Due to ObamaCare, Nation's Largest Movie Theater Chain Cuts Employee Hours

reply to post by Cuervo


Cuervo, always the greatest respect, but when did personal wealth become public access?

Why does it matter how much money I have or you have or someone else has?

It's like asking how many forks someone has in their house! They can only eat by using one! Any more than that and it's fork hoarding! A fork monopoly! Fork gluttony!

It's none of anyone's business how many forks someone has!

reply to post by Cuervo


Sadly, I think a lot of folks back in the states have just become mouthpieces for the corporations by way of fox news. In the end they are just parroting whatever they are told.

You can't treat corporations like people, you just can't. If you do that, in the end you don't get capitalism - you get feudalism. And personally if you equate freedom with living in a tent village near Atlanta, you can keep it.

Funnily enough, I think America is goose-stepping towards a far worse outcome than the socialism they fear.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Cuervo

 

Cuervo, always the greatest respect, but when did personal wealth become public access?

Why does it matter how much money I have or you have or someone else has?

It's like asking how many forks someone has in their house! They can only eat by using one! Any more than that and it's fork hoarding! A fork monopoly! Fork gluttony!

It's none of anyone's business how many forks someone has!

It's my business how many forks somebody has if their company raided the fork forest in order to set up shop in my community, underselling all of the other fork sellers in my town. All the while finding out that "Big Fork" used subsidies from my taxes to get to where they are, not paying taxes themselves and then outsourcing 80% of their workforce in order for the CEO to buy yet another small island.

That's when it's my business how many forks they have.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
The Occupy group literally hates corporations even though they were using all the stuff corporations make

I worked for a major corporation for a number of years. Newsbreak: corporations do not make "stuff". People do. Corporations are a super useful organizational and capital raising tool. But it's not some sort of deity that needs to be worshipped and thanked for the "stuff". Corporations are entities functioning according to set rules, and the goals they they pursue as per these rules can be harmful to humans. Sometimes they are not, sometimes they are.

reply to post by Cuervo


No. That still doesn't justify wealth redistribution!

Dang it! That doesn't justify theft!

Obamacare will be a disaster an no it's not the greedy company.

OF COURSE THE COMPANY WILL WANT TO KEEP THEIR PROFIT MARGINS THERE IN BUSINESS TO MAKE MONEY!!!

These people own businesses they're not liberals worried about a political agenda.

Obamacare is about rationing healthcare and mandating more people into the system. They then expect business to comply with this albatross out of the goodness of their hearts.

It's not going to happen because businesses not only have to compete with other companies in America but other companies in the Global Economy.

Originally posted by anneb
All this inroad into socialism, corporate facism and communism has destroyed the beauty of the original vision.

I cannot help but think the First Nations might have a different definition of "the beauty of the original vision."

Originally posted by Metallicus
As a business owner I take all the risk and deal with all the red tape. I had an employee that got a bad attitude after he found out how much I made on a particular job. He was making $32.50 an hour and should have been grateful, but instead he started telling my clients how I was 'ripping them off'. He was so angry because all I did was 'answer emails and phone calls' and didn't do the actual work...according to him. Well his jobs don't just materialize out of thin air and he also isn't privy to the loses I take when a job doesn't go well.

Business owners take all the risk and should be rewarded for creating jobs and opportunity. If you don't see that then you are just being obtuse. Needless to say I fired this person with cause since he was bad mouthing the company and trying to drive away customers. He now makes $10 an hour in construction. I am sure his new bosses just sit around doing nothing making no profit while construction projects just appear.

edit on 2013/4/16 by Metallicus because: (no reason given)

That employee sounds very petty.

Now then, business owners don't create jobs. Customers create jobs.

If there is not a demand for a product or service, you would not have your own business. Where does this demand for your product of service come from? Customers!

Customers have to be paid enough to be able to afford your product or service. If they can't afford it, the demand will disappear -- and your business as well.

It's really quite simple. A smart business owner will see a demand, and create a business to service that demand. If there is no demand (because everyone is broke), businesses will start to fail, furthering the recession.

Originally posted by neoholographic
These people own businesses they're not liberals worried about a political agenda.

Sometimes, having a view that people need to have a reasonable way to use medical services does not equal political agenda. It's just straight common sense.

Obamacare is about rationing healthcare and mandating more people into the system. They then expect business to comply with this albatross out of the goodness of their hearts.

If you are calling for stricter enforcement here, yes, this might be necessary.

It's not going to happen because businesses not only have to compete with other companies in America but other companies in the Global Economy.

Dude, you conveniently forgot to mention that MOST of our global competitors have a lot better way to organize and administer their medical care, at a lower cost. Some of them are called SOCIALIST for that reason, and in fact having a better healthcare system in place does help them compete.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Cuervo

 

No. That still doesn't justify wealth redistribution!

Dang it! That doesn't justify theft!

I guess I just don't see those type of entities as "private interests" when they get to the point where they get to influence and write our laws, spend our taxes, and squash real private enterprise.

When a corporation crosses that line (admittedly, that line is fuzzy and ill-defined), I no longer consider them private. They are a part of government at that point.

Believe me, I don't think the local lumber mill should be punished or treated differently than the local mom-n-pop but what about Walmart? McDonalds? These are not private businesses in my eyes. They are bloated and tainted with the sacrifice of countless serfs.

