Starbucks Employees Petition Company To Stop Slashing Hours After Raising Wages

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

Critical thinking at it's best, agreed.

Look into Germany's economy. Outsourcing was/is a conscience decision in the US. It is because our government has allowed the corps. to do this in the name of the free market.

We super duper need regulations that support a made in USA with full time workers, not TEMPS.

Some will scream they can't make $. Pish posh, look at other developed countries, again Germany. There can be a balance struck between record profits for the company and poverty for the workers.

a reply to: 0zzymand0s
California seems to be an exception to the rule.

But along with those huge housing prices in Cali there is a huge property tax bill. My first question is where in the world is all that $ going. Not to cops and firemen then where. I really don't know.

College is really expensive, again where is all that tuition $ going if not to teachers then where?

It seems like the $ if being funneled to the top. Until 1976 there was a relationship of productivity gains and median income gains. The productivity kept going up, but no gains in income. That seems to be when the trouble started.

en.wikipedia.org...
By the way when I go to add a image, I get a little square with an x. Can't expand it to add pic, how do you add images?

Can't have it both ways...

a reply to: Brainiac

What both ways?

originally posted by: seasonal
There can be a balance struck between record profits for the company and poverty for the workers.

Good luck with that.

US unions have fought just as hard, as US corporations, against the German model.

a reply to: peck420

Yep.

a reply to: seasonal

Have no clue...like I said, I'm not really interested in the details of that deal or why/how it went wrong.

originally posted by: seasonal
Look into Germany's economy. Outsourcing was/is a conscience decision in the US. It is because our government has allowed the corps. to do this in the name of the free market.

Outsourcing and moving headquarters and plants off US soil is more because of the ridiculous corporate tax rate than it has anything to do with the often-demonized free market. I guarantee that if our government dramatically reduced corporate tax rates, you'd see corporations coming back (probably slowly, but it'd start happening).

We super duper need regulations that support a made in USA with full time workers, not TEMPS.

Some will scream they can't make $. Pish posh, look at other developed countries, again Germany. There can be a balance struck between record profits for the company and poverty for the workers.

Well, for one, over-regulating private sectors are what often cause problems and unnecessary costs in the first place, which is often balanced out by avoiding the perks of full-time employment by using part-time employees. Also, record profits are not a bad thing, as they are what companies use to expand and grow and research and develop...things that I've already pointed out.

The government needs to get out of the business of forcing private industries to do things that may not be in their best interest, not start spewing more regulations out its legislative mouth. Yes, SOME regulation is needed, but not nearly as much as is already out there.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
The government needs to get out of the business of forcing private industries to do things that may not be in their best interest, not start spewing more regulations out its legislative mouth. Yes, SOME regulation is needed, but not nearly as much as is already out there.

Switching to a German model would require the federal government to remove some regulations, and states would be state by state. Some would have to remove certain regulations, others would have to add.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on one's stance), the Constitution seriously inhibits any major labour restructuring from happening quickly, efficiently, or in a beneficial manner to the whole.

originally posted by: seasonal
California seems to be an exception to the rule.

But along with those huge housing prices in Cali there is a huge property tax bill. My first question is where in the world is all that $ going. Not to cops and firemen then where. I really don't know.

College is really expensive, again where is all that tuition $ going if not to teachers then where?

Middle of nowhere Ohio at a private university a few years back: My psychology professor lived in her car. She was pretty open with us about the whole thing because she quit at the end of the semester I had her for. The school paid $x per semester per class taught, in her case it worked out to $8/hour she was being taught. The full timers did a bit better (one of the full timers ended up being my roommate a few years later) but I wouldn't say they were highly paid.

At my current university our professors do pretty well, relative to the cost of living but they're definitely not getting the bulk of tuition paid, and I'm at a pretty inexpensive school. I had a discussion with my English professor a couple years ago about career options, pay, etc, and he mentioned that him and his wife (both Phd's, full time professors) brought in about $110k/year combined. So that would imply 55k for gen ed/liberal arts doctorates. Not what I would call good money.

From what I can tell, most money goes to administration. Some schools, particularly those with bigger names have had a real issue with bloated administration budgets relative to the teaching and program budgets.

a reply to: Aazadan

I am excited to see people gathering together and (peacefully) demanding their contribution toward a companies profit be rewarded.

This happened in the 1930's when auto manufacturing workers demanded better pay and conditions. At first the manufactures said there was no way to pay anymore. Well history tells us otherwise.

The Ford Hunger March, sometimes called the Ford Massacre, was a demonstration of unemployed workers starting in Detroit and ending in Dearborn, Michigan, that took place on March 7, 1932. The march resulted in four workers being shot to death by the Dearborn Police Department and security guards employed by the Ford Motor Company. Over 60 workers were injured, many by gunshot wounds. Three months later, a fifth worker died of his injuries. The march was organized by the Unemployed Councils. The Ford Hunger March was an important part of a chain of events that eventually led to the unionization of the U.S. auto industry.

en.wikipedia.org...

