Starbucks Employees Petition Company To Stop Slashing Hours After Raising Wages

a reply to: onequestion

You're free to believe what you wish.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I do see a lot parent companies moving OREO's to mexico and was it Train? And the companies are posting record profits. But of course it ain't enough.

And the employees get the same load of crap from the guys making 6 and 7 figures, it was a hard decision it is the only way, but keep working and doing a good job (fools). I would not want to buy a train AC unit right now.

Trump to the rescue right?

It wasn't Trane. Carrier Corporation in Indianapolis is the one climbing the wall to Mexico with their jobs, after American workers made them record profits. Buy Trane. Don't buy Carrier

a reply to: DancedWithWolves

Yep, thanks for the info.

a reply to: DancedWithWolves

When you look at it from the perspective of purchasing power you would have to be a moron as a corporation to want to continue to keep producing here in America.

a reply to: onequestion

I can't see Mexico offering the same infrastructure and stability for those purchases to make it to the plant. Or back out to a distribution channel. Logistics might eat into that buying power. And then some. Not to mention the damage that will ultimately be done to the brand. There are many factors that need considered.

a reply to: onequestion

What a lot of people fail to understand is: it is possible to be right, and wrong -- at the same time. A good example would have been the Girondins of France, around 1794. Technically, they were FOR political reform, and wanted to see the people of France prosper, but their one-time allies in the Jacobins wanted to mix it up with the Monarchy and other entrenched (wealthy) interests at a quicker (more radical) pace. They were at least partially right about the problem, but wrong wrong wrong when it came to choosing sides, and were the first to lose their heads during the "reign of terror." With a little luck, and a lot of hard work, we may avoid a repeat, but it's hard to say with any certainty. After all, no group of entrenched interests in history ever imagined they were next-against-the-wall, until the swords started falling.

This is why you will see many passionate attempts at justification of corruption, and much of that passion is well-placed. It won't matter at all if people get desperate enough / hungry enough / are harried enough, and they start dragging people who "look like" they might be "successful" out of cars and killing them in the streets for a few pieces of food or gold.

a reply to: DancedWithWolves

If you spend 100$ in the U.S. What does it get you?

If you spend 100$ in Mexico what does it get you?

a reply to: onequestion

A Mexican jail cell...kidnapped for carrying cash? Pick one.

ETA: I understand your point. I just think other factors and interests are equal if not more value-added.

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

You seriously know how to drop a mic.

Sad reality, but poignant.

Thanks for the history review, lest we forget.

a reply to: DancedWithWolves
Now you are being silly, the only thing to consider is higher profit.

Of course, a lot of times when we talk about "record profits," we're really getting the gross figure.

It's like a child complaining that daddy got a raise so he now makes $1,500 per paycheck, so he has all that money why can't he give a kid a decent allowance?

Children seldom consider that daddy pays for FICA, medicare, Soc. Sec., health and life insurance, retirement, two state taxes BEFORE daddy even gets to put money in his pocket. So he gets quite a bit less than that stated $1,500.

And once he gets that lesser amount, he has to consider his own personal bills like mortgage, utilities, loan and credit cards, food and clothing, transportation, etc., and then, and only then, can daddy look at the paltry sum that's left over and begin to decide how that might be spent on extras like a child's allowance.

At least employees come higher on the totem pole for a business, but they are still just a part of the budget and not one that has as much room to expand as they might think when the gross profit totals are quoted.

a reply to: ketsuko

Of course, a lot of times when we talk about "record profits," we're really getting the gross figure.

As well as applying the profit of a corporation to each of its stores. If the profits of a particular store are falling, it's likely that store will be closing unless it gets turned around. Stores that are profitable are not expected to support those which are not.

a reply to: ketsuko

My question still stands...

How can a 4 billion dollar profit not translate to decent wages?

That system is not working and needs tweaking

a reply to: onequestion

Because there are a lot of expenditures that you aren't seeing. That was kind of the point of my previous post.

a reply to: ketsuko

Profit is what's left over after expenditures.

a reply to: ketsuko

2015 financials, looks pretty OK to me.

Q4 Comp Sales Increase 8% Globally, 9% in the U.S.; Global Traffic Up 4%
Q4 Revenues Jump 18% to a Record $4.9 Billion; Operating Income Up 13% to a Record $969 Million
Q4 GAAP EPS Rises to a Record $0.43; Non-GAAP EPS Rises 16% to a Record $0.43 Per Share
Company Issues Strong Outlook for Fiscal 2016 and Increases Global Comp Store Sales Targets
Board of Directors Approves a 25% Increase in the Quarterly Dividend to $0.20 Per Share

Looks like it is time to cut the pay/hours of people who make contact with our "valued" customers every day.

a reply to: seasonal

Sales and revenue are both gross figures.

Record sales and revenues are also not indicative of sales per store. More stores = more revenue and more employees, which also mean more expenditures.

Also notice an increase in disbursements. That's probably to keep investors from jumping ship and bankrupting the company. As mentioned before, when the economy is in a high risk cycle, investors expect more return.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Aazadan
I wouldn't expect the CEO to know how the actual job is getting done on the floor that's what the guy supervising the production floor or service floor is for.

Hell I wouldn't expect him to have to ever know what the he'll is going on in operations unless there is a problem.

That's what the COO is for.

I would. How can you make optimal business decisions if you're not intimately familiar with how every facet of the business operates? I grant that many CEO's aren't that knowledgeable, and even many low tier managers don't know in detail how to do what their employees do... but the times where that's true result in much more productive management structures.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Aazadan

I think one of the biggest factors everyone forgets to include as a variable in their equation is the currency value

Currency value only matters for multinationals. When everything is operating under the same currency it doesn't matter. For the majority of small and medium sized business, this remains true.

originally posted by: Phage
That would be true if there were a fixed standard. That's the main reason there isn't.

That depends. At 7/4/16 12:51:27 the money supply equals X, it is a fixed amount. At 7/4/16 12:51:28 the money supply is X +/- Y. The total supply changed from one second to the next, but in any given moment it is fixed. If one person owns 22% of the money supply at that moment, there is only 78% for the rest. In the next second it might expand, changing those numbers to to 21%/79% but that doesn't change the fact that the pool is finite at both of those moments.

But at least you've modified your stance that a company has to take a loss if another one is profiting.

My stance hasn't changed. Your comprehension of my stance may have.

a reply to: Aazadan

My stance hasn't changed. Your comprehension of my stance may have.

No, you changed this, which you edited out after I quoted it.

Excessive profit to one business, means excessive losses to another and takes away jobs.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
To this:

If one person captures a bigger slice of the pie, there is less for others to take.

Which, as I said, is true as far as competition for the same market goes.