Starbucks Employees Petition Company To Stop Slashing Hours After Raising Wages

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Dramatic much? Rather be a slave??? HAAHAHAHAAAa.... OK, then next pay cycle, give all your pay back to the company, every time. And, while you are at it, get someone to whip you until your back bleeds. Then, rape your wife and children while you watch. Then go back to them to work for no pay.

a reply to: TheRedneck

In retaliation I was referring to the situation you described when wages were raised, not my own.

What grudges are you speaking of? I meant min. wages which includes a surprisingly large variety of careers. And certainly when we factor in all the careers that don't earn living wages. These are educated, talented people, in many cases. Ends aren't meeting for most of the population. It's working splendidly for the very few.

Good to see you around.
Much respect.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: TheRedneck

So a CEO does about 1000 times the work of an average Starbucks employee? Every hour? I seriously doubt that.

If the CEO doesn't do his job well, then none of those others will have their jobs at all. In other words, he's the captain of the ship.

a reply to: DancedWithWolves

This is a crap economy. If the economy were growing at an actual real rate, then the economy would switch from an employers market with far more employees than jobs to an employees' market with far more jobs than employees. When that switch over occurs, employers have to sweeten the pot in order to entice decent labor, but at the moment there are far more people who need work than there are available jobs because the economy is NOT growing despite what the so-called experts and government tell you. So, employers don't have to offer very much at all in order to get a whole lot of people willing to take a job, any job.

The answer then is not to force them pay more through legal market manipulation, but to loosen the market manipulation such that the economy can start to grow again.

a reply to: ketsuko

What good is a captain if he treats his crew like crap?

The fact is these CEO's pay themselves exorbitant salaries on the backs of their minimum wage peons. No employees, no company. It's a mutual balance but these CEO's prefer the balance to tip in their favor.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Yes, I was being dramatic. It was obviously not meant to be taken seriously. My point was that slaves had a guaranteed meal and place to lie their head, a lot of people today don't even though they work 40+ hours a week.

a reply to: Krakatoa

I don`t know anything about business but i do know that if you don`t work for your money you`ll be the first cowards to be committing suicide and jumping out of windows when the economy crashes. You can`t get 10 ducks worth of meat out of 4 ducks

a reply to: Tardacus

they always get everything that they paid plus more by doing nothing.

No, they don't.

Every time you hear about a stock price falling, somebody just lost the money. Last year, my mother (who is retired, living off her investments... and is far from rich) lost over $15,000 from dropping stock prices.

Your statement is wholly and completely false.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: ketsuko

What good is a captain if he treats his crew like crap?

The fact is these CEO's pay themselves exorbitant salaries on the backs of their minimum wage peons. No employees, no company. It's a mutual balance but these CEO's prefer the balance to tip in their favor.

In a bear economy, that is what you get. Or, would you rather they pay someone 1/2 that is a worse CEO, that results in the company losing money and closing stores, which means more jobless? The work of a CEO means that one bad decision could bankrupt the company. If a barista makes one bad decision, they write the name of the customer wrong on the cup. Not quite the same impact I am afraid.

More false equivalencies.

a reply to: DancedWithWolves

You mentioned retaliation. That's a grudge. Without a grudge, there can be no retaliation.

I was not intending to personalize. Just make a statement.

Respect back at'cha.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

so your mother uses the shotgun approach to investing and she lost money? or did you not follow the whole conversation? because if she did use the shotgun approach to investing and lost some money, well don`t worry she`ll make it back ten fold.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Krakatoa

Yes, I was being dramatic. It was obviously not meant to be taken seriously. My point was that slaves had a guaranteed meal and place to lie their head, a lot of people today don't even though they work 40+ hours a week.

So does a prisoner. SO, using your logic, it would be worth it to commit a felony and sent to jail. Then, you could be guaranteed 3 squares and a bed for free.

a reply to: Krakatoa
so, you don`t disagree with or dispute my post where i pointed out that by using your shotgun approach that investors recoup all their losses plus more from the profitable businesses that they invest in? because i`m just wondering if they lost more money than they invested why would anyone use that shotgun approach to investing? obviously it is profitable or nobody would do it.so, in order to recoup those losses from a shotgun approach one would have to take more profits from the profitable businesses that they invested in than the risk they took investing in that business.

a reply to: ketsuko

Normally, I agree with that analysis however, in the present situation, I believe the greed has gone too far. This election is a testimony to that. The anger is in the streets and one "Rodney King" moment away from people overthrowing those kings, in their gerrymandered districts and their penthouses and yachts. Too far.

Normally a small percentage of the population is so disgruntled that when they get whipped into frenzies, it can still be controlled. Presently, we have a supermajority of the population that is so disgruntled in their life condition, that any charlatan can whip them into a force for right or wrong.

The economy is completely imbalanced. Game over.

originally posted by: Tardacus
a reply to: Krakatoa
so, you don`t disagree with or dispute my post where i pointed out that by using your shotgun approach that investors recoup all their losses plus more from the profitable businesses that they invest in?

What is to dispute. Sometimes it does, sometimes it does not. Investment is never guaranteed, what is in life? It is a gamble. So, you need to research and choose how best to invest. Sometimes, you invest in a longshot since the payoff is orders of magnitude more than an breaking even or a minor profit. Volatility in the particular industry in which you invest also plays a part. That is why you invest in a diversified set of industries. But to do that, you need to research and know the industries. And, if you are more successful and not, other people will then be willing to pay you for your investment advice.

And, you also never answered my question about knowing what a "cash cow" and "lost leader" were in business. That is business 101. Without that knowledge, you are unprepared to decide how much anyone should make in pay.

a reply to: Tardacus

Knowing the details of her investments, no, there is only a very minor possibility she will even recoup 1-fold what she lost... within her lifetime anyway.

You can hold on to that belief all you want. It is still patently false.

TheRedneck

P.S.: Krakatoa said it very well in the last post. I suggest reading it several times.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Was that a personal attack?

My perspective is like clay and in constantly molding it into a new shape or form.

Using my past against me as an attempt to discredit the perspective I'm presenting and is an attack on me and not the topic of this thread or the perspective I've provided

a reply to: Krakatoa

what is to dispute? well do they or don`t they expect to to recoup their losses?
if they do expect to recoup their losses then there is NO risk to the shotgun investment because they will recoup their losses by exploiting their successful investments, if they don`t expect to recoup their losses then what are they crying about if they lose money?
of course they expect to recoup their losses no sane person would use the shotgun approach to investing if they didn`t expect to recoup their losses from failed investments by exploiting their successful investments. you even said it they don``t invest to lose money they invest to make money.

a reply to: Gothmog

That is the sad truth.

My first job, more than three decades ago had that happen.
Got a raise, and my hours then got slashed.....at the time, I loved it.....got the same money and had more free time.

Life is much different now.

originally posted by: Tardacus
a reply to: Krakatoa

what is to dispute? well do they or don`t they expect to to recoup their losses?
if they do expect to recoup their losses then there is NO risk to the shotgun investment, if they don`t expect to recoup their losses then what are they crying about if they lose money?
of course they expect to recoup their losses no sane person would use the shotgun approach to investing if they didn`t expect to recoup their losses from failed investments by exploiting their successful investments. you even said it they don``t invest to lose money they invest to make money.

That's it, keep avoiding my question. Answer that, and I will consider responding to your last post.