restaurant that just 'buys' the name McDonald's and agrees to make the meals as specified under the franchise. Those franchises do not make the huge profits that the corporate McDonald's does.

Sorry but there are many corporate owned McDonald's restaurants. 12% of them are corporate owned.

https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/04/03/what-percentage-of-mcdonalds-restaurants-are-owned.aspx
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,962
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
Corporate McDonald's is not a fast food restaurant. It does not hire fry cooks, etc. It is a business that sells franchises and it has huge profits. Each franchise is an independent small business sector restaurant that just 'buys' the name McDonald's and agrees to make the meals as specified under the franchise. Those franchises do not make the huge profits that the corporate McDonald's does.

Sorry but there are many corporate owned McDonald's restaurants. 12% of them are corporate owned.

https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/04/03/what-percentage-of-mcdonalds-restaurants-are-owned.aspx
So you agree that if you are driving through the 'hamburger alley' in your home town and see a McDonald's and your blood pressure rises at the thought of the salary of the employees, that there is almost 90% chance that it is a privately owned small business?
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
29,866
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Corporate McDonald's is not a fast food restaurant. It does not hire fry cooks, etc. It is a business that sells franchises and it has huge profits. Each franchise is an independent small business sector restaurant that just 'buys' the name McDonald's and agrees to make the meals as specified under the franchise. Those franchises do not make the huge profits that the corporate McDonald's does.

Sorry but there are many corporate owned McDonald's restaurants. 12% of them are corporate owned.

https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/04/03/what-percentage-of-mcdonalds-restaurants-are-owned.aspx
So you agree that if you are driving through the 'hamburger alley' in your home town and see a McDonald's and your blood pressure rises at the thought of the salary of the employees, that there is almost 90% chance that it is a privately owned small business?

Shifting the goalposts.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
12,982
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Basic Beliefs
˙uoıʇdǝɔǝp ɟlǝs ɟo ɯɹoɟ ɐ sı ɥʇıɐℲ
Why would anyone buy into a franchise if it was not expected to be profitable?
That is a silly strawman. People buy a franchise because it is expected to be profitable.
Are these franchises selling lemons by using false market research and demographics?
No. They are selling a name that is recognized by potential customers... a ready made clientele. They are also selling the solution to a lot of headaches that make most independent restaurants fail like advertising, inventory supply chain, marketing research, etc.

You seem to have missed my point....which was that people do buy into a francise because it is likely to be profitable. Which is related to fair pay and conditions for those doing the necessary work.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,962
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
So you agree that if you are driving through the 'hamburger alley' in your home town and see a McDonald's and your blood pressure rises at the thought of the salary of the employees, that there is almost 90% chance that it is a privately owned small business?

Shifting the goalposts.

Not at all. Businesses are generally described by their primary business. McD's is selling and servicing franchises. I certainly don't and wouldn't refer to them as a philanthropic organization even though they have the "Ronald McDonald house" charity and contribute to other charities.
 
Last edited:

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
29,866
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
So you agree that if you are driving through the 'hamburger alley' in your home town and see a McDonald's and your blood pressure rises at the thought of the salary of the employees, that there is almost 90% chance that it is a privately owned small business?

Shifting the goalposts.

Not at all. Businesses are generally described by their primary business. McD's is selling and servicing franchises. I certainly don't and wouldn't refer to them as a philanthropic organization even though they have the "Ronald McDonald house" charity and contribute to other charities.

Wondering who it was that said this. ???

Corporate McDonald's is not a fast food restaurant. It does not hire fry cooks, etc. It is a business that sells franchises and it has huge profits.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,962
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
Not at all. Businesses are generally described by their primary business. McD's is selling and servicing franchises. I certainly don't and wouldn't refer to them as a philanthropic organization even though they have the "Ronald McDonald house" charity and contribute to other charities.

Wondering who it was that said this. ???

Corporate McDonald's is not a fast food restaurant. It does not hire fry cooks, etc. It is a business that sells franchises and it has huge profits.

Then, I guess, by your nit-picking you would have to call McD's a philanthropic organization.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
29,866
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Wondering who it was that said this. ???

