Study: Low Fast Food Wages Cost Taxpayers $7 Billion Per Year
Options
Comments
-
Its not a cap. It would be a ratio based on percentages. If the people at the top want more money they can still get it, but they must equivocally give the people at the bottom more money as well based on the ratio. Ethical businesses should welcome this practice with open arms.blakfyahking wrote: »basically what you are advocating at the bolded is for the govt to put a cap on executive wages
Did I miss something? They do regulate what businesses can pay to bottom level employees. Its called Minimum Wage.blakfyahking wrote: »you are wading into some serious gray area when you say the govt should be dictating payscales at the top (or even bottom for that matter)
Perhaps, but in 11th grade you are roughly 16 which is legal working age. I would love to see any company run their business with solely 11th graders and see how profitable they are. You may find a ton of companies using high school students but they are limited as far as availability and most importantly work ethic. You need an older more experienced individual to manage them and that person should not make minimum wage because he/she is a manager/baby sitter...blakfyahking wrote: »the bolded underlined is a fantasy because businesses already plan operations of their firm based on margins
cats seriously underestimate how difficult it is to balance paying a wage to someone with no discernible skills past what an able bodied 11th grader can offer
Sorry, the scenario I presented eliminates no jobs. Just creates less profit for top earners of million dollar/ billion dollar companies.blakfyahking wrote: »obviously nobody wants to encourage wage slavery, but how far do you go in raising wages and eliminating more jobs?blakfyahking wrote: »plus if the govt pass a law dictating percentages (which they already do thru taxes and benefits that have to be paid to employees) why would someone take on all that risk?
Lol, taxes are created by GOVT to keep GOVT running. Taxes charged to businesses and laws governing benefits are two separate issues. Mind you, there are still some jobs that dont have benefits so I dont know where your going with that. In fact, large businesses often lobby to pay more taxes to politicians in order to keep them from passing legislation that mandates them to pay workers higher wages. The only people who lose are those who are at the bottom. This is when your vote does not count. Big money talking!blakfyahking wrote: »especially in industries where MW jobs are designed to be temporary? how do you minimize the expense of employee turnover?
You keep saying this dumb ? . No business designs an entry level job to be a permanent position. We will call that (g) which ironically stands for given in the math world, but not as I use it here. The entry level position or (g) is only used to assist in operations lead by more qualified individuals/managers, assistant mangers, etc... The job of these people is to figure out whats the purpose of (g) which we will call (f) which stands for function. Managers will be represented in the equation by (m) and assistant mangers will be represented by (am). Operations in general will be represented by (O). Basically a very simple equation to represent the small business model can be shown here m/f+am/f+g/f= O... Now imagine the largest number is always (m), the second largest number is always (am), and the smallest is always (g). Also, (m) can do the jobs of both (am) and (g), (am) can perform its own job and do (g), while (g) can only do (g). Lets insert numbers now. (m)=16: (am)=8: (g)=4. (f) is a variable number dependent on which employees are available. For example (f) will be a lower number and constant if all three employee types are available. Lets say (f) is 2 when all three types are present. It will go up twice as much every time one of the types is absent. For example (f) will be 4 if there is only (g) and (am) in the equation. The output of the performance of each worker is therefore resulted in Operations or (O).
16/2+8/2+4/2=14 a smooth running business with all employee types. Good
16/2+16/2+16/2=24 All employees trained at manager level. Best
16/2+16/2+4/2=18 This is two employees trained at manger level with an entry level employee. Great
16/2+16/2+8/2=20 Two employees at manger level plus one assistant manager level. Greater
16/2+8/2+8/2=16 Manager level with 2 assistants first step up from entry level business. Better than good
16/2=8 only the (m). Look at this compared to 3 assistants. shows imporatnce of a good (m)
8/4+8/4+8/4=6 all assistant manger levels. Does not equal one good (m)
4/8+4/8+4/8=1.5 all bottom level employees. Worst
The goal should be train all employees to manager levels.
People become stuck at (g) but can perform at (m) if given the opportunity. Instead of Business rewarding (g) they fire (g) and hire a new (g) who can not perform at (m) losing production and raising turnover expense as you so put it. Instead, business should train (g) bringing (g) to (m) level increasing production and output at the same time.
For P&L purposes (g) will gradually go through (am) before it gets to (m) accompanied by raises all the while making sure the business is still profitable with (g) gradually moving up. The thing with modern business structure is that Companies or Large Corporations never want to adjust their structure from (m), (am), (g) which is ridiculous and detrimental to communities. Even worse they dont value (m) so in essence they are truly left with (am) trying to perform (m) functions which makes the business not as profitable as it could be.
Personally, I'm not arguing for Minimum wage to be raised, but I would like to see business structure and training coincide with the compensation of the employees in said business. If the top level executives dont believe the lower level employees should be compensated at higher levels then maybe they should find a different work force but I'm guessing that's not the answer to their problems. You also consistently say a child or an 11th grader can do these jobs. Have you ever seen Under Cover Boss. No, these top level employees can not perform the functions of these lower level employees. Not all the time anyway.
Mcdonalds is a multi-BILLION Dollar Global corporation... If there is ever a place to work your way up (the american dream) and become successful, it is Mcdonalds... Unfortunatley People at Mcdonalds are preventing individuals from working their way up and those same individuals/top money earners/or execs are the ones hoarding all the money.blakfyahking wrote: »are people serious advocating for cats to make careers out of working at places like McD's?
someone in favor of a livable wage please answer this question[/quote]blakfyahking wrote: »if you pay a livable wage today and then prices rise (inflation) to where that livable wage is basically equivalent to what minimum wage is today.........then what do you do next to fix the problem? SMH
I am talking about fast food and solutions to the problem. This question (YOU) pose is moot considering the topic of the thread suggest we are only speaking about fast food and what the wages of its employees cost taxpayers.
