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

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.

Sub-9:00 guy wrote:

Sub-9:00 guy wrote:

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.

Remember, Schultz’s entire net worth that you redistributed (which is a lot less after tax) only results in the hourly pay hike for one year. After that, the money runs out, and the extra $5.32 per hour goes away.

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

Newname wrote:

Sub-9:00 guy wrote:

Remember, Schultz’s entire net worth that you redistributed (which is a lot less after tax) only results in the hourly pay hike for one year. After that, the money runs out, and the extra $5.32 per hour goes away.

Nope. Did not say that.

Starbucks grosses in the vicinity of $40 billion per year.
It employs @ 300,000 baristas with an average hourly pay of $15.50.
ON avg = 30 hrs per week = 1,560 hours per year which yields annual pay of $24,180.
Times 300,000 barista = total pay to the workers of $7.2 billion.
The corp has to pay rent (if they don't own the bldgs) and buy all the raw material too.
Guess another $7 billion.
Leaves $26 billion annually to be whacked up among the investors, the execs, and the govt (tax).
Double the pay and you still have $19 billion.

His stock value would take a hit.

Don't be so simplistic in your arguments

SeattleSilver 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.

Over 95% of stockholders in Starbucks haven't done the things you mentioned in your first paragraph either. The Starbucks staff didn't start organizing until the company was a publicly-owned giant.

Sub-9:00 guy wrote:

Psycho-logist wrote:

The thing is, though, you have a Boomer attitude. Why are you so threatened at the possibility that someone, somewhere, might have it easier than you - or in a world filled with as much technology as we have, that someone you view as "beneath" you even dare to expect that they might have it easier than you?

Sitting around complaining about how you worked so much harder than "kids these days" is just straight up stupid. Like, how insecure can you be? Because you know what all of that coming from abject poverty and never taking a handout got you? The answer is extreme defensiveness of wanting to come in to a running message board and put all of us in place, for threatening your fragile ego by daring to complain.

Working hard gets you nothing if your goal is driven by a social hierarchy. I would take being poor and not worrying about whether people are going to worship me, over being successful and constantly trying to get strangers to buy into the delusion that I am somehow better than them. (And lest you draw a false equivalency, the two can be mutually exclusive.) The weakest and most cowardly flex is purchased status. You're not special, you're not important, and we don't owe you respect, adoration, or deference.

Yeah, evidently you can’t read either. I’m not threatened by any of it nor do I think any of these people are “beneath me.” Already acknowledged I worked at McDonalds once upon a time and delivered pizzas all through college. I wasn’t above those jobs now was I. I am very grateful for them and I learned from them.

I’m simply saying you can stay perpetually aggrieved and victimized by the man or you can improve your lot in life. It’s your choice. Again, never before in the history of this country have workers had more rights than they do right now, and people are wealthier on a relative scale than they’ve ever been at any point.

But, if you want to choose to stay oppressed and angry and find culpability with anyone else but yourself, then that is your free will. Today’s 25 year olds just are not built like the 25 year olds from even 25 years ago. It’s quite incredible, a de-evolution if you will. Criticizing the military guy when no way would you survive the military yourself, or even bother to consider serving.

icrlp05 wrote:

Sub-9:00 guy wrote:

Yeah, evidently you can’t read either. I’m not threatened by any of it nor do I think any of these people are “beneath me.” Already acknowledged I worked at McDonalds once upon a time and delivered pizzas all through college. I wasn’t above those jobs now was I. I am very grateful for them and I learned from them.

I’m simply saying you can stay perpetually aggrieved and victimized by the man or you can improve your lot in life. It’s your choice. Again, never before in the history of this country have workers had more rights than they do right now, and people are wealthier on a relative scale than they’ve ever been at any point.

But, if you want to choose to stay oppressed and angry and find culpability with anyone else but yourself, then that is your free will. Today’s 25 year olds just are not built like the 25 year olds from even 25 years ago. It’s quite incredible, a de-evolution if you will. Criticizing the military guy when no way would you survive the military yourself, or even bother to consider serving.

you said you were going to stop posting on this thread 6 posts ago. do you have poor impulse control like all these poor lazy good-for-nothing low-skilled workers you like sneering down at