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

Wall Street vs. Wages II

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 27, 2000
Messages
25,332
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
A business gives raises, and Wall Street freaks out

It happened again.
No, Chipotle isn’t paying workers too little.

Chipotle had its stock downgraded on Wednesday by an analyst at Bank of America. It makes sense. The chain has endured a tough time. Health-safety issues that had scared customers away resurfaced this summer. Bill Ackman—the erratic, hypomanic hedge-fund manager—has amassed a large stake in the company, which is often a contrary indicator. Chipotle’s latest game-changing product—queso!—hasn’t met a rapturous reception. In this golden age of lunch, competition is intense, and consumers have fantastic, affordable choices. The stock has fallen about 20 percent in the past year—a year in which the S&P 500 rose 20 percent.

So, yes, an analyst might question Chipotle’s prospects. But this one had another problem: the wages of the generally low-paid people who staff Chipotle’s locations. While the company has aggressively cut down on the number of hours per employee as its sales have fallen, analyst Gregory Francfort noted, “We believe further gains from trimming hours will prove difficult which limits the opportunity to get labor below 27 percent of sales even if traffic recovers.” Simply put, Francfort is down on the stock because Chipotle can’t lower the percentage of every dollar of revenue it spends on labor.

Which tells you everything that is wrong about our economy. There is a widespread mystification about why wages have failed to grow in the past several years even as the labor market has tightened. Technology and automation and the decline of unions are of course partially to blame. But the underplayed, unspoken, and often unrecognized problem is a broader pathology about wages. We’ve raised a generation of managers, executives, investors, and stock analysts to believe that labor costs shouldn’t have to rise, that people don’t deserve raises in line with the rising cost of living, and that the labor market shouldn’t function like all the other markets that businesspeople have to negotiate.
During the 2009 recession, there were 6.6 unemployed people for every job opening in the US, while in August of this year, there was only 1.1. Likewise, in August 2010, there were 2.92 million job openings, while in August of this year, there were 6.1 million. Yet wages have not risen, as one would expect from supply and demand.
 
Wow, I didn't know that we were in the golden age of lunch.

If this isn't the golden age of lunch when was?

Also, the guy who wrote this article is an economic imbecile. This may also be the golden age of economic imbeciles.
 
Wow, I didn't know that we were in the golden age of lunch.

If this isn't the golden age of lunch when was?
Maybe it is still yet to be, like the Second Coming? Years from now, we could be mightily embarrassed that we thought to dare call this comparably meek era the golden age of lunch.

Also, the guy who wrote this article is an economic imbecile. This may also be the golden age of economic imbeciles.
Well, I keep hearing from right-wingers that they want everyone to be successful, so that would also have to include even economic imbeciles to succeed.
 
Also, the guy who wrote this article is an economic imbecile. This may also be the golden age of economic imbeciles.
What gives you that idea?

dismal, would you like it if your employer's investors and stockholders thought that you are overpaid?
 
But the underplayed, unspoken, and often unrecognized problem is a broader pathology about wages. We’ve raised a generation of managers, executives, investors, and stock analysts to believe that labor costs shouldn’t have to rise, that people don’t deserve raises in line with the rising cost of living, and that the labor market shouldn’t function like all the other markets that businesspeople have to negotiate.

That appears to be the current attitude toward worker and their pay rates. An attitude that does not apply to management, quite the opposite. Though there is some sign of moderation in regard to CEO salary packages.... probably driven by a changing public attitude toward this form of greed and excess, but doesn't go anywhere near far enough.
 
Competition = lower cost = better for consumers = higher standard of living.

We’ve raised a generation of managers, executives, investors, and stock analysts to believe that labor costs shouldn’t have to rise, . . .

No cost should automatically have to rise. Some costs do come down. If competition gets stronger, such as between job-seekers, the costs can come down. If enough applicants show up, then what's the need to increase the wage? Just because today only 100 applicants show up for the one job opening while 10 years ago it was 200 doesn't mean they have to increase the wage in order to attract so many excess applicants.


. . . that people don’t deserve raises in line with the rising cost of living, . . .

They don't. They deserve raises only in line with the rising demand for their service or decreasing supply of it. When a company pays a supplier a higher price for something, this is not based on their sympathy for the supplier's rising cost of living. The company pays only as much cost as it has to in order to get what it needs from the worker or supplier -- regardless how much the latter complains about their higher cost. It's competition which determines the price to the seller, not the seller's need for more. If another seller (supplier or job-seeker) will do the same for less, that decides the price to pay them and nothing else.


. . . and that the labor market shouldn’t function like all the other markets that businesspeople have to negotiate.

When you're in oversupply you have little negotiating power and so you don't really function like the other markets. Or, you do function the same, which means you get screwed, as the others also get screwed in such case as there's an excess supply of them, as sometimes there is.

E.g., WalMart sometimes "screws" certain suppliers by forcing them to lower their price or get terminated. That's how the less competitive sellers "function." So, to treat the labor supplier the same as the others means to terminate them if they don't lower their price, in cases where another seller (job-seeker) can do it for less.
 
The insane world of stock prices.

You need a shower after you leave.
 
Also, the guy who wrote this article is an economic imbecile. This may also be the golden age of economic imbeciles.
What gives you that idea?

dismal, would you like it if your employer's investors and stockholders thought that you are overpaid?

My employer's investors know I am overpaid. But no one forces them to sign up.

I have no idea what you imagine this has to do with the article.

I wasn't even mentioned in it.

The Wall Street guy makes what may be a valid point: Chipotle may not be able to cut employment costs further to respond to their sales decline. The guy who writes the article doesn't seem to grasp basic business reality and wanders off into the land of unicorns.
 
Also, the guy who wrote this article is an economic imbecile. This may also be the golden age of economic imbeciles.
What gives you that idea?

dismal, would you like it if your employer's investors and stockholders thought that you are overpaid?
It doesn't really matter much if people necessarily like it or not, it's what are they going to do about it?
 
Roxbury’s Dudley Dough, a fair-wage pizza shop, to close its doors

The loss of Dudley Dough means more than losing a pizza parlor to Roxbury regulars.

They say they’re losing a community resource in the heart of Dudley Square and a singular business based on a premise of economic justice and healthy food.

Launched in 2015, the fair-wage pizza shop will close at the end of the year, according to Bing Broderick, executive director for the nonprofit Haley House, which oversees the shop. While popular, the shop is not breaking even financially, which has put stress on the wider nonprofit organization.

...

As it does every day except Friday, the shop on Tuesday provided pizza to dozens of students who took part in an after-school math tutoring program called Pie R Squared. Families frequent game nights on Fridays, as well as events such as Social Justice Mondays and political forums.

“It’s not easy, but I know it’s the right decision,” Broderick said. “Everybody wanted it to work. We all invested a lot of our hearts in it.”

The challenge for Dudley Dough was to support itself, Broderick said.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...4126300&s_campaign=todaysheadlines:newsletter

So, maybe if the wages weren't so fair their employees would still have, um, wages?

Or I guess they could have charged more for the pizza on Social Justice Mondays. Or Unicorn Tuesdays.
 
So, when the restaurants who underpay their employees go out of business, that's evidence they should have paid them more?
 
So, when the restaurants who underpay their employees go out of business, that's evidence they should have paid them more?

Maybe this useful guide will help:

Profit = revenues - expenses. Employee wages are an expense. If revenues < expenses and you don't have a sugar daddy you go out of business.
 
Thus the business that pays its employees the least is the most profitable, all other things being equal.
 
Back
Top Bottom