If Mcdonalds raises its wages to its employees they will have to restructure and once again find a way to be profitable which will not be a problem to top level execs who are skilled and educated, supposedly. When you look at the detriment something as simple as a wage to a Mcdonalds worker causes to our entire American society how can you argue for the corporation who stands to continue to make billions in the apocalyptic aftermath. It makes absolutely zero sense and honestly makes you sound like a ? ...
-
ROFL @ perspective presenting an equation in his argument
bruh you can't be serious
your argument about McD being a global multi-billion corporation is oversimplifying the business structure of that organization
most of the employees working for MW actually work at McD's franchises, which is distinctly separate in character from the McD HQ that is actually making billions
many of those franchises are technically small business owners who pay McD guaranteed royalties at the expense of a low skilled workforce that has ridiculous employee turnover in a good economy
but of course no one cares about that entrepreneur who stepped out there to take the risk to make some money and possibly give folks jobs.............McD's HQ executives are not even too concerned with the cat making fries when their executive salary comes from royalties paid by the franchise owners -
I'll give you a 5 min MBA to minimize all that unnecessary math you did LOL.........and hopefully if you all are really interested I hope you all would participate in the Strictly Business forum
simply because we need more cats who are really interested in business to chop it up on these issues more
1st thing is the general way accounting is done at all US firms:
Revenue (Total amount of what was sold, ie dollar amount of all burgers a store sells)
-Inventory (Cost of all inventory to make burgers that were sold)
Gross Profit (profit before taking out wages, overhead costs, regular expenses for facilities, etc)
-Selling, general, and Administrative Expenses (wages, overhead, light bills, water bills, rent expenses, (etc)
Operating Profit (commonly know as EBIT or EBITDA)
-Taxes, Depreciation, Amortization, Etc (Tax related expenses)
Net Profit (money left over for owners of the firm to spend as "profit")
now McD HQ currently reported in their own financial statements that their Operating Income (operating profit) is approximately an average of about 30% of revenue.........Net Income (net profit) is about typically 20%........these are the margins each franchise generally runs by:
http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/content/dam/AboutMcDonalds/Investors/Investor 2013/2012 Annual Report Final.pdf
this means your expenses before taxes already eat about 70% of the money made from selling burgers
-
if say you made $2M in revenue annually at your McD franchise, so your net profit is only $400K based on the margins above
you have approximately 10 MW employees working full time for $7.25......each employee is paid approximately $15K........which is ultimately about $150K that you already had come out in your SGA expenses before your bottom line net profit of $400K
remember, you had to pay a royalty fee as an owner of 16% of your revenues in your SGA expenses which comes out to $320K
in a perfect world of reliable employees and consistent revenues that $400K in leftover net profit looks nice haha
but for a business owner that is pretty ? considering the investment needed to create and maintain operations of the business.......who wants to take on the task of spending almost $3M to get a McD franchise up and running just to make $400K (that you will not necessarily keep to yourself) and also have to pay for your own health benefits?
and realistically $2M in revenue is a generous number because there are multiple franchises making as low as $300K in revenue (which translates to $60K in profits left over for the owner)
-
now throw in the fact that employees are not necessarily stable because of the nature of the job (job theft, loss of revenue in order to train new folks, risking being sued, changing tax rates, changing royalty fees, etc.)
so throw in high turnover of unreliable workers plus the added expense of Obamacare hanging over a franchise owner, why would they sign up for all that just to give some cat that they don't really know a job?
$60K - $400K isn't worth all that drama considering the circumstances, so what sense does it make to advocate making it harder for a business owner to survive if your ultimate goal is to help the workers by providing jobs with "livable" wages?
this is the reality you folks are cosigning when you think paying a couple more dollars won't really matter -
Sorry, but there is no defense to this. These companies generally make enough of a profit margin that they can pay 2-3 dollars more as opposed to putting this same money in the hands of their shareholders. Yes, small business is who is caught in the middle of this, but they have to economically compete as well. I'm a former contractor and I see those paying these minimal, non-living wages only to pad their pocket books more. They can usually pay more, but are on some, well I made the business ? . You are part of the problem too.
-
What most of you are not realizing is coming is almost all the way here these fast food businesses if forced to pay more will do what many industries before did to offset that cost which is automate. Here in the Evergreen State in the Beautiful Puget sound a Number of jack in the boxes have touch screens to place you order eliminating the need for an attendant and while if you call for someone they will come take your order this is just Phase 1.
Skilled laborers with huge Unions have been pushed off for machines what do you think is going to happen to the unskilled. In the end it is all about money and the technology is here that will pay for itself with in a month or 2 eliminating more jobs. The push for higher wages will ultimately be the push for less jobs. The low incomed individuals in these Jobs need to take advantage of their status and go stock up on some skills I.e. Certifications or at least associates and even then the competitions getting fierce.... -
so....................get rid of fast food?