Then, I guess, by your nit-picking you would have to call McD's a philanthropic organization.

Nope, I said nothing at all about anything like that. Just pointing out that you were wrong and now you're just being too pig-headed to admit it.

ETA: There are more than 1,400 corporate owned McDonald's restaurants in the US.
 

Canard DuJour

Veteran Member
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
1,166
Location
UK
Basic Beliefs
dunno
These wage vs profit arguments end up mostly circular, imo.
Well, yeah. Because wages and profits are, indeed, circular. One firm's labour costs are another's revenues. It's kinda the point.

They never seem to get into the crux of the argument, which is - why should a business pay more when they're able to find a reasonable amount of employees to agree to the conditions of employment.
See above.

That might sound like a simple and obvious question, but when you get into it it's extremely complex, and really at the heart of the issue. My answer would be that a minimum wage should go up when it's empirically too low for the strength of businesses it provides. The question then is how do we know when it's too low.
Look at productivity growth and capacity utilisation over time. Both have fallen during the neoliberal era (since Reagan/Thatcher) despite promises to the contrary.
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
or that I claimed that fast food restaurants have the same margin as non chain restaurants.

Here is where I point out that I never said that you did. In fact, I said just the opposite, that you were comparing apples (fast food restaurant chains with huge margins) to oranges (restaurants in the small business sector).
Corporate McDonald's is not a fast food restaurant. It does not hire fry cooks, etc. It is a business that sells franchises and it has huge profits. Each franchise is an independent small business sector restaurant that just 'buys' the name McDonald's and agrees to make the meals as specified under the franchise. Those franchises do not make the huge profits that the corporate McDonald's does.

So you think that McD's corporation can make those kind of profits without their actual restaurants being profitable? They don't just "agree to make the meals as specified under the franchise", those meals must be identical from franchise to franchise, so they require them to purchase those goods from corporate. That is one way they suck the profits from the franchises. They could easily siphon less money from the franchises and require them to pay a living wage. The franchises being small business is just plain bullshit, masked by corporate shenanigans.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,962
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
Corporate McDonald's is not a fast food restaurant. It does not hire fry cooks, etc. It is a business that sells franchises and it has huge profits. Each franchise is an independent small business sector restaurant that just 'buys' the name McDonald's and agrees to make the meals as specified under the franchise. Those franchises do not make the huge profits that the corporate McDonald's does.

So you think that McD's corporation can make those kind of profits without their actual restaurants being profitable? They don't just "agree to make the meals as specified under the franchise", those meals must be identical from franchise to franchise, so they require them to purchase those goods from corporate. That is one way they suck the profits from the franchises. They could easily siphon less money from the franchises and require them to pay a living wage. The franchises being small business is just plain bullshit, masked by corporate shenanigans.
Wow. What a dark fantasy world you live in. But then some embrace conspiracy theories.
 

rousseau

Contributor
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
12,172
These wage vs profit arguments end up mostly circular, imo. They never seem to get into the crux of the argument, which is - why should a business pay more when they're able to find a reasonable amount of employees to agree to the conditions of employment.

That might sound like a simple and obvious question, but when you get into it it's extremely complex, and really at the heart of the issue. My answer would be that a minimum wage should go up when it's empirically too low for the strength of businesses it provides. The question then is how do we know when it's too low.

The original idea of minimum wage is that it's the minimum you need to live on assuming you're working 40 hr/wk. It's what the left keeps pretending is "living wage".

The real problem is not minimum wage, the real problem is so many jobs are part time. Part time jobs are good for those in school but other than that they're bad for the economy. Government should be putting it's thumb on the scale a bit towards full time work rather than this obsession with minimum wage.

My point goes a little deeper into more of an ought question. When parents are responsible for whether their children exist, does the moral responsibility for those children's well-being fall on those parents, or the greater community? Right now we're not just seeing problems with wages, but also an excess of people and a deficit of meaningful work for them to do. In a lot of ways this mirrors a kind of cycle of any other species where there aren't enough resources to go around for the number of offspring being produced. Which raises the question of whether we as a species are even capable of transcending such a cycle, and if we could - what it would look like. IOW, if a person is born and there is no meaningful niche for them to inhabit do we support them indefinitely or put the onus on the family.

