You must log in or register to comment.
An $11,000 wage increase is ~$5/hr for a full time employee.
Starting pay at Startbucks is around $15/hr. They’re famously stingy with full-time though, so in reality it is quite a bit more than a 25% increase.
Honestly, I was expecting to find some glaring error in the logic on this but I don’t really see it.
The glaring error is this screenshot is listing an income figure that is comparable to the 2022 total revenues in the 2022 fiscal report.
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/SBUX/starbucks/ebitda
It looks like Starbucks 2023 EBITDA was $7.3 Billion and the net income was $4.1 Billion.
The post makes a good point, but uses garbage data. Why do they do this? Although an $11,000 raise would elliminate the actual net earnings figure.
There it is. I kept finding investor reports claiming the same 25 bil number as the net profit, but that’s just goofy if their actual bottom-line was under 5.
And that $11,000 figure is now about 6x too big. Meaning we’re talking about a less than a dollar raise. Not to even mention ebida is STILL more than bottom-line profits.
Yeah, this inflationary period shows that it has to do with profit-seeking and not monetary supply. We made the money printers go BRRRRR for a very long time with almost no inflation, then suddenly COVID and supply chain hiccups gave corporations an excuse to transfer more of society’s wealth to themselves by raising prices and not lowering them again afterwards.
Can’t expect change when all we elect are wealthy people who care more about their stock portfolios than their constituents.
Yup. It’s pure insanity that most of Congress is made up of lawyers & businesspeople.
Who should it be made of? Fry cooks and fork lift drivers?
It should be made up of everyone. I don’t see any reason fry cooks and fork lift drivers shouldn’t be there, they definitely deserve representation.
If you’re convinced those people are all too stupid or lazy for the job, then maybe you could at least get on board with engineers, doctors, scientific researchers, artists, farmers, teachers, etc. Anyone who works hard at whatever their chosen profession is should have a shot. But our current system selects for low ethical standards, improv skills, and self-preservation instincts rather than real achievement.
Why not?
Inflation quadrupled from 2020 to 2021 and then almost doubled again from 2021 to 2022.
It’s not (just) because they’re greedy that they don’t lower them back down, it’s because they’d go out of business. One 2024 dollar was 83 cents in 2019, that’s way more than the net profit margin for most retail.
Greed is a constant, they’re not any more greedy now than they were before covid.
The company that owns Huggies Diapers managed to reduce costs of production multiple years in a row while raising prices for consumers at the same time.
B-b-but I was told that paying employees more would cause inflation!
I’m pretty sure the last couple of years has been mass rich fuck retaliation for pushing some fast food workers wages to $15/hr.
The poor rich people
All together it’s $528.773 billion! That’s $66 for each and every single person on the planet!
What even the fuck.
Aka one family meal at Culver’s.
Surely Starbucks have more employees than that? Are they all franchised or something?
If it’s 400,000 employees, that means at least one in every thousand Americans works for the company.
There is a world outside the USA.
Why is this list not sorted? Am I the only one confused by this?
It is sorted, it’s a list of “gigantic asshole companies” they just all tied for first.
:P
- a Bonus, not a raise. If it was a Raise, it’d be per Month and you’d have to multiply it by 12 again, making it 53bn, more than double the Profit
- these 400k ignore a lot of people working in franchises that would go empty-handed
Anyone trying to portray anything as a simple Issue is lying to you. Don’t fall for it.
A raise can be yearly as well (it’s how I’d interpret it by default in Europe). The only thing it implies is that they’d have to be paid that next year as well, which also seems far from realistic considering the cost of it is ~20% of current profits. (Plus it’d be tax exempt as an expense, so probably even less of profits)
On point 2, the only source I’ve found is https://fourweekmba.com/starbucks-company-operated-employees/, implying the 400k includes franchised employees and 248k “company employees”, so it seems like it’s included.
Uh, no, they said raise. Nothing about this post mentions bonus, nor does it make any more sense to say “bonus” instead of “raise”. Why would a raise mean monthly? Pretty sure every Starbucks is a franchise. How would that change a structured raise plan?
This is garbage data. Learn the difference between revenue, gross profit, and net profit.
Ok. $36 biliion consolidated net revenue reported at a 16% profit margin for fiscal year 2023 still leaves $5.76 billion in money that went somewhere after everyone was paid, taxes were
avoidedpaid and all approved expenses were handled.Edit: adding source https://investor.starbucks.com/press-releases/financial-releases/press-release-details/2023/Starbucks-Reports-Q4-and-Full-Year-Fiscal-2023-Results/default.aspx
WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE SHAREHOLDERS??? HOW CAN THEY SURVIVE WITHOUT THEIR (checks Starbucks earnings sheet) $4B IN NET EARNINGS???
This is news? Of course record profits drive inflation! That’s why we pay exhorbitant rates for things like gas during summer travel months. They know they have us by the short hairs and can raise prices anytime they want and people will still pay them.
As a common proletariat it infuriates me to have to pay so much for stuff and get so little in return. As an aspiring member of the bourgeoisie, if I were in charge I’d keep raising prices as far as possible to make people pay through their teeth, assholes, and nards.
It’s human nature. The whole point of George Orwell’s story, “Animal Farm.” Let’s revolt and take over the means of production so everything can be more equal. Uh oh, a group of pigs has decided they are in charge and should have a larger slice of the pie than everyone else.
And so it goes.
I’m not so convinced human history, especially with regard to collective societies, supports that idea as general statement - animal farm isn’t a bible of truth that says “wealth redistribution always works this way” it’s more a warning of authoritarian governments don’t implement checks/balances and try to divide the population and garner support among the elite fee
This way our economy is organized is NOT how it has always been through history. It’s foolish to believe it has to be this way and every single person would absolutely just keep charging more for everything given the chance. Too many orgs are out there protecting community (see nonprofits in Canada buying up city land for the express purpose stewardship and preventing price gouging or food banks with negotiating power to bulk buy groceries cheaper) to support that idea. What do i know tho right?
I’ve seen people try to buck the system and prove that wealth distribution doesn’t always work that way, and yet in the end they discover it’s back to the same system again and it actually almost always does work that way.
Just sayin’. I enjoyed your comments and the feedback.
And I have seen societies that have bucked a less equitable system, and meaningfully and materially change things for the average person.
Kind of a core part of the concept of democracy is that it is meant to continuously have a feedback mechanism, continually allow for… you know, change.
It is often when societies become significantly less democratic that this change stops and things ossify…
…until the situation is so untenable for so many that they functionally revolt, often violently, though not always.
Does this always turn out well? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
This is all a very general overview.
Your view of the world amd of the history of human societies is fatalistic, self perpetuating, dismissive, and overly simplistic.
In other words, you are nearly certainly a conservative.
Your statement is simply objectively false. Almost no social system in history that has attempted to redistribute wealth more equitably and then backslid on this has /reverted to the same system/.
They are nearly always different in substantial, complex and meaningful ways.
An example, a prominent one: Russia. Russia was a feudalistic/monarchical society, things got spicy, wealth was redistributed, a lot of people died but a lot of people were a lot better off in a lot of ways. Obviously this was not perfect and had many flaws. Eventually the ‘communist’ system collapsed into more or less a corrupt weird sort of blend of capitalism, lots of social programs, similar amounts of oppression, lots of authoritarianism.
Not exactly ‘the same system,’ different in many complex and meaningful ways.
sounds very good.