-
blakfyahking wrote: »ROFL @ perspective presenting an equation in his argument
bruh you can't be serious
your argument about McD being a global multi-billion corporation is oversimplifying the business structure of that organization
most of the employees working for MW actually work at McD's franchises, which is distinctly separate in character from the McD HQ that is actually making billions
many of those franchises are technically small business owners who pay McD guaranteed royalties at the expense of a low skilled workforce that has ridiculous employee turnover in a good economy
but of course no one cares about that entrepreneur who stepped out there to take the risk to make some money and possibly give folks jobs.............McD's HQ executives are not even too concerned with the cat making fries when their executive salary comes from royalties paid by the franchise owners
I'm very serious.... How am I over simplifying? I specifically used the business model for a restaurant. The math you deemed unnecessary is a real life example of production quality of employees at various levels. It is not impossible for an employee to work his/her way up through the ranks whether he/she works for a franchise or a corporate owned restaurant. Who owns it makes no difference to the company you still work for and represent the company(Mcdonalds).
You keep calling Mcdonalds a small business when it clearly is not. The fact that you can "Franchise", is a clear indicator this company is not a small business, but these are just semantics. These Franchise owners can fine tune or tweak training as it is their business "technically" so if they want to keep turn over at a minimum I suggest they do so. Other ways to improve turnover are screening process and reviewing applications with your management team as any good owner should if they are truly vested in having a successful business. As you have previously stated those people at corporate are not concerned with wages or turnover rates at the restaurant level until it affects their royalties then it becomes a problem. Owners should also raise wages as skills are gained and position/title and production is improved.
No one said we dont care about entrepreneurs, but taking a risk on a chain like Mcdonalds is hardly considered a risk. The whole point of getting a franchise like Mcdonalds is to take advantage of the already existing brand. Your pretty much guaranteed a certain amount of sales depending on the demographic you choose to operate within and practically have zero marketing and advertising cost. The company assess the area for you and presents the potential franchise owner with sales estimates for years to come in detailed graphs and charts. They also guarantee they will not have to compete with another Mcdonalds in a given area agreed upon in contract allowing for the future franchise owner to have the exclusive rights to the brand in the stated area. With a business plan already in place a future owner of a Mcdonalds franchise will have no problem getting a bank to help with the venture. Assistance from a bank allows for the future franchise owner to take less risk in coming out of pocket directly to purchase the restaurant or restaurants.blakfyahking wrote: »who wants to take on the task of spending almost $3M to get a McD franchise up and running just to make $400K -
blakfyahking wrote: »now throw in the fact that employees are not necessarily stable because of the nature of the job (job theft, loss of revenue in order to train new folks, risking being sued, changing tax rates, changing royalty fees, etc.)
so throw in high turnover of unreliable workers plus the added expense of Obamacare hanging over a franchise owner, why would they sign up for all that just to give some cat that they don't really know a job?
$60K - $400K isn't worth all that drama considering the circumstances, so what sense does it make to advocate making it harder for a business owner to survive if your ultimate goal is to help the workers by providing jobs with "livable" wages?
this is the reality you folks are cosigning when you think paying a couple more dollars won't really matter
Lets be concise here. 400K profit/year off a 3 million investment is not terrible especially when you can sell it back.
-
Sorry, but there is no defense to this. These companies generally make enough of a profit margin that they can pay 2-3 dollars more as opposed to putting this same money in the hands of their shareholders. Yes, small business is who is caught in the middle of this, but they have to economically compete as well. I'm a former contractor and I see those paying these minimal, non-living wages only to pad their pocket books more. They can usually pay more, but are on some, well I made the business ? . You are part of the problem too.
LMAO @ the bolded cause you might be a little biased
totally different animal when it comes to contracting........but I feel what you saying tho -
perspective@100 wrote: »blakfyahking wrote: »ROFL @ perspective presenting an equation in his argument
bruh you can't be serious
your argument about McD being a global multi-billion corporation is oversimplifying the business structure of that organization
most of the employees working for MW actually work at McD's franchises, which is distinctly separate in character from the McD HQ that is actually making billions
many of those franchises are technically small business owners who pay McD guaranteed royalties at the expense of a low skilled workforce that has ridiculous employee turnover in a good economy
but of course no one cares about that entrepreneur who stepped out there to take the risk to make some money and possibly give folks jobs.............McD's HQ executives are not even too concerned with the cat making fries when their executive salary comes from royalties paid by the franchise owners
I'm very serious.... How am I over simplifying? I specifically used the business model for a restaurant. The math you deemed unnecessary is a real life example of production quality of employees at various levels. It is not impossible for an employee to work his/her way up through the ranks whether he/she works for a franchise or a corporate owned restaurant. Who owns it makes no difference to the company you still work for and represent the company(Mcdonalds).
You keep calling Mcdonalds a small business when it clearly is not. The fact that you can "Franchise", is a clear indicator this company is not a small business, but these are just semantics. These Franchise owners can fine tune or tweak training as it is their business "technically" so if they want to keep turn over at a minimum I suggest they do so. Other ways to improve turnover are screening process and reviewing applications with your management team as any good owner should if they are truly vested in having a successful business. As you have previously stated those people at corporate are not concerned with wages or turnover rates at the restaurant level until it affects their royalties then it becomes a problem. Owners should also raise wages as skills are gained and position/title and production is improved.