Clearly something has to be done eventually as a greater proportion of our population becomes irrelevant to the production of the necessities of life. But what that something is isn't as obvious in the short-term as people increasingly have kids despite a declining economy, and where the allocation of resources to those people can't be accomplished very easily.

So what do we do? What ought we do? What is our end goal in the action we take? Can we even set a meaningful end-goal in a world of competing groups? These are enormous questions, and not easily answerable. Probably most nations will be politically dead-locked, do nothing, and will be forced to act when things get bad.

Well, yeah. Because wages and profits are, indeed, circular. One firm's labour costs are another's revenues. It's kinda the point.


See above.

That might sound like a simple and obvious question, but when you get into it it's extremely complex, and really at the heart of the issue. My answer would be that a minimum wage should go up when it's empirically too low for the strength of businesses it provides. The question then is how do we know when it's too low.
Look at productivity growth and capacity utilisation over time. Both have fallen during the neoliberal era (since Reagan/Thatcher) despite promises to the contrary.

Not sure if I follow.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
29,866
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Corporate McDonald's is not a fast food restaurant. It does not hire fry cooks, etc. It is a business that sells franchises and it has huge profits. Each franchise is an independent small business sector restaurant that just 'buys' the name McDonald's and agrees to make the meals as specified under the franchise. Those franchises do not make the huge profits that the corporate McDonald's does.

So you think that McD's corporation can make those kind of profits without their actual restaurants being profitable? They don't just "agree to make the meals as specified under the franchise", those meals must be identical from franchise to franchise, so they require them to purchase those goods from corporate. That is one way they suck the profits from the franchises. They could easily siphon less money from the franchises and require them to pay a living wage. The franchises being small business is just plain bullshit, masked by corporate shenanigans.
Wow. What a dark fantasy world you live in. But then some embrace conspiracy theories.

Here's what it costs to open a McDonald's restaurant

McDonald's franchisees must make an initial investment of between $1 million and $2.2 million.

McDonald's charges a $45,000 franchisee fee and an ongoing monthly service fee equal to 4% of gross sales.

Franchisees must also pay rent to the company, which is a percentage of monthly sales.

Owning a McDonald's franchise can be a lucrative business, but it requires a lot of cash.

The average McDonald's restaurant generates nearly $2.7 million in annual sales, making it the fourth-highest-grossing chain in the US by sales per unit behind Chick-fil-A, Whataburger, and Panera Bread, according to QSR magazine.

But to open a single restaurant, the company requires that potential franchisees have liquid assets of at least $500,000.

Startup costs, which include construction and equipment expenses, average between $1 million and $2.2 million, according to McDonald's. The total is determined by the geography and size of the restaurant, as well as by the selection of kitchen equipment, signage, style of decor, and landscaping, the company says.

This is a rich people's game, taking advantage of poor people to make buttloads of money.
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
Corporate McDonald's is not a fast food restaurant. It does not hire fry cooks, etc. It is a business that sells franchises and it has huge profits. Each franchise is an independent small business sector restaurant that just 'buys' the name McDonald's and agrees to make the meals as specified under the franchise. Those franchises do not make the huge profits that the corporate McDonald's does.

So you think that McD's corporation can make those kind of profits without their actual restaurants being profitable? They don't just "agree to make the meals as specified under the franchise", those meals must be identical from franchise to franchise, so they require them to purchase those goods from corporate. That is one way they suck the profits from the franchises. They could easily siphon less money from the franchises and require them to pay a living wage. The franchises being small business is just plain bullshit, masked by corporate shenanigans.
Wow. What a dark fantasy world you live in. But then some embrace conspiracy theories.

What a substantive and thoughtful response...
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,121
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Wow. What a dark fantasy world you live in. But then some embrace conspiracy theories.

What a substantive and thoughtful response...

Also, in my neck of the woods, while they are franchises, these franchises are anything but small businesses. All the franchises I've ever seen from the inside are owned by millionaires.

