Starbucks Employees Petition Company To Stop Slashing Hours After Raising Wages

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Phage

Starbucks is having a better return on investment than they have ever had before

False.
finance.yahoo.com...

And investors are not happy.

Starbucks Corp (SBUX.O) forecast current-quarter earnings below Wall Street estimates and reported slower growth in Asia than many had hoped, sending its shares down nearly 4 percent in extended trade despite a strong holiday performance.

Investor expectations are usually high for the company after a more than 46 percent run-up in its stock in 2015, and Starbucks is betting heavily on China expansion despite some signs of cooling growth in the Asian market.

The company's shares slipped to $56.35 in extended trade from a close of $59.03.

www.reuters.com...

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Phage

We're not talking about coffee, we're talking about the people who put it into the cup and serve it to the customer.

What scarcity are you talking about then?

There is no shortage of people willing to pour and serve coffee. If there were, there would be greater competition for them and wages would be higher.

Remember, lower supply means higher prices?

Supply and demand isn't the only qualifying factor in what a wage is. The job being performed needs to actually produce a value worthy of a specific wage.

So what value does the person buying some stop work to produce and what value does the barista work to produce?

Is there a metric that is used that we can look at as far as a debate is concerned?

I'm willing to bet that over time the employees produces more a value, while an investment is a one time expenditure the employee has more risk involved over a period of time as well.

Why shouldn't they be repaid that value?

a reply to: Phage

274 of the fortune 500 companies pay no taxes or they received tax payer money. Not sure about starbucks.

I'm sure you are familiar with causation. Why are these min wage earners needing to use the social safety net? Let's not argue semantics, that is a waste of both of our time.

a reply to: Phage

Starbucks Profit Jumps 22%

That is from last year.

Starbucks Reports Record Q2 Financial and Operating Results

This from just a few months ago.

Expectations are not the same as actual results. Just because someone expects you to make $1 million dollars and you make just $900,000 doesn't mean you didn't make profit. Investors work by expectations not results.

a reply to: Phage

False because you said so or do you have a set of metrics we can analyze in order to know what the truth is?

a reply to: onequestion

Supply and demand isn't the only qualifying factor in what a wage is. The job being performed needs to actually produce a value worthy of a specific wage.

It is not the only factor but it is the primary factor. If there are fewer qualified people looking for a job the wages for that job will be higher.

So what value does the person buying some stop work to produce and what value does the barista work to produce?

That is indeed another factor, if the wage causes the cost of producing a product to get too high in relation to it's value (sales price), the company becomes unprofitable.

Why shouldn't they be repaid that value?

Most successful companies provide merit based wage increases. Union shops are required by contract to provide wage increases not based on merit.

a reply to: onequestion

False because you said so or do you have a set of metrics we can analyze in order to know what the truth is?

I provided an income statement.
Can you read it?

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Phage

274 of the fortune 500 companies pay no taxes or they received tax payer money. Not sure about starbucks.

I'm sure you are familiar with causation. Why are these min wage earners needing to use the social safety net? Let's not argue semantics, that is a waste of both of our time.

We're looking at the problem from the wrong angle.

The Wall Street IPO strategy of acquiring funds to artificially expand faster than what the market would normally allow is the problem.

That's where the system is broken

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

This from just a few months ago.

As is the income statement I linked. It shows net profit down by 1.3% from a year ago. That does not seem to equate with "better than ever."

a reply to: Phage

That is still not the primary factor.

Being trained to work within the culture and systems of each individual company carries its own value specific to that company and time at that company is also a valuable asset making you individually worth more than your competition.

a reply to: onequestion
"Worth" doesn't necessarily have much to do with competitiveness. But if a high level of skill provides higher efficiency it certainly does.

That's why those with a high level of skill are in demand and tend to be paid more than those who lack such skills.

a reply to: Phage

You just said supply and demand which means competitiveness

You just said highly skilled worth more means less people competing for the same position meaning companies are competing for labor

a reply to: Phage

The chart you provided does not go back Q2 of last year, it goes back to Q3 from last year. Q3 has not ended yet for this year so we have yet to see whether they have done better or worse compared to last year.

The link I provided says that their Q2 of this year (which ended March 27, which your link does not cite from last year) was record breaking. That tells me that they have made record profits this quarter compared to all previous years.

a reply to: onequestion

You just said supply and demand which means competitiveness

Apologies, I misunderstood your point. I thought you were talking about the worth of an employee as it relates to the competitiveness of a company.

You just said highly skilled worth more means less people competing for the same position meaning companies are competing for labor

Yes. I did.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
The link you provided is a selective summary produced by the company, aimed at investors. It is not a financial statement. You can see that it does correspond to the 2nd quarter income statement I linked, with gross sales of $5 billion. You can also see that it does not overtly state the net profit for the 2nd quarter, which is not "the best ever."

a reply to: Phage

Yet the summary provides any and all relevant data pertaining to our discussion right now. They are making record profit and sales. For some reason that translates to executives but not employees. If you have #ty employees then you wouldn't be making record numbers to begin with. They'll probably give themselves raises while at the same time keeping employee wages unchanged or if they do raise them they will cut their hours.

Excuse me, your link says $4.99 billion instead of $5 billion. Huge difference there.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

They are making record profit and sales.

No. They are not. The report says that it was a record 2nd Quarter. Did you read it?

How about we look at this:
Net Earnings for the two quarters ending March:
2015: $1,478.3
2016: $1,262.6

And for the investors, Earnings per share:
2015: 0.97
2016: 0.84

Excuse me, your link says $4.99 billion instead of $5 billion. Huge difference there.

It's call rounding and it amounts to 0.2% of a difference. If you actually look at the financials in the Starbucks report you will see the $4.99 billion as stated.

Total net revenues 4,993.2

a reply to: onequestion
Please expand.

a reply to: Phage

So 1%. 1%.

What a terrible loss, they'll probably have to shut down for such a huge loss.

In general they are making more money than they have ever made before. It wouldn't be such a valuable company and wouldn't have been climbing that ladder for years now if that wasn't the case.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

So 1%. 1%.

You just said a difference of 0.02% is a huge difference. Remember?

Excuse me, your link says $4.99 billion instead of $5 billion. Huge difference there.

In general they are making more money than they have ever made before.

False. Neither profits or performance are the best ever.