you are oversimplifying because you are comparing the billions received by executives at the McD HQ to local franchise owners making $60K-$400K
your real life example of "production" is not as meaningful because those calculations mean nothing without being able to translate them into real money
I do this business advisory ? in real life and I can tell you, a lot of that stuff you learn in business school don't mean ? in the real world of making money
mathematically you can show how efficient a worker can be based on an equation.........but in real life you are dealing with real people........measuring "production" is better served when your processes are automated and you can measure the efficiency of a machine that doesn't get sick, take days off, have an emotional issue, etc......paying a human based on production is faulty cause there is a physical limit to just how "productive" they can be
the fact that we can agree that it's not impossible for a cat to move up thru the ranks only justifies my stance in not encouraging a cat making fries to be paid a living wage........if he really likes working at McDs and wants more money, then he should get the skills necessary to become management......but you are basically saying a cat should gain more experience and skills just to continue shaking fries
and you can dispute the notion of a small business all you want.......but the Small Business Administration disagrees with you........you gotta stop getting so caught up in wanting to tell the next man how to spend his own money haha.....just cause you feel a certain amount of profit is a lot doesn't mean a business still can't be classified as small
turnover will always be a problem when the prestige of working at McDs is what it is.........when broads start wanting to wifed up by a cat working the grille and you are proud of your kid for saying they want to work at McDs when they grow up, turnover will def lessen...........but in the meantime cats will continue working jobs like McDs until they find something better, that's just the nature of the setup......
-
perspective@100 wrote: »No one said we dont care about entrepreneurs, but taking a risk on a chain like Mcdonalds is hardly considered a risk. The whole point of getting a franchise like Mcdonalds is to take advantage of the already existing brand. Your pretty much guaranteed a certain amount of sales depending on the demographic you choose to operate within and practically have zero marketing and advertising cost. The company assess the area for you and presents the potential franchise owner with sales estimates for years to come in detailed graphs and charts. They also guarantee they will not have to compete with another Mcdonalds in a given area agreed upon in contract allowing for the future franchise owner to have the exclusive rights to the brand in the stated area. With a business plan already in place a future owner of a Mcdonalds franchise will have no problem getting a bank to help with the venture. Assistance from a bank allows for the future franchise owner to take less risk in coming out of pocket directly to purchase the restaurant or restaurants.
the bolded is what makes your posts seem naive
standing up a new business, even a franchise is a huge amount of risk.......remember your paycheck as an owner is not guaranteed.....some of it will be profit..........some of it will be retained earnings used to keep the business running and fix equipment and to deal with future issues (like Obamacare in the future)
if there is a guaranteed amount of sales as you say, then explain the $60-$400K variation of net profit in comparison between stores
franchises already pay royalty fees and have to pay advertising costs as part of their franchise agreement......plus there is usually another upfront royalty fee of like $45K when you 1st start up
and yeah McDs won't be competing with others in an area, but you don't think there aren't other fast food restaurants typically in the same area?
and because of the huge expected investment, McDs typically only gives franchise agreements to people with at least a net worth of at least $1M in cash......so no, a bank loan is not typically an option
now if I'm someone with the money to open a McD's and could possibly create jobs in an area, but you telling me I got to take on all this risk.........I'd rather just sit back and hold my money vs. dealing with the headache
-
perspective@100 wrote: »blakfyahking wrote: »now throw in the fact that employees are not necessarily stable because of the nature of the job (job theft, loss of revenue in order to train new folks, risking being sued, changing tax rates, changing royalty fees, etc.)
so throw in high turnover of unreliable workers plus the added expense of Obamacare hanging over a franchise owner, why would they sign up for all that just to give some cat that they don't really know a job?
$60K - $400K isn't worth all that drama considering the circumstances, so what sense does it make to advocate making it harder for a business owner to survive if your ultimate goal is to help the workers by providing jobs with "livable" wages?
this is the reality you folks are cosigning when you think paying a couple more dollars won't really matter
Lets be concise here. 400K profit/year off a 3 million investment is not terrible especially when you can sell it back.
but that's a generously successful scenario at $400K
what happens if you invest $3M and only get $60K? you think that's worth it as well? -
Soloman the Wise wrote: »What most of you are not realizing is coming is almost all the way here these fast food businesses if forced to pay more will do what many industries before did to offset that cost which is automate. Here in the Evergreen State in the Beautiful Puget sound a Number of jack in the boxes have touch screens to place you order eliminating the need for an attendant and while if you call for someone they will come take your order this is just Phase 1.
Skilled laborers with huge Unions have been pushed off for machines what do you think is going to happen to the unskilled. In the end it is all about money and the technology is here that will pay for itself with in a month or 2 eliminating more jobs. The push for higher wages will ultimately be the push for less jobs. The low incomed individuals in these Jobs need to take advantage of their status and go stock up on some skills I.e. Certifications or at least associates and even then the competitions getting fierce....
@tb.boy what is it you find wrong with this post I am curious as everything stated is current and historical fact other then the advice to stock up on skillsets which seems common sense for the low incomed that through fafsa can take advantage of their status to have training and schooling paid for them??? -
blakfyahking wrote: »
you are oversimplifying because you are comparing the billions received by executives at the McD HQ to local franchise owners making $60K-$400K
Have I now? I did not compare anything. I stated working for Mcdonalds can lead to a lucrative career by working your way up through the ranks. You made it seem as if its impossible to go corporate if you start out in a restaurant. Unlikely maybe, but not impossible.blakfyahking wrote: »your real life example of "production" is not as meaningful because those calculations mean nothing without being able to translate them into real money
LoL, holyshit, so you mean calculations based on skill and performance should not dictate your pay? So your saying everyone at restaurant level should just make the same pay-rate because they are not doing a real job anyway?(sarcasm) There was a reason the higher level managers were higher numbers than the lower level employees. Maybe you should look into that a little deeper and not brush it aside as if it were some whimsical equation. Yes, you can calculate production with numbers based on sales/cost/labor, but what is even more precise is the level or ability that each employee is trained and able to produce. Worker (A) may have more time and experience than worker (B) making worker (A) more valuable when it comes to man hours.
