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

originally posted by: Greven

You appear to be assigning worth to individuals. This understanding is flawed.

No it isn't. How much is that person sitting in front of you in the interview worth to your company? You don't hire a class of people, you hire an individual. "Individual worth" isn't as narrow as it might seem, because the individual's worth to a company is dependent on supply and demand for the services that individual can provide.

Yes, you will have disparity in wages across a large-enough area, because part of the worth attached to an individual is the demand for their services and your particular need for their services. If your company relies on xyz business critical system and that person is the only person in 1,000 miles who knows how to use it, you need him more than he needs you. If he's one of a thousand people all offering that service, his specific worth really isn't that high unless he has something else to offer that others can't.

When you can train someone to flip burgers in a week, don't be surprised that individual burger flippers don't have much value to the company.

originally posted by: Greven
You appear to be assigning worth to individuals. This understanding is flawed.

The value of labor is determined by the market.

The value of your labor only relates to your own individual value insofar as you make that correlation. Me? I assign high value to labor as an extension of personal worth. Because I identify myself by what i do for a living.

If you and I both go to an interview, but i tell them im willing to do the work for $2/hr less than you...then the value of that labor has just been set. That is how capitalism works.

If you want your labor to be worth more, then its incumbant on your to make it so. In the real world, there are no green Participation ribbons handed out.

a reply to: EvillerBob
Do you have a price tag attached to your ear?

No. You ignored essentially my entire post and repeated the same flawed understanding.

People do not have a value attached to them. You do not hire a person; you hire to fill a job. The person filling the job only matters to the company by the ratio of performance to pay. Companies exist to make a profit. Expenses hurt a company's profit. Jobs are expenses to a company. Ergo, they will try to minimize expenses - and thus try to minimize pay.

The reason minimum wage jobs pay minimum wage is because that is the floor. A business would try to get people to work for even less without government intervention. Further, a job has a maximum rate that a company is willing to pay. A business will try to negotiate a person's pay as far below that maximum as it can. If a company's maximum rate is too low, then it won't get many applicants that can perform the job.

Most of the applicants that it does get won't fill the job, so they won't be hired. Sometimes, a business will get lucky in doing this and a skilled person will apply for a lower rate (high performance + low pay). Otherwise, it will have to start raising that maximum rate. Incidentally, this is somewhat related to the Dunning-Kruger effect.

You are ignoring my example of this. Again, if all workers in a field voluntarily agree to a lower pay, they will be paid lower. Do you dispute this theoretical scenario?

If not, then you must accept that pay is not based on any individual worth. End of discussion.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: wayforward

Its only moral solve wrongs with rights, and forcing other people to spend their money the way YOU force them to isn't right. A minimum wage is a moral wrong because it violates the property rights of others. Greed is bad, and coveting is just as bad too. So, support fair wage restaurants.

I don't shop at Walmart and I do not support the vast majority of food chains because I disagree with their practices. I support local hamburger shops and restaurants that treat their employees well. If people had a backbone and did the same then these predatory companies would change, or go away, but it is easier to not lift a finger and just just complain that we should cap everyone high and low. Capping high is great until the cap is lowered to your bracket. Today we might suggest the top 1% is rich tomorrow it could be the top 10% or how about top 50%, then we can live in a Communist society where no matter how much or little a person supports everyone gets the same.

That is a great and totally respectable solution, but have you done anything to network with other people with the same goals? I don't know of any organizations that do exactly that, but if someone really has that as a priority I would expect such a thing to exist in an organization form. Basically, a fair wage certification for US shops.

the CEO makes decisions that effect each and every employee,customer and supply chain associate of Dunkin Donuts - is the average order taker worth 1/30th of that - is he doing 1/30th of what the CEO is faced with - no. Moving your arms from one point to another does not create a donut empire.

This push to raise the minimum wage is for one thing to increase the money supply and by default the growth of GDP - we will see 6 dollar gas prices and 2000 dollar single room apartments in urban areas before long - it's called inflation and it's a real thing.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
The value of labor is determined by the market.

The value of your labor only relates to your own individual value insofar as you make that correlation. Me? I assign high value to labor as an extension of personal worth. Because I identify myself by what i do for a living.

If you and I both go to an interview, but i tell them im willing to do the work for $2/hr less than you...then the value of that labor has just been set. That is how capitalism works.

If you want your labor to be worth more, then its incumbant on your to make it so. In the real world, there are no green Participation ribbons handed out.

If you and I are going to an interview for a job as a computer programmer, and you cannot program, then what value is it to the company that you're willing to work for $2/hr less?

Companies don't always go for the cheapest item on the block, but they will go for the cheapest person that fills the responsibilities of a job.

Why do union jobs typically enjoy higher pay? It's because unions stand with their members; they are on a more equal footing with their company in power. They can negotiate better for pay.

originally posted by: circuitsports
the CEO makes decisions that effect each and every employee,customer and supply chain associate of Dunkin Donuts - is the average order taker worth 1/30th of that - is he doing 1/30th of what the CEO is faced with - no. Moving your arms from one point to another does not create a donut empire.

This push to raise the minimum wage is for one thing to increase the money supply and by default the growth of GDP - we will see 6 dollar gas prices and 2000 dollar single room apartments in urban areas before long - it's called inflation and it's a real thing.

Does utterly destroying a company add value?