The franchise owners themselves could ALSO siphon less money from the stores and pay more.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,962
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
Wow. What a dark fantasy world you live in. But then some embrace conspiracy theories.

What a substantive and thoughtful response...
I've found that trying to discuss anything with a conspiracy theorist is a waste of time. I haven't yet been able to convince this guy that the idea that "big oil" has bought up the patents for the 200 mile/gallon carburetor and the engine that runs on water so they can maintain their profits is not reasonable.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
29,866
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Wow. What a dark fantasy world you live in. But then some embrace conspiracy theories.

What a substantive and thoughtful response...
I've found that trying to discuss anything with a conspiracy theorist is a waste of time. I haven't yet been able to convince this guy that the idea that "big oil" has bought up the patents for the 200 mile/gallon carburetor and the engine that runs on water so they can maintain their profits is not reasonable.

You tend to put a lot of things in other people's mouths yet almost nothing substantive comes out of yours.
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
Wow. What a dark fantasy world you live in. But then some embrace conspiracy theories.

What a substantive and thoughtful response...
I've found that trying to discuss anything with a conspiracy theorist is a waste of time. I haven't yet been able to convince this guy that the idea that "big oil" has bought up the patents for the 200 mile/gallon carburetor and the engine that runs on water so they can maintain their profits is not reasonable.

What conspiracy theory did I advocate? Please provide evidence directly quoted from my posts that show I have done so.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,090
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
One can argue Gates is UNDERPAID when compared with his contribution to the world.
How would he be underpaid? Where would the money come from to pay him properly?

I think that I successfully debunked the notion that he is a genius inventor who invented computers and the software that they run.

I'll say some words about operating systems. What counts as one is a matter of definition, but there are three basic parts:
  • Kernel
  • App support
  • Utility apps
The kernel manages the allotment of CPU time and memory to the active apps.

App support - stuff like device drivers and runtime software libraries and low-level file management: creating files and folders as abstractions of the contents of disks and flash memory and the like.

Utility apps - stuff like command-line shells and GUI shells, and file-management apps. Unix flavors have a lot of cryptically-named command-line ones, like ls (list), mv (move), cp (copy), rm (remove), ... while GUI file managers, like MacOS Finder, are more comprehensive.

The Linux world offers some helpful perspective. Linux proper is only the kernel, but its users have prepared a large number of "distributions" or "distros" that contain not only a kernel version, but also lots of app support and utility apps. There is not one, but two main GUI shells for Linux: KDE and GNOME. Of these, KDE is more Windows-like and GNOME more Mac-like.

So by Linux standards, both Windows and MacOS are distributions and not bare OSes.

Linux is an open-source OS kernel, and much of the software available for it is also open-source. Being open-source makes it easy to port to other platforms, like MacOS and Windows, so one can get it there also, as I have.

Bill-Gates hero-worshippers may find it hard to believe that Linux has gotten anywhere, let alone have a lot of software be available for it. In their minds, there must be some great hero behind it, one who rakes in a lot of money because it it. For Linux, the closest approximation is Linus Torvalds, and he's never made much money off of it. But instead, he's gotten a Unix flavor that he can use, and a lot of software to run on it.

A lot of software? Development tools for several programming languages like C++, Python, ... Office suites (like MS Office: word processing, spreadsheets, presentations, ...) like OpenOffice. Raster-graphics (paint) programs like Gimp. Vector-graphics (draw) programs like Inkscape. Web browsers like Firefox. And LOTS more.
 

Harry Bosch

Contributor
Joined
Jul 4, 2014
Messages
5,804
Location
Washington
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Wow. What a dark fantasy world you live in. But then some embrace conspiracy theories.

What a substantive and thoughtful response...

Also, in my neck of the woods, while they are franchises, these franchises are anything but small businesses. All the franchises I've ever seen from the inside are owned by millionaires.

The franchise owners themselves could ALSO siphon less money from the stores and pay more.