Yea, and I work in management in real life, but I wont debate with you there as I agree some of the principles used in school are far outdated, but on that same token some are as true as the day they were written i.e. basic ? like supply and demand.blakfyahking wrote: »I do this business advisory ? in real life and I can tell you, a lot of that stuff you learn in business school don't mean ? in the real world of making money
Funny, aside from the business talk this is what we are trying to explain to you but then you say we are being "emotional". How you expect a worker to live off this ? pay whether he/she is doing the job temporarily or not?blakfyahking wrote: »mathematically you can show how efficient a worker can be based on an equation.........but in real life you are dealing with real people........blakfyahking wrote: »measuring "production" is better served when your processes are automated and you can measure the efficiency of a machine that doesn't get sick, take days off, have an emotional issue, etc......paying a human based on production is faulty cause there is a physical limit to just how "productive" they can be
Your starting to sound like an idealist here... Its only faulty to those who have more limitations, but I hear you work smarter not harder right...blakfyahking wrote: »the fact that we can agree that it's not impossible for a cat to move up thru the ranks only justifies my stance in not encouraging a cat making fries to be paid a living wage........if he really likes working at McDs and wants more money, then he should get the skills necessary to become management......but you are basically saying a cat should gain more experience and skills just to continue shaking fries
No, I dont think anyone has said that. You continue to believe it though. My stance is that everyone in the work place deserves pay if they are willing to do the job. Your pay should be dictated on the quality of your man hours. You should be rewarded for things such as experience and longevity. If the business is successful and profits are continually increasing as efficiency improves, people at the top are not the only ones who should benefit financially is basically what I'm saying. The machine in this case is a car that the owner keeps pristine clean, but refuses to look under the hood and change the oil and now the engine is knocking...
No one is talking to the small business owner. Specifically everyone is talking to Mcdonalds. Its the small business owners own prerogative whether or not he/she wants to deal with such an entity.blakfyahking wrote: »and you can dispute the notion of a small business all you want.......but the Small Business Administration disagrees with you........you gotta stop getting so caught up in wanting to tell the next man how to spend his own money haha.....just cause you feel a certain amount of profit is a lot doesn't mean a business still can't be classified as small
Thats just (your) mentality shared with a lot of others. Remember the Calvin commercials? Best believe a lot of people wanted to be Calvin and work hard for a living and move up like Calvin did at Mcdonalds.blakfyahking wrote: »turnover will always be a problem when the prestige of working at McDs is what it is.........when broads start wanting to wifed up by a cat working the grille and you are proud of your kid for saying they want to work at McDs when they grow up, turnover will def lessen...........but in the meantime cats will continue working jobs like McDs until they find something better, that's just the nature of the setup...... -
blakfyahking wrote: »
the bolded is what makes your posts seem naive
standing up a new business, even a franchise is a huge amount of risk.......remember your paycheck as an owner is not guaranteed.....some of it will be profit..........some of it will be retained earnings used to keep the business running and fix equipment and to deal with future issues (like Obamacare in the future)
if there is a guaranteed amount of sales as you say, then explain the $60-$400K variation of net profit in comparison between stores
franchises already pay royalty fees and have to pay advertising costs as part of their franchise agreement......plus there is usually another upfront royalty fee of like $45K when you 1st start up
and yeah McDs won't be competing with others in an area, but you don't think there aren't other fast food restaurants typically in the same area?
and because of the huge expected investment, McDs typically only gives franchise agreements to people with at least a net worth of at least $1M in cash......so no, a bank loan is not typically an option
now if I'm someone with the money to open a McD's and could possibly create jobs in an area, but you telling me I got to take on all this risk.........I'd rather just sit back and hold my money vs. dealing with the headache
The owner creates his/her own success. If the owner is knowledgeable enough about business Mcdonalds could be no different than the business vendor games you play as a kid keeping track of inventory, cost, and sales.
The owners check is not guaranteed but lets be clear he/she is not hurting for money in the first place. The guaranteed amount of sales all depends on what you have been able to negotiate. The brand itself carries weight so if the future owner is smart he will contractually obligate the company to guarantee certain financial amounts. The company may simply say to future franchise owner "if said amount of sales are not achieved your royalty payments will be this lesser predetermined percentage". Just paying a lesser amount than the standard royalty can be regarded as a financial gain for said franchisee. Some future franchise owners are not knowledgeable about business and get swindled just like any other business if you dont know what you are doing. If you bind into a Mcdoanlds contract and you dont give your self some sort of way out to salvage partial amounts of the money you have invested then you deserve to be the guy who invested 3mil and only profit 60,000 per year. If thats the case you should torch your own spot and use insurance money to create a brand new facility with mostly new employees and give yourself a refresh button.
I doubt Franchise owners are not getting bank loans... Thats asking a lot from a person up front. Once again your foolish to risk that much money and be the sole investor. Being a smart business man vs being a foolish investor with a lot of money should not dictate how the people at the very bottom of your company are compensated.
Sitting back and holding your money in savings will maybe gain you from 2-7% tops. while investing in a so called small business like Mcdonalds will double that easily even if you are not the most lucrative business around. Obviously not including the Owner only profiting 60,000 per year lol, but now that I think about it thats still 2% so its similar to having money in a bank with ? interest gains.
