Starbucks Employees Petition Company To Stop Slashing Hours After Raising Wages

a reply to: Krakatoa

You haven`t answered any of my questions which tells me everything i need to know about you and it answers all my questions.

a reply to: onequestion

Pointing out you did a complete 180 in less than three months is a personal attack? On an issue that you felt strong enough about to author a thread and vehemently defend your point of view, no less. No, that's not a personal attack. It's pointing out an inconsistency in your position. I'm delighted to see you understand economics better now. But it doesn't change what appears to be a very rapid, very hard 180 on something you were railing so angrily against not that long ago.

My apologies if you were triggered

originally posted by: Tardacus
a reply to: Krakatoa

You haven`t answered any of my questions which tells me everything i need to know about you and it answers all my questions.

With all due respect, I have answered. They were just not the answers you wanted to hear, or you didn't understand them. At least I attempted to answer, as opposed to your completely ignoring my simple business question, which still remains unanswered and RELEVANT to the topic.

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

Good thing it didnt happen today. Corps are laying off and cutting hours for the employees . With the money this so-called "saves" , they buy back their own loose stock. That way it looks better for the investors. The investors invest , and the CEOs and stockholders award themselves gigantic bonuses

a reply to: Tardacus

I think you're confusing 'expect to' with 'will.' Of course they expect to make as much as possible; so does everyone else. That doesn't mean it is guaranteed.

The 'shotgun approach' (actually known as diversification) works like this. You have a certain amount to invest, Let's say $1000 to make the math easier. You have a wide range of investments to choose from. If you put all $1000 into company A and company A goes broke, you lost all $1000 and you're done. But if you put $100 into company A, $250 into company B, $400 into company C, and the remaining $250 into company D, all 4 companies have to go bankrupt for you to lose it all. The chances are good that if one doesn't produce as much as you expected, another one will produce more than you expected.

It spreads out your risk.

Also, investors don't get to say when or how much return they get. That's up to the Board of Directors. They vote on how much to disburse, usually every quarter (three months). Their decision is based on what they want the price of their stock to do (higher returns drive up stock prices, lower returns drive it down), how much profit is available, and how much they need to put back into the businless to keep it running. Usually the members of the Board own stock themselves, but they are a small minority of the total stockholders.

So to say that investors just milk one stock when another one falls short is to deny reality. Most investors couldn't control that if their life depended on it.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Krakatoa

You're ignoring the greed of the CEO for some reason. I could easily live off one hour of his pay for months at a time, literally months if i was smart with that $9,000. What in the hell does he need that much money for exactly? It's a ridiculous gap in wealth that you are refusing to see or acknowledge. It's borderline gross that he gets pad that much per hour while his employees struggle to put food on their tables.

WTF is wrong with people? If you don't see any issue with that scenario then I don't know what to tell you. Nothing that CEO does is 1,000x harder than what one of his employees does in one hour. No #ing way.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

These CEOs didn't do anything ok?

Their job isn't that special they are jus in a special little club except the very few fabled stories of regular guys who made it to the top.

Mostly good ol boys put in by the executives and are told what to do by the executives based on what the market is doing and what their invest in anyway

a reply to: Krakatoa

you haven`t answered any of my questions, i have read every response to everyone of my posts and you haven`t answered any of my question. your childish business 101 questions are just your way of avoiding answering my real business questions,and that answers all my questions about you,i`m done here.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Krakatoa

You're ignoring the greed of the CEO for some reason. I could easily live off one hour of his pay for months at a time, literally months if i was smart with that $9,000. What in the hell does he need that much money for exactly? It's a ridiculous gap in wealth that you are refusing to see or acknowledge. It's borderline gross that he gets pad that much per hour while his employees struggle to put food on their tables.

WTF is wrong with people? If you don't see any issue with that scenario then I don't know what to tell you. Nothing that CEO does is 1,000x harder than what one of his employees does in one hour. No #ing way.

SO, do you have the same level of expertise in running a company as that CEO you are comparing yourself to? How many have that level of knowledge, and have a proven record of success? Millions? Hundreds? Tens? See, that is what drives the pay scale, not greed.

Here is a simple loose analogy using a computer to represent the company.

- A CEO knows how to debug problems with the computer, identify problems, develop solutions, track down the needed replacement parts (if needed), and repair it so it functions so the computer users can get their work done each day.

