Your Starbucks will be $10 cup if Baristas on strike win and make $80,000/yr

Nancy G. wrote:

Ruxton Towers XC wrote:

Side question, if someone works a full-time job, should they still be "poor" or should people who work full-time be able to make a living wage?

If not, then why would anyone take these jobs? I understand (and agree) with you that they are easy jobs in terms of the educational level needed to do them, but it seems like it is possible to work full time and still be poor. That feels weird to me.

Are we okay with that? Work 40 hours a week, do a good job at work each day, and still be poor?

The goal posts have shifted.

I worked retail in the late-1980s and early 1990s and we made $3.35 per hour. Most of the full time workers made a bit more than me, but either had a spouse who made more money, or they lived with friends or co-workers. No one lived alone on that wage. A cheap apartment was $400/mo, representing more than 100 hours of work.

Today the expectation is that you should be able to afford a 2-bedroom apartment, alone, on what one can make at Starbucks, fast food, etc. There's a sense that this was possible in the "old days", but that's far from true.

Sub-9:00 guy wrote:

orllly wrote:

Never said there was no circumstance where management should take a pay cut. I pointed out there is no practical way to accomplish doubling Starbucks barista’s salaries. If you disagree, explain how it would be accomplished. I’m all ears.

For the most recent year, Starbucks had roughly 361,000 employees. Net income was $3.761 billion. So, even if you could feasibly distribute absolutely every last penny of net income to the employees equally (also not feasible), it would amount to $10,418 or exactly a $5 per hour increase per employee (40 hours x 52 weeks = 2080 hours). Not exactly doubling their pay now is it, not even close in this crazy, bankrupt the company and stick-it-to the man scheme? Maybe Starbucks would agree to it if you took away all the other benefits, I don’t know.

The new CEO got a roughly $113 million pay package if you include everything, signing bonus, average annual salary, average annual bonus, and mostly equity not vesting immediately. Let’s take ALL of his pay instead, even though very little of it is liquid, and distribute it to baristas only, which are probably not even 50% of total employees, but let’s just say 200,000 baristas to make it easy. So take everything from the CEO, both liquid and illiquid and distribute it equally to baristas, doesn’t matter if today is their first day or they’ve worked ten years, they all get the same thing, a $565 annual bonus or slightly over $10 per week. But, hey, that’s enough to buy them an extra Venti Caramel Macchiato with an extra shot each and every week!

Heck, let’s even go with super awful and dramatic sounding 735 billionaires (who pay the vast majority of taxes and create jobs by risking capital) having a net worth greater than 160 million people. Nevermind that very little of it is actually liquid, let’s go full blown Liz Warren on them and confiscate 735 billion in the name of equity and redistribute it to the bottom 50% (also nevermind that people perennially move both up and down the earnings quintiles). We could give every individual an extra $4593 per year, or $88 per week. Certainly a meaningful sum for the very poorest, no doubt, but really more like the ability for every person to go out to Starbucks every morning for a coffee and bagel.

I know math is hard. I certainly don’t have all the answers but trying to make the rich poorer by making the poor richer hardly ever works and just destroys jobs and incentivizes capital to leave for greener pastures. Here’s an idea though, all of you committed Starbucks addicts… how about you give an extra dollar tip over and above what you already do or, more likely, don’t give. Heck, maybe just $0.50. With all the churn in an hour at the place, you will way more than make up for the $5 per hour raise we could give them by totally destroying the company and redistributing all of the profit.

Sub-9:00 guy wrote:

Sub-9:00 guy wrote:

For the most recent year, Starbucks had roughly 361,000 employees. Net income was $3.761 billion. So, even if you could feasibly distribute absolutely every last penny of net income to the employees equally (also not feasible), it would amount to $10,418 or exactly a $5 per hour increase per employee (40 hours x 52 weeks = 2080 hours). Not exactly doubling their pay now is it, not even close in this crazy, bankrupt the company and stick-it-to the man scheme? Maybe Starbucks would agree to it if you took away all the other benefits, I don’t know.

The new CEO got a roughly $113 million pay package if you include everything, signing bonus, average annual salary, average annual bonus, and mostly equity not vesting immediately. Let’s take ALL of his pay instead, even though very little of it is liquid, and distribute it to baristas only, which are probably not even 50% of total employees, but let’s just say 200,000 baristas to make it easy. So take everything from the CEO, both liquid and illiquid and distribute it equally to baristas, doesn’t matter if today is their first day or they’ve worked ten years, they all get the same thing, a $565 annual bonus or slightly over $10 per week. But, hey, that’s enough to buy them an extra Venti Caramel Macchiato with an extra shot each and every week!