-
perspective@100 wrote: »Have I now? I did not compare anything. I stated working for Mcdonalds can lead to a lucrative career by working your way up through the ranks. You made it seem as if its impossible to go corporate if you start out in a restaurant. Unlikely maybe, but not impossible.
complaining about executive pay at the McD HQ in contrast to the average worker pay in a McD franchise is actually making a comparison
I never said it's impossible which is why I advocate having a person work their way up if they want to get paid more........I don't think it makes sense to pay someone a subjective livable wage just because they feel they should be paid based on what the owners makeperspective@100 wrote: »
LoL, holyshit, so you mean calculations based on skill and performance should not dictate your pay? So your saying everyone at restaurant level should just make the same pay-rate because they are not doing a real job anyway?(sarcasm) There was a reason the higher level managers were higher numbers than the lower level employees. Maybe you should look into that a little deeper and not brush it aside as if it were some whimsical equation. Yes, you can calculate production with numbers based on sales/cost/labor, but what is even more precise is the level or ability that each employee is trained and able to produce. Worker (A) may have more time and experience than worker (B) making worker (A) more valuable when it comes to man hours.
the bolded is the problem with using "productivity" as a measure for future compensation..........a manager with no business sense will pay people based off of a title..............a good manager/owner will pay people based on their talent and the value they add to the organization
measuring "potential" is a meaningless exercise........that's like saying any 16yr old kid flipping burgers who has good grades should be paid on his potential........now how ? up would that be if pay was based on that logic?perspective@100 wrote: »Yea, and I work in management in real life, but I wont debate with you there as I agree some of the principles used in school are far outdated, but on that same token some are as true as the day they were written i.e. basic ? like supply and demand.
exactly......and if you understand that the laws of supply and demand apply to the cost of labor
then obviously it makes sense to create more jobs instead of artificially raising wages..........make it easier for small business owners and there will be more jobs available.........more people being employed means that owner/managers will have to pay more to attract the best workers
you are actually arguing against that for some reasonperspective@100 wrote: »Funny, aside from the business talk this is what we are trying to explain to you but then you say we are being "emotional". How you expect a worker to live off this ? pay whether he/she is doing the job temporarily or not?
you really think a job at McD was originally designed for a grown adult to live off of? people really grew up aspiring to have careers as a line worker in McDs? surely you jest fam haha
-
perspective@100 wrote: »Your starting to sound like an idealist here... Its only faulty to those who have more limitations, but I hear you work smarter not harder right...
so we should support policies that further put those folks with limitations in an even more vulnerable position? paying for potential productivity as you say would screw these folksperspective@100 wrote: »No, I dont think anyone has said that. You continue to believe it though. My stance is that everyone in the work place deserves pay if they are willing to do the job. Your pay should be dictated on the quality of your man hours. You should be rewarded for things such as experience and longevity. If the business is successful and profits are continually increasing as efficiency improves, people at the top are not the only ones who should benefit financially is basically what I'm saying. The machine in this case is a car that the owner keeps pristine clean, but refuses to look under the hood and change the oil and now the engine is knocking...
your logic would work better in a technical industry where it is easier to evaluate the value a worker brings to the business
but how do you objectively determine the quality of man hours is better for one worker on fries vs. another? one cashier vs. another? one cook vs. another? the work these folks do is based on the flow of customers.....none of those workers control that.............how do you fairly pay one more than another?
as far as experience how does experience improve preparation of fries/food/cashier duties over years vs. months of experience? there is a point where the learning curve in these jobs eventually turns flat and you are basically paying folks for seniority which is basically spitting in the face of anyone new who comes to the table with talent
the reason workers don't get a bigger piece of the profits when efficiency improves is because they are not taking on any risk..........they don't have an ownership stake in the company........that is the tradeoff in being a worker vs. an owner........the less liability you have, the less you are entitled to benefit from whatever comes back to the company
-
perspective@100 wrote: »No one is talking to the small business owner. Specifically everyone is talking to Mcdonalds. Its the small business owners own prerogative whether or not he/she wants to deal with such an entity.
this makes no sense.............doesn't the bolded apply to the workers as well? didn't they apply for the job?
and yeah I don't see how you are talking to McD's when it's the small business owners (franchisees) who are the ones who actually hire and pay folks
how you gon complain to one company about another company's pay policies just because they have a business agreement? McD HQ really has nothing to do with how the average worker gets paid in this scenarioperspective@100 wrote: »Thats just (your) mentality shared with a lot of others. Remember the Calvin commercials? Best believe a lot of people wanted to be Calvin and work hard for a living and move up like Calvin did at Mcdonalds.
haha ok fam.........so why are you not currently working at McD since Calvin is so admirable? that ? was making even less than what the current McD's workers are making today LOL
cut the ? fam SMH
-
perspective@100 wrote: »
The owner creates his/her own success. If the owner is knowledgeable enough about business Mcdonalds could be no different than the business vendor games you play as a kid keeping track of inventory, cost, and sales.