A great many highly-paid CEOs have done just that.

a reply to: Greven

I am unsure how this relates? Why would anyone apply for a job that they lacked the skills for? And how does that relate in any way to how the price of labor is set?

originally posted by: TheJourney
Everything should scale upwards except for the top. The richest people can have a smaller relative portion of the total money. They'll be ok.

Scaling everyone up by the same amount puts everyone in the same place. Scaling the mid level people up at a lower rate than the bottom people (what happens in a minimum wage increase) scales the mid level people down. Scaling them at a higher rate, effectively scales down the bottom. Those at the top get huge salaries, but divided among all their employees it typically comes out to well under 50 cents/hour per employee, so you can't really cut them to see meaningful gains for everyone else.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
That's the general idea behind minimum wage, it shrinks the wealth gap which in turn means that people making above the new minimum end up worse off. You can't both shrink a wealth gap and keep everyone at the same SES.

Which means the middle class, which is already hard off, will be worse off. Perhaps if we couple this with the end of many welfare programs it would not be so bad, but that will never happen.

Welfare programs are means tested. Shrinking the wealth gap naturally removes welfare programs without requiring any specific legislation to do so.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
I am unsure how this relates? Why would anyone apply for a job that they lacked the skills for? And how does that relate in any way to how the price of labor is set?

From what I've heard (I can't verify it first hand, as there are no programmer positions locally) but in some areas companies are so desperate for programmers that even attempting FizzBuzz in an interview will get you the job, the quality of the attempt and if it works aren't even relevant.

I know I've "helped" my fair share of people with take home coding exams so they could get to a real interview. It's quite common, it's the job of HR and interviews to filter out the people that can't do it.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

I honestly don't care what faceless corporations have to pay workers.

I care whether people are happy--and no one is happy making pittance wages.

(Note: not sour grapes...I have multiple college degrees and write my own schedule. I just have a soft spot in my heart for, you know, other humans.)

When I worked at the local gas station I had 20$ per hour..
Think 15$ is to little imo.

Well, I live in Norway so what do I know about fair wages and all that....

a reply to: juicyflush

You must live in a horrible poverty stricken country where no one is happy.

Norway is almost as bad as Liberia last time I checked.

a reply to: circuitsports

We already have 2000$ single room apartments.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
So this guy starts a business, invests money, gets other investors, works crazy hours for many years, takes financial chances, maybe mortgages his home and....how the hell dare he think that entitles him to something in return!!! Dirty filthy bastard. And then...get this...he employs people with no skills what-so-ever and helps them make a living. What a freakin creep.

I'm glad there aren't more like him, employing others, taking all the risk for what...$500 an hour? Not even lawyers make that...right?

A couple of simple points you're clearly missing.

First, Nigel Travis didn't "start the business" of Dunkin Donuts. He's just the company's latest CEO in a long line of CEOs.

He makes $10 Million a year. Without those "people with no skills what-so-ever" he wouldn't take home a penny. He needs them to bring in his $10 Million. He can't do it all himself, even if his skills are waaaay above his "people with no skills what-so-ever". His superiority is powerful against the vermin who work for him, but that doesn't mean he can pump out all of the donuts and coffee in all of the company's 10,858 Dunkin' Donuts retail locations (that figure as of December 28, 2013.) There are likely more now. He needs those "people with no skills what-so-ever" to cover all of that ground.

Maybe you didn't catch the graphic I posted, and the intention behind it. The USA has the highest pay gap between the CEOs and the average workers. U.S. CEOs earn from 400 to 500 times the median salary for workers.

For CEOs in the U.K., the ratio is 22; in France, it's 15; and in Germany it's 12.

Think about those numbers for a second. Let them sink in. That was the intention of my post.

Of course CEOs are entitled to something in return for their skills, intelligence and hard work, but the point is, when does it become too much relative to the people who are on the front lines.

Oh, and by the way, your comment about them having no skills is utter bull#. If they were hiring people with no skills whatsoever the employees wouldn't be able to tie their own shoes and the company's HR department should be fired.

I've lived in many cities. Most had different minimum wages, functionally if not mandated. Across the board the cities with the highest minimum wages had higher standards of living. Also, places with higher minimums also had higher pays for all other jobs up the ladder..... And places with lower minimum wages had lower pay for jobs up the ladder as well. And fyi cost of living in these places was not a direct correlation with their pay rates. Now I'm living in an area with the lowest pay in my field (medical) in the country.....and the lowest minimum wage.....while at the same time the costs of living are much higher than other places where people get paid much more by average.

a reply to: JRCrowley

What about the majority shareholders and board members who make boatloads of cash?

The system we use to invest in these companies is just as flawed.

Oh the CEO job isn't that hard IMO i worked for a company that I had the oppotunity to see how it worked and really the CEO wasn't doing anything mind blowing. I actually thought he was an idiot but his daddy got him a degree at MIT in philosophy and gave him a 250 million dollar a year company to run.

a reply to: pexx421

The entire idea that what you spend your time doing 40 hours of the weeks value is solely based on the skill of what your doing is a damn joke.

People time is valuable the job is valuable to the community the service provided is taken advantage of by many of the members here who wouldn't make their own donuts if they didn't have a donut shop to go too.

People have god complexes.

originally posted by: JRCrowley
For CEOs in the U.K., the ratio is 22; in France, it's 15; and in Germany it's 12.

Where are those numbers from?

This site shows the following:

United Kingdom 84
France 127
Germany 147





edit on 26-7-2015 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer becuase Natty Ice costs a dollar a can but the dollar is worth 70 cents