Many of these "millionaires" have some of their own money invested, but the bulk comes from family and friends that they've borrowed from.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
29,866
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Also, in my neck of the woods, while they are franchises, these franchises are anything but small businesses. All the franchises I've ever seen from the inside are owned by millionaires.

The franchise owners themselves could ALSO siphon less money from the stores and pay more.

Many of these "millionaires" have some of their own money invested, but the bulk comes from family and friends that they've borrowed from.

You mean investors?
 

Horatio Parker

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
4,325
Location
Bronx, NY
Basic Beliefs
Platonist
Also, in my neck of the woods, while they are franchises, these franchises are anything but small businesses. All the franchises I've ever seen from the inside are owned by millionaires.

The franchise owners themselves could ALSO siphon less money from the stores and pay more.

Many of these "millionaires" have some of their own money invested, but the bulk comes from family and friends that they've borrowed from.

A friend, now passed, had a brother who became wealthy by a freak inheritance.

He went on become friends with some prominent local wealthy families, and according to my friend, they would push risky investments on him. I gathered the implication being, if you're one of us, you'll invest. He thought they were using him. YMMV.
 

Harry Bosch

Contributor
Joined
Jul 4, 2014
Messages
5,804
Location
Washington
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Also, in my neck of the woods, while they are franchises, these franchises are anything but small businesses. All the franchises I've ever seen from the inside are owned by millionaires.

The franchise owners themselves could ALSO siphon less money from the stores and pay more.

Many of these "millionaires" have some of their own money invested, but the bulk comes from family and friends that they've borrowed from.

You mean investors?

What's your point? Family members investing in a child's business are far more than just investors.

Secondly point: why are we shifting the goal posts so much? The thread started with the fact that most retail and restaurants generate no profit to there are a few restaurants (some chains) that are very profitable. Why the movement?
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
29,866
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
You mean investors?

What's your point? Family members investing in a child's business are far more than just investors.

Secondly point: why are we shifting the goal posts so much? The thread started with the fact that most retail and restaurants generate no profit to there are a few restaurants (some chains) that are very profitable. Why the movement?

You said borrowed.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
12,982
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Basic Beliefs
˙uoıʇdǝɔǝp ɟlǝs ɟo ɯɹoɟ ɐ sı ɥʇıɐℲ
If a business is not profitable for whatever reason, too much competition, not enough demand, it should not be in business. Everyone loses money, the owners who may be pouring their own money down the drain, and the employees who are expected to work for shit wages in order to subsidize a failing cafe, restaurant or whatever else.
 

Harry Bosch

Contributor
Joined
Jul 4, 2014
Messages
5,804
Location
Washington
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
If a business is not profitable for whatever reason, too much competition, not enough demand, it should not be in business. Everyone loses money, the owners who may be pouring their own money down the drain, and the employees who are expected to work for shit wages in order to subsidize a failing cafe, restaurant or whatever else.

Gotcha. The vast majority of businesses in the world are most likely going to be reporting Q1 losses. Shut them all down? A majority will probably report Q2 losses as well. It's going to be an ugly year.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
12,982
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Basic Beliefs
˙uoıʇdǝɔǝp ɟlǝs ɟo ɯɹoɟ ɐ sı ɥʇıɐℲ
If a business is not profitable for whatever reason, too much competition, not enough demand, it should not be in business. Everyone loses money, the owners who may be pouring their own money down the drain, and the employees who are expected to work for shit wages in order to subsidize a failing cafe, restaurant or whatever else.

Gotcha. The vast majority of businesses in the world are most likely going to be reporting Q1 losses. Shut them all down? A majority will probably report Q2 losses as well. It's going to be an ugly year.

I wasn't talking about extraordinary circumstances.
 

Harry Bosch

Contributor
Joined
Jul 4, 2014
Messages
5,804
Location
Washington
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
If a business is not profitable for whatever reason, too much competition, not enough demand, it should not be in business. Everyone loses money, the owners who may be pouring their own money down the drain, and the employees who are expected to work for shit wages in order to subsidize a failing cafe, restaurant or whatever else.

Gotcha. The vast majority of businesses in the world are most likely going to be reporting Q1 losses. Shut them all down? A majority will probably report Q2 losses as well. It's going to be an ugly year.