how does the bolded apply to the owners, but not the workers as well? are workers not responsible for their own success?perspective@100 wrote: »The owners check is not guaranteed but lets be clear he/she is not hurting for money in the first place. The guaranteed amount of sales all depends on what you have been able to negotiate. The brand itself carries weight so if the future owner is smart he will contractually obligate the company to guarantee certain financial amounts. The company may simply say to future franchise owner "if said amount of sales are not achieved your royalty payments will be this lesser predetermined percentage". Just paying a lesser amount than the standard royalty can be regarded as a financial gain for said franchisee. Some future franchise owners are not knowledgeable about business and get swindled just like any other business if you dont know what you are doing. If you bind into a Mcdoanlds contract and you dont give your self some sort of way out to salvage partial amounts of the money you have invested then you deserve to be the guy who invested 3mil and only profit 60,000 per year. If thats the case you should torch your own spot and use insurance money to create a brand new facility with mostly new employees and give yourself a refresh button.
the bolded is your subjective opinion tho........the same way workers should not be judged for their lifestyle and determining what bills they have, the same logic should apply for the owner
if the worker can choose to struggle because of the bills they chose to make, it's not fair to make a sweeping judgment against an owner saying they ain't hurting.....doesn't the owner have bills too? haha
the underlined is false because your sales are determined by your customers.......and you can't guarantee all of your costs will be the same every time
there are multiple things that pop up and cost money when running a business.......and those costs ultimately come out of your net profit
so even the best ran franchises (the ones getting $400K net profit) could feel the extra $60K loss from paying just an extra $3 to their 10 workers that year
as far as negotiation........that's an entirely different discussion haha
McD HQ is a billion dollar corporation.....you ain't gon be able to just go in and negotiate better terms that easily LOL
-
perspective@100 wrote: »I doubt Franchise owners are not getting bank loans... Thats asking a lot from a person up front. Once again your foolish to risk that much money and be the sole investor. Being a smart business man vs being a foolish investor with a lot of money should not dictate how the people at the very bottom of your company are compensated.
in most cases they are not getting loans........just to even get a franchise, McD's wants you to pay 40% or 25% plus have $750K in cash on hand.....that means you could easily be expected to pay $1.5M not including the cash on hand:
http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/franchising/us_franchising/aquiring_a_franchise.html
and yeah it makes sense to have a partner, the more the merrier
but remember the more partners, the more that net profit is split up..........so now just between 2 people that net profit of $400K is now $200K for each owner............you see how the more you try to act like ? is just that easy that you only make it more difficult for the owners SMHperspective@100 wrote: »Sitting back and holding your money in savings will maybe gain you from 2-7% tops. while investing in a so called small business like Mcdonalds will double that easily even if you are not the most lucrative business around. Obviously not including the Owner only profiting 60,000 per year lol, but now that I think about it thats still 2% so its similar to having money in a bank with ? interest gains.
you need to redo your math fam........it can be lucrative
but there are other ventures just as lucrative or better with less hassle
why take on all that extra work and risk? this is why it's doesn't make sense to ? on business owners when mofos claim they want more jobs available out there for workers
-
I never said "they feel". They scenario I present is "ethical" for everyone. A percentage scale that allows all employees for a profitable business to survive in their respective location/residence without assistance from government. It would not be one simple scale. Calculations would take into consideration criteria relative to each area that each business is located.blakfyahking wrote: »complaining about executive pay at the McD HQ in contrast to the average worker pay in a McD franchise is actually making a comparison
I never said it's impossible which is why I advocate having a person work their way up if they want to get paid more........ I don't think it makes sense to pay someone a subjective livable wage just because they feel they should be paid based on what the owners make
Productivity directly correlates to value added to the organization... Titles are created to indicate level of training.blakfyahking wrote: »the bolded is the problem with using "productivity" as a measure for future compensation..........a manager with no business sense will pay people based off of a title..............a good manager/owner will pay people based on their talent and the value they add to the organization
Huh? I never said anything about someones potential.blakfyahking wrote: »measuring "potential" is a meaningless exercise........that's like saying any 16yr old kid flipping burgers who has good grades should be paid on his potential........now how ? up would that be if pay was based on that logic?
Here is where we disagree. You rather have the owners and corporate entities make more money so they can create more businesses and make more jobs, all in all making more money for themselves on a larger scale. You also assume with more jobs created the wages will be raised because everyone is making more money at the top. Wrong! No top CEO at any corporation is going to raise the wages of bottom level employees because their company has doubled, tripled, or quadrupled its profits. If that were the case we would not be having this conversation right now. Regardless of what Mcdonalds makes they try and keep there employees at minimum levels of income, which is why the government has instituted minimum wage so no hugely successful business blatantly gets out of hand.blakfyahking wrote: »exactly......and if you understand that the laws of supply and demand apply to the cost of labor
then obviously it makes sense to create more jobs instead of artificially raising wages..........make it easier for small business owners and there will be more jobs available.........more people being employed means that owner/managers will have to pay more to attract the best workers
you are actually arguing against that for some reason
Why hire adults at all then? If the job only entails duties that can be handled by children why are there no entirely children run Mcdonalds restaurants? Zero...blakfyahking wrote: »you really think a job at McD was originally designed for a grown adult to live off of? people really grew up aspiring to have careers as a line worker in McDs? surely you jest fam haha
I have never said anything about potential. Actual productivity can be measured and those producers of high volumes should be paid more, yes. Folks with limitations need find a way to increase their own productivity. Productivity does not always have to be physical.blakfyahking wrote: »so we should support policies that further put those folks with limitations in an even more vulnerable position? paying for potential productivity as you say would screw these folks
Mcdonalds has taken all of its business techniques from technical industries. Determining an employees value is a specialty trade of Mcdonalds. Thats why you train on one thing and once you master it you begin to cross-train. There are a ton of different areas within a single Mcdonalds that a person can be trained on including fries. No cook is just a cook and no cashier is just a cashier. A person who has been trained and can do multiple jobs is more of value to the restaurant and company than a new person just hired who can only perform one task.blakfyahking wrote: »your logic would work better in a technical industry where it is easier to evaluate the value a worker brings to the business but how do you objectively determine the quality of man hours is better for one worker on fries vs. another? one cashier vs. another? one cook vs. another? the work these folks do is based on the flow of customers.....none of those workers control that.............how do you fairly pay one more than another?