If service jobs are the new manufacturing, then I would love to see better pay, so the min wage earner can support themselves with out general assistance.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

It's a mess. Some companies are receiving subsidies and are very profitable an others are paying none.

Maybe a flat tax because it seems like some very successful companies aren't paying taxes. But the infrastructure they enjoy is maintained by the public.
Or maybe no tax, because we all know that he customer is paying the tax, or in some cases not paying. I wonder if competitors products are more expensive due to the HEAVY tax loads?

A comprehensive five-year study of 288 highly profitable Fortune 500 companies finds that 111 of them paid no federal corporate income tax in at least one of the last five years while one-third paid a U.S. tax rate less than 10 percent over the same period, including 26 that paid nothing at all, Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy said today.

26 companies, including Boeing, General Electric, Priceline.com and Verizon, enjoyed negative income tax rates over the entire five-year period, despite combined pre-tax profits of $170 billion.

The total amount of federal income tax subsidies enjoyed by the 288 profitable corporations over the five years was $362 billion.

www.policymattersohio.org...

a reply to: seasonal

See, now we're getting into the philosophical argument--your quote states that there were $362 billion in tax subsidies, implying that this amount is what the federal government "lost."

I argue that this money is the corporation's first, the government's second (if at all, honestly). I agree that we should abolish (or massively reduce and chance to a flat-tax with no loopholes) both the corporate tax and income tax. Yes, I know, the government would "lost" billions and billions of dollars, but you know what would happen? The average citizen would see prices decrease for goods and services, and we'd be seeing way more money remain in our pockets (hell, it was ours to begin with). This would equate to a much better standard of living, ability to save money, ability to afford more, and would help smooth out hardships of many lower-income families.

But instead, the government wants to take, take, and take some more so that it can administer program after program that claims to be in the spirit of fighting a war on poverty, yet this war has only made the disparity between poverty and wealth more dramatic.

In any event, though, the government definitely needs to get out of the business of subsidizing...if there is a tax, it should be paid. If companies don't like that, lobby for lower taxes across the board.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

The 362,000,000,000$ were taxes collected by the government from people and companies to run the various functions of government not to give out to specific companies that are profitable or not.

It doesn't belong to anyone after payment. By paying them both (with the exception of the large profitable corps that didn't) companies/public contribute to a standard of living/govt we have voted for and are accustomed to. It costs a lot of $ to run a government, it just does. Can it be done cheaper? Sure as long as it doesn't effect something you like, NIMBY like reactions to govt cuts.

I contend everyone, should pay the exact same %. Corporations are people, so they pay as well. If you think corporations cry about their taxes now, imagine a 14% tax. General electric, Exxon, Boeing..... would act as if their world is coming to an end.

Dead horse beating time:
If Starbucks charges 1$ for a cup of coffee, and makes .15$ after everyone/everything is paid, that is profit. My opinion is that if their employees are on general assistance then someone should be asking some serious questions about why tax payers are forced to pay for the min wage earners medical, food, heat, phone, earned income... Seems like the 1$ cup costs another .01$ in tax to pay for min wagers general assistance. Then a cup of coffee does in fact COST 1.01$, reducing profits to .14$. This would allow the min wage employee to stand on their own feet and get the govt out of their lives and get the tax payer out of the coffee/medical, food, energy, earned income business, for at least that employee of Starbucks.

Or we keep going the way we are, that's cool too.

a reply to: seasonal

Now we're getting super off-topic, here, but these types of jobs (the basic barista) were not meant to (nor should they) pay a living wage that can support someone from January through December without any help from other people.

So, to bring into the discussion concerns about federal or state assistance concerning these employees is irrelevant for the discussion.

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

And you are not going to replace those jobs with burger flippers.

And if you keep pushing for this "living" wage you will even lose those burger flippers also.

Wendy's is already talking about automating 6000 stores with robotic flippers.

a reply to: seasonal

Because they have been bleeding the rest of the EU dry for 20 years.

And before that they did it with the US. During the Cold War who do you think paid for the defense of Europe? The US did for the most part. While we spent money on defense against the old USSR most of Europe stuck that money into their social program. Now many of the smaller ones are crumbing and Germany is still sucking money fron the EU to keep it standards high.

I live in Greece right now and have studied their economy some the last couple of years. ALL their heavy manufacturer and repair was striped by the EU to "promote balance". Where did most of that go? Take a look at Germany and see.

a reply to: dismanrc
Have to admit I think a reason EU can have health care the way they do id because the US spends big $ on policing the world.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: dismanrc
Have to admit I think a reason EU can have health care the way they do id because the US spends big $ on policing the world.

I think the reason the EU and UN can exist in the first place is because the USA spends so much money maintaining military presence world-wide.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Agreed, there is a theory that if the US pulled all military assets back to America, the rest of the world could never defeat the US in in a conventional war.