It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dunkin' CEO: $15 minimum wage is 'outrageous'

page: 10
34
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 05:12 PM
link   
I feel like we've all been in this thread before.

I have a few questions to pose the current participants:

Why is the free-market an unquestionable entity?

Why is the notion of a "living wage" contrary to the idea of a functioning economy where success is measured by merit and skill?

Why is it reasonable that taking personal risks should return high rewards?




posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: ugmold

It never amazes me the stupidity that runs rampant with peoples views on CEO's and leaders of corporations these days. You should take an economics class.

How about this? Dunkin Donuts employes over 270,000 people. Those people are not forced to work there. In your world, where people are only allowed to make X number of dollars.. how many people do you think there would be willing to bet it all and take a chance on going into business for themselves? $15/hour is a ridiculous amount for minimum wage. If that was the case, a dozen of donuts would be about $30, then I guess you would be complaining about that too.. wow..



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

Right on! Local grocers and mom and pop / indie owned eateries only for me. I don't care if all the national chains sink. Their business model is predicated on subsidies from local county and state government to feed and provide healthcare for their employees. They aren't really businesses; they're welfare queens.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

how righteous
i shop at wal mart cause they have cheap prices and have most things i need all in one spot.
yup



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   
I'd just like to know what a "living wage" even is?

And I really do hate to be on the side of this argument, but really what is a living wage?

Do you want to be able to pay a mortgage, car payment and utilities by bagging donuts are dunkin donuts? I can't support that.

The reason why I'm attending university and working towards my Bachelor's degree is because I don't want to end up working behind the counter at Dunkin Donuts. Because I want my earning ceiling to be as high as it can be.

And what about the manufacturing workers? Do they get a raise as well? What about cops? Fire fighters? Most of these jobs make around 30k-45k...and now all of a sudden if we give burger flippers 15 bucks an hour, they're going to be in the same earning bracket as these jobs.

Now what was once seen as a summer job or a temporary job while you finished school will be seen as a career.

Will door greeters at walmart get 15 dollars an hour as well?



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Right on bro! After reading some of these posts, it should be a requirement for everyone to take an economics class.

Sure, make minimum wage $15/hour.. hell why not $30.hour.. Then the store closes and China can make the donuts and send them over here for all you china goods loving fools!



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

In a little while ill clean it up and post it as a graphic. But i just threw together some quick calcs to get an idea of the type of volume you'd have to do to run a place like a donut shop. The volumes would basically force one of 3 scenarios:

- the owner works shifts (meaning that you cannot spend time trying to invest in multisite business strategies as you are tied to a daily shift to keep the business afloat)
- you only open 5 days a week to control labor (standard is 6 days, closed on Sunday...meaning you have to either hire another 2 heads to cover, or pay OT. Not to mention the "cooks" will need to be paid more than the customer service folks, since that also carries enormously more risk associated with the hot oils, etc)
- You raise prices to account for the ridiculous volume forecasts needed to balance a budget

Like is said, ill post it once i have a few to clean up the spreadsheet.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 06:40 PM
link   
The world can't run without slave labor fact.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: muse7

Apologies for delving into axioms, I hate them but they are part of the common language, anymore.

A living wage would be defined as a wage which allows the employed to be able to pay for basic necessities. Housing, food and common creature comforts. I live in an area where rent is cheap, but you need a vehicle for transportation as the taxi service is notoriously late and the public transportation runs outside of a lot of schedules. And no, walking or riding a bike in a snow storm does not equate to transportation. And the answer to "then move" is fairly obvious, as moving is an expensive task that no one can take lightly unless they have it handed to them.

It seems like most people want to think that America is still a place where a kid can get a summer job and purchase a car if they save their money wisely. In some cases, perhaps, but they aren't an island, as they are teenagers and live under the wings of their parents. Today a lot of people work multiple jobs in excess of 40 hours a week and still struggle with basic necessities due in no part to their own choices with their money but with the cost of living a modern life.


I still pose these questions:


Why is the free-market an unquestionable entity?

Why is the notion of a "living wage" contrary to the idea of a functioning economy where success is measured by merit and skill?

Why is it reasonable that taking personal risks should return high rewards?



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

You are correct in the 17 Enrons prior to Christ and the 53 Enrons after its all about the 1 percent getting the masses labor to do their bidding



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

At this point, that truly seems to be the case.

However, slaves may be too strong of a term. It's a peasantry, which isn't much better, but the masters are viewed as kind with all the bread and circuses we peasants have to consume.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: khnum

Those idiots who make my dinner for me are worthless unskilled monkeys who don't even deserve a toilet to piss in let alone be alloud to eat the same food as me.

Tell the untouchables to get a real job like me. Oh wait the 70% of the economy all becomes programmers and now the value of that labor decreases because of supply and demand so scratch that.

You losers shoulda made better choices!




posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

Well you dont want starving monkeys tearing up your office do you?
I mean moneys printed out of thin air and backed by nothing anyways so a bit more out there couldn't hurt you know growth consumer(monkey) spending all that stuff.
edit on 25-7-2015 by khnum because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: khnum
Those starving monkeys should work 100 hours a week if they want food on the table. Clearly they don't deserve it for any less.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: muse7
Muse7,

In an economy where there are a surplus of jobs which would be worthy of a living wage, your attitude is fine. However, those jobs are not broadly available, and whether qualified or not, the fact is that individuals need work, and to have that work be of a decent enough wage that they can rent a home, pay all utilities, pay for their upkeep and that of any dependents they might have, and have a reasonable expectation of being able to save something worthwhile at the end of it. That is what is meant by a living wage.