Experience comes from a single person being able to perform multiple task. This means that a persons productivity has increased. With a substantial increase(productivity) for all employees, it would inhibit the need to hire more employees to do any given task. The less employees and more efficient work = greater gains.blakfyahking wrote: »as far as experience how does experience improve preparation of fries/food/cashier duties over years vs. months of experience? there is a point where the learning curve in these jobs eventually turns flat and you are basically paying folks for seniority which is basically spitting in the face of anyone new who comes to the table with talent.
Poppy ? , I smelled ? when I read the bold... The employee is trained, has gained experience and increased his/her own productivity. This means plainly the employee is working harder than when he/she first started, contributing more and helping Mcdonalds profit more money. The risk is they are investing their livelihood and man hours to help a company potentially not pay them anything worth living for. Thats risk enough for me...blakfyahking wrote: »the reason workers don't get a bigger piece of the profits when efficiency improves is because they are not taking on any risk..........they don't have an ownership stake in the company........that is the tradeoff in being a worker vs. an owner........the less liability you have, the less you are entitled to benefit from whatever comes back to the company -
The workers are a victims of a business structure in place to keep them in the dregs of society. Applying for a job to sustain or make for better living VS someone purchasing a franchise to increase their huge amounts of money is not comparable.blakfyahking wrote: »this makes no sense.............doesn't the bolded apply to the workers as well? didn't they apply for the job?
Not every Mcdonalds is Franchised, and they all still fall under the same banner. Mcdonalds institutes policies and they are to be followed by every restaurant, franchise or not, point blank period. I wish a Franchise owner would be like" I'm taking down the golden arches and putting up my Initials"... ? please.blakfyahking wrote: »and yeah I don't see how you are talking to McD's when it's the small business owners (franchisees) who are the ones who actually hire and pay folks
Sure, in your scenario where every Mcdonalds is franchised lol, they can pay what they want, but if Mcdonalds makes certain pay for entry level employees or even management level employees policy best believe franchises will have to abide or risk being penalized or having their franchise contract ripped to shreds.blakfyahking wrote: »how you gon complain to one company about another company's pay policies just because they have a business agreement? McD HQ really has nothing to do with how the average worker gets paid in this scenario
Honestly I'm lunch/dinner ? when it come to work and they had me breakfast/lunch. Im not getting up at 4am for no job... Stop with this fuckery, Calvin was that ? in his neighborhood, had all the free cheeseburgers and ? to bring home. haha...blakfyahking wrote: »haha ok fam.........so why are you not currently working at McD since Calvin is so admirable? that ? was making even less than what the current McD's workers are making today LOL
cut the ? fam SMH
Only to an extent when you work for someone else. All they can do is work hard and hope to be treated fairly. Problem is corporations like Mcdonalds are not ethical organizations. The appearance on tv commercials is false. Their business dealings and scale of pay, support the idea of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.blakfyahking wrote: »how does the bolded apply to the owners, but not the workers as well? are workers not responsible for their own success?
Its not subjective. Corporate execs at Mcdonalds are not struggling financially and people whop decide to purchase a Mcdonalds franchise are clearly not struggling with finances.blakfyahking wrote: »the bolded is your subjective opinion tho........the same way workers should not be judged for their lifestyle and determining what bills they have, the same logic should apply for the owner
I'm glad you entertain yourself with this nonsense. ? flipping burgers and dropping fries are not buying Bentley's to put them further in debt...blakfyahking wrote: »if the worker can choose to struggle because of the bills they chose to make, it's not fair to make a sweeping judgment against an owner saying they ain't hurting.....doesn't the owner have bills too? haha
The negotiation is to have a certain amount of customers walk through the door upon the start of your business(sales). If the guaranteed amount does not walk through your door(sales), then royalty payments are decreased(the decreased amount is proportionate to the amount of unseen revenue, in this case sales). That would be a financial gain considering you have less liability, thats basic accounting.blakfyahking wrote: »the underlined is false because your sales are determined by your customers.......and you can't guarantee all of your costs will be the same every time
Negotiations and easy are never in the same sentence...blakfyahking wrote: »McD HQ is a billion dollar corporation.....you ain't gon be able to just go in and negotiate better terms that easily LOL -
blakfyahking wrote: »
you need to redo your math fam........it can be lucrative
but there are other ventures just as lucrative or better with less hassle
why take on all that extra work and risk? this is why it's doesn't make sense to ? on business owners when mofos claim they want more jobs available out there for workers
60,000 is what percent of 3,000,000? 60,000/3,000,000=.02
To get percentage move decimal point over 2 places to the right or x 100.
=2% My math is straight...
Owners dont work ? . They not getting the hassle that Management gets. Where is the risk now that I see they getting 2% from a $3 mil investment even only bringing in $60000?
Its not about more jobs being available in my eyes. Its about making the jobs that are available more lucrative. Sure Mcdonalds could take profits and create another restaurants but that pales in the comparison of all the employees at every restsaurant being financially stable and able to create businesses of their own.