Heck, let’s even go with super awful and dramatic sounding 735 billionaires (who pay the vast majority of taxes and create jobs by risking capital) having a net worth greater than 160 million people. Nevermind that very little of it is actually liquid, let’s go full blown Liz Warren on them and confiscate 735 billion in the name of equity and redistribute it to the bottom 50% (also nevermind that people perennially move both up and down the earnings quintiles). We could give every individual an extra $4593 per year, or $88 per week. Certainly a meaningful sum for the very poorest, no doubt, but really more like the ability for every person to go out to Starbucks every morning for a coffee and bagel.

I know math is hard. I certainly don’t have all the answers but trying to make the rich poorer by making the poor richer hardly ever works and just destroys jobs and incentivizes capital to leave for greener pastures. Here’s an idea though, all of you committed Starbucks addicts… how about you give an extra dollar tip over and above what you already do or, more likely, don’t give. Heck, maybe just $0.50. With all the churn in an hour at the place, you will way more than make up for the $5 per hour raise we could give them by totally destroying the company and redistributing all of the profit.

Oops, Fixed it.

Sub-9:00 guy wrote:

Sub-9:00 guy wrote:

Oops, Fixed it.

So, Newname, how would you “redistribute” the net income? Have you ever invested and risked your own capital to start a business, dealt with all of the onerous regulation, paid many a payroll taxes, operated in the red for the first few years, and had to navigate unloyal, unreliable and scheming employees in the process? No? Didn’t think so. 95% of LRCs who even attempted to do this would fail and declare bankruptcy. This is the hard, cold truth.

My generalized platitude of not fixing problems by making the more affluent poorer is just that, a platitude but a platitude with a lot of truth to it. I don’t disagree on homes and college education and such being out of reach, but when the demand for such things outstrips the supply (whether because of two earner households, tax accommodation of investment property, idiots who pay for Starbucks daily also being willing to unwisely take a government loan to “fund” bloated tuition), the paradigm won’t yet soon change.

You never have answers, only problems. Starbucks could commit to redistributing 20% of net income to employees and it would hard make a dent. Again, float your barista an extra $1 every time they make you a drink if you really care as you purport to. Or propose another solution, not just a whim.

Newname wrote:

Sub-9:00 guy wrote:

So, Newname, how would you “redistribute” the net income? Have you ever invested and risked your own capital to start a business, dealt with all of the onerous regulation, paid many a payroll taxes, operated in the red for the first few years, and had to navigate unloyal, unreliable and scheming employees in the process? No? Didn’t think so. 95% of LRCs who even attempted to do this would fail and declare bankruptcy. This is the hard, cold truth.

My generalized platitude of not fixing problems by making the more affluent poorer is just that, a platitude but a platitude with a lot of truth to it. I don’t disagree on homes and college education and such being out of reach, but when the demand for such things outstrips the supply (whether because of two earner households, tax accommodation of investment property, idiots who pay for Starbucks daily also being willing to unwisely take a government loan to “fund” bloated tuition), the paradigm won’t yet soon change.

You never have answers, only problems. Starbucks could commit to redistributing 20% of net income to employees and it would hard make a dent. Again, float your barista an extra $1 every time they make you a drink if you really care as you purport to. Or propose another solution, not just a whim.

Pay the workers a living wage (min of $40 per hour).

Put workers and customers ahead of the non working investor class.

CEO does not need to make $113 million per year.

Schultz does not need to be worth $4 billion.

Howard Schultz, the founder and former CEO, holds 33 million shares directly and 1.7 million shares indirectly through trusts.

I always have answers.

Just not ones that appeal to those who fall for the propaganda of the oligarchs

Sub-9:00 guy wrote:

Newname wrote:

Pay the workers a living wage (min of $40 per hour).

Put workers and customers ahead of the non working investor class.

CEO does not need to make $113 million per year.

Schultz does not need to be worth $4 billion.

Howard Schultz, the founder and former CEO, holds 33 million shares directly and 1.7 million shares indirectly through trusts.

I always have answers.

Just not ones that appeal to those who fall for the propaganda of the oligarchs

The CEO doesn’t make $113 million per year. Not even close. That was just the all in number to get him to sign, that includes incentives he may never reach. It’s not an annual figure. But, hey, I agree with you, that’s probably too much money, but I still think it’s better if the market decides.

Go ahead and take all of Schultz’s $4 billion (not liquid and worth far less after taxes) and share it among all the employees. That’s a $5.32 per hour increase. But less because of taxes. Take 25% of the company’s net income (ok, this won’t totally destroy them, but it will force cost cutting including jobs) and you can give them an additional $1.25 per hour.

Whimsical fairy tales are fun. Especially when you’ve never had to run a business or meet a payroll before.