When my grandfather left the Navy after the end of WW2 he had no qualifications what so ever. He managed to find a job at the Ford motor plant in Dagenham, London. It did not pay a massive amount, but it did pay enough to live on for him, his wife, and his four daughters.

To get the same job now, would be impossible for an unqualified person.

And here is another thing... A persons ability to get a job which pays for their living, should not be dependent on any factor, but their willingness to learn the job, and do it effectively. It should not be dependent on their level of qualification, nor on the type or complexity of the work they do, but SOLELY on their willingness to show up every day, and slog it out.

If you want MORE than your living from work, that is when college comes into the picture. If you want to do law, if you want to be a doctor (both of which should be things one takes up because they are a calling, not a profession anyway, but that's for another thread perhaps), or learn the science of computing, or high level engineering, THAT is when the BIG money comes up, and qualifications should be a concern.

However, a degree should not be a route to merely getting by without assistance from government. It should be a route to much more than that. Gainful employment of the regular sort however, should be capable of paying a working person enough that they do not require, nor receive, government assistance. It should be capable of clothing and feeding that individual, and allow them to move through their lives with the regular things in place, marriage, kids, grand kids, and so on, just because they work at all. People working thirteen hour a day cleaning jobs SHOULD be paid enough, and get enough free time, that they feel as if they have achieved something, and actually get something out of what they do. People stacking shelves so that people have produce to purchase at stores, should be paid for their time, their sweat. Those who scan those items at the checkout, those who take them to the customers car, those who deliver them on haulage vehicles, those who pack the produce at the packing plant, those who contribute their time and energy to making money for businesses, should be paid enough to LIVE on, not just exist.

As it stands, many working people, some of the hardest working individuals walking the face of the developed world, get paid less in a month, than it costs them to live their lives, even though many of them live in sub standard accommodations with structural, and infrastructural problems. These hardy people should not be in a position where their Herculean efforts do not allow them to live in an apartment which is safe for human habitation. They should not be in a position where they have to pick between heat and light, or food and those aforementioned utilities.

All working people, should be paid enough that they can actually live a life, and pay their own way through it. Otherwise a number of things happen, not least of which is that government have to step in, and hand out money to people who are actually employed to keep them afloat. The very same people who often complain about governments subsidising the lives of the poor, are often those who bitterly object to a living wage, but these people need to accept that one or the other scenario must always be the case.

Either the working poor are paid enough that they no longer need assistance, can save for their meagre retirement, and feed their families meanwhile, or they will have to have some assistance with their living. It is very simple, and all that remains is to pick which of these two one happens to prefer. There is no third option.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: nonnez

What's the difference between busting your ass on a job and busting your ass in college?

UGHhhh


One puts you 80k in debt while the other pays you to learn job skills.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
When my grandfather left the Navy after the end of WW2 he had no qualifications what so ever. He managed to find a job at the Ford motor plant in Dagenham, London. It did not pay a massive amount, but it did pay enough to live on for him, his wife, and his four daughters.

To get the same job now, would be impossible for an unqualified person.


A job that supports 6 people on a single income... nothing like that these days.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

These selfish people honestly believe that most of the population doesn't desrve to make enough money to live on.

Meanwhile every single one of them takes advantage of the luxuries that these same exact members of the community provide them on a daily basis.

Jerks all of them.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 07:39 PM
link   


So there it is. If you presume an average check of $10, that is 138 covers/customers a day. Each spending $10 apiece. On breakfast.

Note: while this includes a 30% factor for benefits (PTO accruals, insurance, workers comp) and a 20% factor for payroll taxes, it does not include personal/real property tax. That could depend on the area. I'd expect a donut shop in this town to have an average annual tax burden of about $15k, since the property values are low and they'll likely be able to argue down the personal property.

ETA: also note that this does not include Ceneral Liability insurance. I shudder to think about operating a business without GL insurances. At my place we pay around 70k/year for GL and flood. Id expect a donut shop to be much lower, in the 20k/year range.


edit on 7/25/2015 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: TrueBrit
When my grandfather left the Navy after the end of WW2 he had no qualifications what so ever. He managed to find a job at the Ford motor plant in Dagenham, London. It did not pay a massive amount, but it did pay enough to live on for him, his wife, and his four daughters.

To get the same job now, would be impossible for an unqualified person.


A job that supports 6 people on a single income... nothing like that these days.


Perhaps that is the truth. But why is that? A post-WWII job in the prevailing countries was well paying and could sustain a family such as that due to the crippled world economy. The victors prospered, eventually the defeated did as well. Where did the prosperity go? Overseas to nations that were non-existent to the world economy until the cold war.

I am not saying that an Indian engineer is no less deserving of a living wage than an American or British engineer, I am saying that outside of their own power the American and British engineers lost competitiveness due to inflated economies in their own countries and the cheap availability of their competitors in developing economies. Interestingly enough, this factor seems to be the main player in the rate of corporate profits (read: the few over the many) and can only be explained in the common as greed.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join