- The worker knows how to run the computer, use the apps on it to do their daily tasks.

How many people have the knowledge of that CEO and can debug and repair the business, has the connections to get things needed, and can get things done?

How many people have the knowledge to run a computer, use the apps to get the daily tasks done?

More Knowledge + Less people with that knowledge = More Pay per person

Does that make more sense. And, greed is not a factor, supply and demand IS a factor.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1


You don't seem to understand the concept of hierarchy.
His knowledge, experience, smarts, judgement, etc. is THOUSANDS more times valuable than anything the lowest tier barista can contribute. For that alone is why there is a huge wage gap.


If you're smart enough maybe you could join the top, eh? Oh, I see.. You can't and that's why you opt to do character assassination against anyone who is 1000x more successful. Shame, but it's the typical psychological response.

originally posted by: Tardacus
a reply to: Krakatoa

you haven`t answered any of my questions, i have read every response to everyone of my posts and you haven`t answered any of my question. your childish business 101 questions are just your way of avoiding answering my real business questions,and that answers all my questions about you,i`m done here.

I'll take this personal attack as you not understanding my explanation of how investors diversify their portfolio to manage risk and maximize their probability of making a profit.

Leave it to an uninformed person to think knowing what a "cash cow" and a "lost leader" is a childish business idea. Have you EVER started or run a REAL business in your life. Form that response, it is a resounding NO.

Lets face it. The issue today is "profit margin" . If a company sells a 1,000 items at $1 per item and has $500 coming out of that from wages. Now they cut 10% of workforce (or hours) and raise prices on the product 15% (yet now sell less) , who wins and who loses ?

That is what the US is going through today.

a reply to: Krakatoa

All he does is tell other people what to do. Must be a hard time flapping your jaws and pushing paper, I'm sure his jaw and hand get kinda a little bit sore doing that. He pays people to do all the hard work for him, that's what A CEO is good for, that and paying himself thousands of dollars per hour.

a reply to: efabian

Yet he would be nowhere without his employees. Funny how that works.

Again, what in the hell does he need that much money for? Nothing other than greed and mental masturbation.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Krakatoa

All he does is tell other people what to do. Must be a hard time flapping your jaws and pushing paper, I'm sure his jaw and hand get kinda a little bit sore doing that. He pays people to do all the hard work for him, that's what A CEO is good for, that and paying himself thousands of dollars per hour.

Actually the CEO performs as a zombie exactly what the Board tells em to . Of course the CEO is well rewarded with a bonus for blindly following marching orders

a reply to: onequestion

My head hurts.

You say the CEO (Chief Executive Officer) is put in power by 'executives' and told what to do by 'executives'? Do you believe being schizophrenic is a requirement to be a CEO?

The CEO is the executive! By definition.

I think it might be wise if you learned who the players are before you started calling the game. Take your time; I'm calling it a night.

My head hurts.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Krakatoa

All he does is tell other people what to do. Must be a hard time flapping your jaws and pushing paper, I'm sure his jaw and hand get kinda a little bit sore doing that. He pays people to do all the hard work for him, that's what A CEO is good for, that and paying himself thousands of dollars per hour.

Wow...you have no CLUE what a CEO does then do you? Now I understand why you complain so much about the pay. It is merely lack of your understanding of the job. I suggest you go learn what the skill set and role actually involves in a real business before spouting off uninformed rhetoric about their pay.

Anything less is merely whining and complaining as a child does that doesn't understand why they can't have that chocolate. Same thing, different physical age.

a reply to: Krakatoa

They make conference calls, make "big decisions" based on their board of directors' input, sign on a few lines, make more decisions, fly around the world in luxurious airplanes, take weeks long vacations in tropical paradises, figure out how to pay their employees as little as possible while paying themselves as much as possible, etc.

This is a simplified version but it isn't too far off the mark.

Starbucks is considered a growth stock, thereby valued by it's growth projections. Hence, any slow in growth for a particular timeframe is the same as losing profits. If the profits is up let's say 17% but the projection was of 20% growth in profit for that quarter, the stock is going to go DOWN because valuation was based on the 20% and not in the 17% increase in profit.

Ergo, they have to meet certain projections one way or another. That is how the stock market works.

As I suspected, not a clue.