I don't think the right answers are on the table right now. But we can at least pick the least crappy ones. Kind of like elections.


ps edit - Some of those stars are from me since you elected me as the Star Czar. Call it a "kick back".

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
reply to post by DarthMuerte

 

Nice to see how corporate greed always gets a free pass from some folks.

Yeah it's a bit funny that some blame the legislation, as opposed to the greedy business who doesn't want to put a dent in their 30% profit margin..

Amazing what some people think is ok huh?

~Tenth

In Europe, healthcare is paid through the income tax charged on every pay cheque. They shouldn't have created the loophole where working less than 30 hours or having fewer than N employees exempts a company.
Having mandatory private health care with doctors who could charge what they liked would never work.

They should have created a standard national healthcare scheme with agreed rates with chosen doctors. If you didn't like it, you would be free to opt out for a private healthcare scheme with someone else.

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by TauCetixeta

 

Profit margins are already paper thin for movie theaters.

Quarterly profits for Regal were at 5.6% Just how else exactly could they solve the problem posed by ObamaCare, other than cutting expenses, and business 101 will tell you, manpower is the most bang for your buck cut you can make. In this case, it's to bypass the requirement...for companies that don't routinely offer healthcare.

If it didn't cost me $40 to go to the movies with my significant other (tickets, 1 tub of popcorn and 2 sodas) I would go to the movie theater more often.

Outside of highly anticipated weekend releases, most of the time the movie theaters here are pretty dead. No one can really justify spending that kind of money on something they can usually wait for and watch at home. On top of that, huge flat screen 3-D TV's have come down in price, the same with surround sound systems. I can have a "theater-like" experience at home.

Between Netflix, Hulu Plus and those RedBox machines -- I very rarely find myself going to a theater. And we have Regal Cinemas here.

What they need is lower prices so that they are making less per customer, but pulling in 2-3 times as many customers.

Now then, I realize it's not that easy. I'm willing to bet that it's not cheap to get those movies into the theaters. I'm sure Regal has to pay Hollywood a pretty penny for the ability to get the newest releases.

It all starts at the top and "trickles down" -- unfortunately instead of the money trickling down, its poverty that is trickling down.

reply to post by neoholographic


My point is proven.

Well, I did some digging and it does seem that Hollywood does take a huge chunk of the profit from any given movie being shown:

Most of the money that a theatre takes in from ticket sales goes back to the movie studio. The studio leases a movie to your local theater for a set period of time. In the first couple of weeks the film shows in the theatre, the theatre itself only gets to keep about 20% – 25% of the green. That means, if you showed up to watch Bridget Jones’ Diary on opening night, then of the $12 you put out for a ticket, the movie theatre only got to keep between $2.40 and $3.00 of it. That’s not a lot of money, especially when you think about how much bigger and elaborate theatres are these days. It’s not cheap running one of these places. It can get even worse. This percentage will vary from movie to movie depending on the specifics of the individual leasing deal. For instance, 2 movie theatre managers told me that for Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones, the studio took 100% of the box office take for the first week of release. Can you imagine that? They had to over staff and have above normal capacity flood into their theatres… and they got to keep $0.00 from the ticket sales. That almost seems criminal.

Economics of the Movie Theatre

reply to post by Cuervo


Apples/Oranges.

No. They should not be influencing laws.

No, the government should not try distributing their wealth.

reply to post by MystikMushroom


They don't make their profit margin off me. We usually go out to eat first, THEN go to a movie, so none of us are hungry or thirsty, and rarely get more than a drink as a concession.

In fact, one of our favorite restaurants is right by the theater, and gives a 15% discount with a movie ticket. We get our tickets early, go to dinner, get the discount, then are full going into the theater.

reply to post by MystikMushroom


Yes, but that's why the concessions are so jacked, like 300% or more. To me, that just seems like price gouging to a captive audience, and I'll have no part in it. Even a 100% I could live with, but $4 for something that costs me $1 anywhere else? No, sorry.

reply to post by Starchildren


My wife and I only have 1 degree between the both of us and we live very comfortably. It's more about living within your means. I can't believe people are so eager to cry for the poor billionare corporations that have been slave driving them.

reply to post by DarthMuerte


I found this article recently that spoke of obama care costs not being as much as projected in the fast food industry. Shouldn't that apply to other low paying, non career focused jobs?


thinkprogress.org...

Originally posted by TheWrightWing
Collapse is the idea. Obamacare is textbook Cloward/Piven.

I can't wait for Obama to order Directive 10-289, after all, this is a clear violation of the Fair Share act.

Indeed - the Mighty O even admitted he wanted to get a single payer system but that he couldn't do it in one big step that there would have to be incremental legislation to get to the end result.

So we get the Obamacare monstrosity shoved down our throats against the will of the majority and it collapses the system.

Bingo - take one problem that was manageable and make it macro level and only manageable by the only bureaucracy big enough to handle it...

Guess who - The Federal Government.

The people then beg the government to "fix it" they swoop in with a newly polished plan for the single payer system that was in the works all along. All the while they will include neato exemptions (and a plan for granting them in the future) for their main contributors and themselves of course.

This has already been seen in the Obamacare plan. It’s pay to play exemptions for certain corporations and groups that funds the politicians “slush funds”.

Some animals are more equal than others after all…