I wasn't talking about extraordinary circumstances.

I guaranty you that almost all companies start up with the intention of generating a profit. But unintended or extraordinary circumstances occur each day that make it difficult. Some companies, such as tech companies, SAAS, and other such companies, always take awhile to generate profits. Many companies sign leases also that require them to continue making rent payments regardless of their status. So owners often make the calculation that even if they aren't profitable, that it's better to continue operating to make the rental payment, than call it quits.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
12,982
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Basic Beliefs
˙uoıʇdǝɔǝp ɟlǝs ɟo ɯɹoɟ ɐ sı ɥʇıɐℲ
I wasn't talking about extraordinary circumstances.

I guaranty you that almost all companies start up with the intention of generating a profit. But unintended or extraordinary circumstances occur each day that make it difficult. Some companies, such as tech companies, SAAS, and other such companies, always take awhile to generate profits. Many companies sign leases also that require them to continue making rent payments regardless of their status. So owners often make the calculation that even if they aren't profitable, that it's better to continue operating to make the rental payment, than call it quits.

You make it sound like the world is falling apart. That a profitable business is practically impossible to achieve....therefore ordinary workers have no option but to work for shit wages.
 

Harry Bosch

Contributor
Joined
Jul 4, 2014
Messages
5,804
Location
Washington
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I wasn't talking about extraordinary circumstances.

I guaranty you that almost all companies start up with the intention of generating a profit. But unintended or extraordinary circumstances occur each day that make it difficult. Some companies, such as tech companies, SAAS, and other such companies, always take awhile to generate profits. Many companies sign leases also that require them to continue making rent payments regardless of their status. So owners often make the calculation that even if they aren't profitable, that it's better to continue operating to make the rental payment, than call it quits.

You make it sound like the world is falling apart. That a profitable business is practically impossible to achieve....therefore ordinary workers have no option but to work for shit wages.

Buddy. You are really making some assumptions here. Please do not put words in my mouth. I'm simply trying to educate you to understand that most retail and restaurant business do not generate great profits because they have no barriers to entry to protect them. I started a tech company. And I do have IP that allows me to sell at a profit. However, it takes years to develop the product, develop the sales channels, and etc.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
12,982
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Basic Beliefs
˙uoıʇdǝɔǝp ɟlǝs ɟo ɯɹoɟ ɐ sı ɥʇıɐℲ
You make it sound like the world is falling apart. That a profitable business is practically impossible to achieve....therefore ordinary workers have no option but to work for shit wages.

Buddy. You are really making some assumptions here. Please do not put words in my mouth. I'm simply trying to educate you to understand that most retail and restaurant business do not generate great profits because they have no barriers to entry to protect them. I started a tech company. And I do have IP that allows me to sell at a profit. However, it takes years to develop the product, develop the sales channels, and etc.

It's the impression I get based on what you say, not something I make up, or my interpretation of your remarks.

Read what you are saying. Look at the narrative that you present. The impression it gives is that many if not most businesses cannot afford to pay their employees decent wages.

I'm not saying this to upset you, just pointing out the image that your argument paints.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,962
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
You make it sound like the world is falling apart. That a profitable business is practically impossible to achieve....therefore ordinary workers have no option but to work for shit wages.

Buddy. You are really making some assumptions here. Please do not put words in my mouth. I'm simply trying to educate you to understand that most retail and restaurant business do not generate great profits because they have no barriers to entry to protect them. I started a tech company. And I do have IP that allows me to sell at a profit. However, it takes years to develop the product, develop the sales channels, and etc.

It's the impression I get based on what you say, not something I make up, or my interpretation of your remarks.

Read what you are saying. Look at the narrative that you present. The impression it gives is that many if not most businesses cannot afford to pay their employees decent wages.

I'm not saying this to upset you, just pointing out the image that your argument paints.

Maybe the problem is in what YOU consider "decent wages" as opposed to what the prospective employees who were more the eager to earn those wages that were offered.
 
