It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Living on the edge only works so long as nothing else goes wrong.
On January 8, 2008 Schultz returned as CEO of Starbucks after an eight-year hiatus. At this time, Schultz was earning a total compensation of $9,740,471, which included a base salary of $1,190,000, and options granted of $7,786,105.
In the end, the employers and corporations have made it harder for us and easier for themselves.
The economy has become less forgiving yes, but more importantly it has become less fair.
I have a right to "cry"
originally posted by: onequestion
It give wealthy people a serious advantage of the average man weather you like it or not
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: seasonal
The headline read
"Starbucks Employees Petition Company To Stop Slashing Hours After Raising Wages: Over 9000 Signatures"
Please tell me, if it were your hard-earned money we were talking about as an investment, would you feel the same way? Would you shrug and say, "Never mind paying me this year; just give it as a Christmas bonus to the employees"?
When was the last time you handed your employer your paycheck back because you didn't want to be 'greedy'?
Yes, the investors want their money! Of course they do! What in the wide world of sports is wrong with that?
originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: RomeByFire
And profit is bad? A business that makes a profit, stays in business (DUH). When a business does not make a profit, it closes and ALL the employees lose their jobs (DUH).
False. The idea that someone has to lose something is not inherent in economics.
It is, because economics is a zero sum game.
False. While "excessive profit" may reduce the profit of a company which purchases from that company, it does not mean that company is taking a loss.
Excessive profit to one business, means excessive losses to another and takes away jobs.