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.

 

Starbucks Employees Petition Company To Stop Slashing Hours After Raising Wages

page: 17
13
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

My point was that that 0.02% difference was superficial just as that 1% is superficial. I was being sarcastic when I said it was a huge difference.



False.


True.

These companies are based around profit in the end, if they aren't making record profits then they're not going to call it a record year. They are making more money than ever before.

edit on 7/4/2016 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I was being sarcastic when I said it was a huge difference.
Right. (I'm being sarcastic, btw.)
 


True.


Your source:

Starbucks Reports Record Fourth Quarter and Record Fiscal Year 2015 Results


Yes. Profits were better in 2015. We know that. So far this year is not "the best ever." And compared to the first two quarters of last year, it is definitely not.

edit on 7/4/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

We don't know the results of 2016 yet but as of 2015 they are making more money than ever before. You say they're not by citing a measly 1% for one quarter so far this year.

But this is getting into an area of the issue I'm not interested in talking about and is basically just semantics at this point.

The point is Starbucks can afford to raise wages, they just don't want to because they are greedy.
edit on 7/4/2016 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1




We don't know the results of 2016 yet but as of 2015 they are making more money than ever before.

No. They are not. 2015 is gone. Yes 2015 was their best year ever.

They made less in the first two quarters of this year than the first two quarters of last year. How on Earth can you turn that into "best ever?" You said that. Remember?

edit on 7/4/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

That is not even the point I am trying to make, we have veered off into semantics somehow.

The point is Starbucks can afford to raise wages, they just don't want to because they are greedy. They treat their employees like commodities which is unethical and immoral.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1




The point is Starbucks can afford to raise wages, they just don't want to because they are greedy.
You have already demonstrated your deep understanding of economics and finance. So how can I argue with you about that.

(sarcasm, btw)
edit on 7/4/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Just for fun, if the min wage was eliminated would you be OK with a 2.50$ an hour rate just because the company could fill the positions?



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

You don't need to be an economics master to see that huge corporations like Starbucks are simply greedy and unethical.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Phage

Just for fun, if the min wage was eliminated would you be OK with a 2.50$ an hour rate just because the company could fill the positions?

Interesting thought experiment. I would think that there would not be many people applying for such a job since that is not even close to the support provided by social programs.

Would I be OK with it? I don't think I would.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1




You don't need to be an economics master to see that huge corporations like Starbucks are simply greedy and unethical.
Nor do you have to be in order to understand that corporations can only exist if they have investors and that those investors, many of whom are pretty ordinary people, expect a return on their investment. When those returns start to fall those investors become unhappy. When those investors get unhappy CEOs lose their jobs. A certain Carly Fiorina is an example.
edit on 7/4/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Which is another problem, they are more concerned with investors than their own employees.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

What do you feel is too low of a wage? If you did come up with a personal min wage what is it and how would you arrive at a fair wage?
edit on 4-7-2016 by seasonal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Without the investors there would be no Starbucks. There would be one coffee shop in Seattle. There would be what, maybe 8 guys pouring coffee.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

On a conference call with reporters, executives said Fiorina was not terminated for cause and that she would receive severance pay -- and a company spokesman said she'll get a payout of approximately $21 million, including stock options.

My God I hope she gets over it.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Free market says if there is a need it would be filled, somehow.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Which is why I dislike corporations, they drive out small businesses.

I saw a sign just yesterday in Walmart (yes I shop there because it's about the only place around) that said "Did your local fabric shop close down? Don't worry, we've got you covered in our fabrics department." Basically tooting their own horn that they kill small business. That really happened, I even shook my head as I passed by it.

Their executives are so far removed from their employees that they couldn't give two farts in the wind about them. Corporatism is a virus.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1




Corporatism is a virus.


Unbridled and unregulated corporatism is a virus. Would you agree?



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal


Free market says if there is a need it would be filled, somehow.
It also says that as need increases so does the price. If there is a need and if people won't work at that rate, the rate will go up until they will.

edit on 7/4/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I think that people will work for the low wages because that's all there is. It has very little to do with what they think/need their ideal wage would be. Most don't have vast resources to draw on and wait for the local market to beg them to come work for them. It's called take what you can get, and use public assistance to subsidize the low wages and get by.

Also you have to add illegal workers in the mix, when you have millions of illegals, it has serious ripple effects.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal


I haven't read anyone saying stockholders/CEOs shouldn't get paid, I would imagine many have 401ks. I think workers need to get paid too.

Ah, I see... pay them, just don't pay them what they and the Board agreed to, right? How kind of you.

Where has there been an allegation that workers not get paid?


Where do you think min wage people get health care?

That's a whole different issue. I think there's quite enough fodder for discussion already without adding Healthcare issues into the mix.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join