Last edited:

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
12,982
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Basic Beliefs
˙uoıʇdǝɔǝp ɟlǝs ɟo ɯɹoɟ ɐ sı ɥʇıɐℲ
It's the impression I get based on what you say, not something I make up, or my interpretation of your remarks.

Read what you are saying. Look at the narrative that you present. The impression it gives is that many if not most businesses cannot afford to pay their employees decent wages.

I'm not saying this to upset you, just pointing out the image that your argument paints.

Maybe the problem is in what YOU consider "decent wages" as opposed to what the prospective employees who were more the eager to earn those wages that were offered.

Wrong. A decent wage relates to cost of living as calculated on the price of goods and services in any given state or nation. People who are in need of money often take what is being offered. They do that because as individuals they have very little bargaining power.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,962
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
It's the impression I get based on what you say, not something I make up, or my interpretation of your remarks.

Read what you are saying. Look at the narrative that you present. The impression it gives is that many if not most businesses cannot afford to pay their employees decent wages.

I'm not saying this to upset you, just pointing out the image that your argument paints.

Maybe the problem is in what YOU consider "decent wages" as opposed to what the prospective employees who were more the eager to earn those wages that were offered.

Wrong. A decent wage relates to cost of living as calculated on the price of goods and services in any given state or nation. People who are in need of money often take what is being offered. They do that because as individuals they have very little bargaining power.
It is still YOU that pretends to dictate what someone else who is working for a wage should consider to be a "decent wage".
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
35,782
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I wasn't talking about extraordinary circumstances.

I guaranty you that almost all companies start up with the intention of generating a profit. But unintended or extraordinary circumstances occur each day that make it difficult. Some companies, such as tech companies, SAAS, and other such companies, always take awhile to generate profits. Many companies sign leases also that require them to continue making rent payments regardless of their status. So owners often make the calculation that even if they aren't profitable, that it's better to continue operating to make the rental payment, than call it quits.

You make it sound like the world is falling apart. That a profitable business is practically impossible to achieve....therefore ordinary workers have no option but to work for shit wages.

What you don't seem to understand is that the huge profits you think exist aren't there. The leftists routinely report the numbers from a few very well placed companies, not the numbers for the market as a whole.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
35,782
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
You make it sound like the world is falling apart. That a profitable business is practically impossible to achieve....therefore ordinary workers have no option but to work for shit wages.

Buddy. You are really making some assumptions here. Please do not put words in my mouth. I'm simply trying to educate you to understand that most retail and restaurant business do not generate great profits because they have no barriers to entry to protect them. I started a tech company. And I do have IP that allows me to sell at a profit. However, it takes years to develop the product, develop the sales channels, and etc.

It's the impression I get based on what you say, not something I make up, or my interpretation of your remarks.

Read what you are saying. Look at the narrative that you present. The impression it gives is that many if not most businesses cannot afford to pay their employees decent wages.

I'm not saying this to upset you, just pointing out the image that your argument paints.

The "image" he paints is reality. You're living in leftist fantasyland where there's tons of money to pay for social causes.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
12,982
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Basic Beliefs
˙uoıʇdǝɔǝp ɟlǝs ɟo ɯɹoɟ ɐ sı ɥʇıɐℲ
Wrong. A decent wage relates to cost of living as calculated on the price of goods and services in any given state or nation. People who are in need of money often take what is being offered. They do that because as individuals they have very little bargaining power.
It is still YOU that pretends to dictate what someone else who is working for a wage should consider to be a "decent wage".

You didn't read what I said. I pointed out that a living wage is calculated on the basis of CPI. The cost of housing, food, travel, clothing, etc. Therefore income for full time work should at least meet the cost of living. Ideally more because something needs to be put away for emergencies. This has nothing to do with me.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
12,982
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Basic Beliefs
˙uoıʇdǝɔǝp ɟlǝs ɟo ɯɹoɟ ɐ sı ɥʇıɐℲ
It's the impression I get based on what you say, not something I make up, or my interpretation of your remarks.

Read what you are saying. Look at the narrative that you present. The impression it gives is that many if not most businesses cannot afford to pay their employees decent wages.

I'm not saying this to upset you, just pointing out the image that your argument paints.

The "image" he paints is reality. You're living in leftist fantasyland where there's tons of money to pay for social causes.

The stats don't support the image that most businesses cannot afford to pay their employees a living wage or better. You need to support what you claim, not just state it. You have been asked to do that numerous times.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,962
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
Wrong. A decent wage relates to cost of living as calculated on the price of goods and services in any given state or nation. People who are in need of money often take what is being offered. They do that because as individuals they have very little bargaining power.
It is still YOU that pretends to dictate what someone else who is working for a wage should consider to be a "decent wage".

You didn't read what I said. I pointed out that a living wage is calculated on the basis of CPI. The cost of housing, food, travel, clothing, etc. Therefore income for full time work should at least meet the cost of living. Ideally more because something needs to be put away for emergencies. This has nothing to do with me.
And according to the World Health Organization, there is no poverty in the U.S. so no one who does not at least meet the basic cost of living. After that point it amounts to who is deciding what minimum level of life is desirable. Personal taste is that the WHO sets the bar far too low, but hey that is personal opinion. However, I have no idea who's scale you are using. If you are basing in on someone having difficulty making ends meet then there are people making six figures that haven't been able to do that and have to declare bankruptcy.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
12,982
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Basic Beliefs
˙uoıʇdǝɔǝp ɟlǝs ɟo ɯɹoɟ ɐ sı ɥʇıɐℲ
You didn't read what I said. I pointed out that a living wage is calculated on the basis of CPI. The cost of housing, food, travel, clothing, etc. Therefore income for full time work should at least meet the cost of living. Ideally more because something needs to be put away for emergencies. This has nothing to do with me.
And according to the World Health Organization, there is no poverty in the U.S. so no one who does not at least meet the basic cost of living. After that point it amounts to who is deciding what minimum level of life is desirable. Personal taste is that the WHO sets the bar far too low, but hey that is personal opinion. However, I have no idea who's scale you are using. If you are basing in on someone having difficulty making ends meet then there are people making six figures that haven't been able to do that and have to declare bankruptcy.

You need to show figures from WHO to see what their criteria is. If they are claiming that there is no poverty in the U.S, they are delusional.
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
You didn't read what I said. I pointed out that a living wage is calculated on the basis of CPI. The cost of housing, food, travel, clothing, etc. Therefore income for full time work should at least meet the cost of living. Ideally more because something needs to be put away for emergencies. This has nothing to do with me.
And according to the World Health Organization, there is no poverty in the U.S. so no one who does not at least meet the basic cost of living.

Show your work, and provide a citation, please.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,962
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
You didn't read what I said. I pointed out that a living wage is calculated on the basis of CPI. The cost of housing, food, travel, clothing, etc. Therefore income for full time work should at least meet the cost of living. Ideally more because something needs to be put away for emergencies. This has nothing to do with me.
And according to the World Health Organization, there is no poverty in the U.S. so no one who does not at least meet the basic cost of living. After that point it amounts to who is deciding what minimum level of life is desirable. Personal taste is that the WHO sets the bar far too low, but hey that is personal opinion. However, I have no idea who's scale you are using. If you are basing in on someone having difficulty making ends meet then there are people making six figures that haven't been able to do that and have to declare bankruptcy.

You need to show figures from WHO to see what their criteria is. If they are claiming that there is no poverty in the U.S, they are delusional.

WHO is concerned with world standards not relative wealth of people within specific countries. Their standard of poverty is US$1.25 per day (in 2011 dollars). Most people in the U.S. live in such luxury (by world standards) that they have no concept of what poverty is. A trip to India, Bangladesh, or Africa isn't needed to see what real poverty is... A short hop to Haiti will do.

This is why there are millions/year trying to migrate to the U.S. They see even our minimum wage jobs as allowing them to live in luxury compared to their current situation.

A look at another country's not poor but average family, the average family income in Mexico (that is average not lowest) is $843/month so a minimum wage job in the US would be a nice raise for the average Mexican family (that would be highly insulted if you called them poor).
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom