What on earth happened to McDonalds?

[sam_gordon]

Your argument definitely works …in a vacuum. You’re either refusing to acknowledge or ignorant about what’s been occurring over the last 50-years. The bigger picture is that Executive to average employee compensation has grown from 70-to-1 in the 70’s, to 400-to-1 today. During that period, the S&P has increased 800% while executive compensation has increased to over 1200%. In a nutshell, that means that the average employee(American) is losing out on the impact of economic growth over time. I had a job in the 80’s while in school that paid me $5/hour, I was working in a restaurant. That same wage today based on inflation would be over $15/hour. I think that’s what some of the other posts here have been trying to get at -so, while on paper, saying if you don’t like the pay go get a better paying job makes sense, it doesn‘t do anything to correct the actual problem.

I'm not ignoring or refusing anything. I totally get executive compensation has risen astronomically quicker than that of the general worker.

Again I ask, what EXACTLY do you (general) propose to "correct the actual problem"? Do you want to limit how much a CEO makes? What about a VP? The CFO? Should their salary be limited? At what point in the workforce structure does the salary get limited? And how much does it get limited to?

It's easy to say "THAT person doesn't deserve their salary." This is a Disney board, so I'll pick on Bob Iger. According to CNN, he's going to get $1M as a base salary, an annual bonus of $1M AND incentive based awards that could reach $25M. So, for anyone who wants to answer... how much is his knowledge and skill worth? What should his salary be limited to? And how did you come to that number?

 

[GAN]

I'm not ignoring or refusing anything. I totally get executive compensation has risen astronomically quicker than that of the general worker.

Again I ask, what EXACTLY do you (general) propose to "correct the actual problem"? Do you want to limit how much a CEO makes? What about a VP? The CFO? Should their salary be limited? At what point in the workforce structure does the salary get limited? And how much does it get limited to?

It's easy to say "THAT person doesn't deserve their salary." This is a Disney board, so I'll pick on Bob Iger. According to CNN, he's going to get $1M as a base salary, an annual bonus of $1M AND incentive based awards that could reach $25M. So, for anyone who wants to answer... how much is his knowledge and skill worth? What should his salary be limited to? And how did you come to that number?

It’s not as difficult as your making it out to be. Since the current ratio is 400-1 …how about we shoot for 350-1. You can do that any way you like , you’re now a member of the Board

 

[goofyernmost]

I'm not sure if you were trying to counter my argument, but I think you're supporting it. Some want to be able to LIMIT how much an employee gets for compensation. All I'm saying is that's an agreement between the employee and employer. If the employer doesn't want to pay enough, or has bad working conditions, the employee doesn't need to accept the job. If enough people are willing to pass on the job, the employer will need to change something. That will either be increasing pay, increasing benefits, increasing working conditions, or all of the above.

That applies from the entry level position up to the very top. People complain about businesses and their leaders being "greedy". When's the last time ANYONE at ANY level has turned down a raise saying "no, I have enough"? It's easy to point to those making more than us and say "they're greedy, they don't deserve that much money, they don't work hard", but if someone even hinted that of ourselves it would be "you don't understand the job I do". Pot, meet kettle.

I'm not trying to do either. I am connecting the dots to what I think is the likely future. Right now it seems that the most active in voice and sometimes violent action is coming from one side, but history tells you that will only last for a while before other elements see that it is effective for getting attention to something that they think is a problem.

The idea that everyone can just not take a job when some income is better than none, is quite like believing in unicorns. Unless people are OK with living on the streets and not eating they cannot just NOT TAKE A JOB. Right now business is winning, but there was a time before that they were and that table turned. It will again. And when it does things will change like it did before. I probably won't live long enough to see it happen, but happen it will.

 

[xipotec]

Its almost like people feel there is an actual agreement between labor and employee rather than what actually is, “which is we pay you this, accept it or move on”… and the wage is so low, across the entire spectrum in most non degree jobs , no human being can afford the basics in life.

Hell , even teachers cannot afford houses and the common necessities and dignities one should have in life.

Meanwhile over 90 of all the wealth in this nation is shamelessly hoarded by 1 person in 10.

Job refuse to hire full time work, to avoid paying benefits, fire elderly full time workers to hire less experienced part time people who take any pay they can right now….they drop anyone with the hint of a long term illness, refuse to grant yearly raises that match inflation, and hire less people than needed to do a job well, and use substandard and dangerous ingredients and methods in their business.

Why?

Wall Street profit, and greed….regulation has been stripped away to push all money upward to the very few, while the “customer” has no recourse and is grifted at every turn.

 

[Ms.Minnie]

Its almost like people feel there is an actual agreement between labor and employee rather than what actually is, “which is we pay you this, accept it or move on”… and the wage is so low, across the entire spectrum in most non degree jobs , no human being can afford the basics in life.

Hell , even teachers cannot afford houses and the common necessities and dignities one should have in life.

Meanwhile over 90 of all the wealth in this nation is shamelessly hoarded by 1 person in 10.

Job refuse to hire full time work, to avoid paying benefits, fire elderly full time workers to hire less experienced part time people who take any pay they can right now….they drop anyone with the hint of a long term illness, refuse to grant yearly raises that match inflation, and hire less people than needed to do a job well, and use substandard and dangerous ingredients and methods in their business.

Why?

Wall Street profit, and greed….regulation has been stripped away to push all money upward to the very few, while the “customer” has no recourse and is grifted at every turn.

Since this was a thread on McDonalds I'm curious how much do you think a person taking the orders and running the cash register or flipping the burgers should make?

Earlier I complained about the cost of a double cheeseburger (regular size not 1/4 lb size) being $4+ dollars but on reflection I'm sure that the same sandwich at a regular restaurant or diner would be closer to triple that price. Based on that thought I have come to realize that McDonalds is still a pretty good deal. Everything has gotten very expensive over the past year or so. I'm hoping that we will see an end to all the inflation sometime soon but I'm not holding my breath waiting.

 

[sam_gordon]

It’s not as difficult as your making it out to be. Since the current ratio is 400-1 …how about we shoot for 350-1. You can do that any way you like , you’re now a member of the Board

Maybe I'm not understanding the ratio right, but if the lowest person is making $15/hour, at 350:1, that means the highest paid(?) position is "allowed" nearly $11M? Who is subject to this "limitation" (whatever limitation you want to put on it)? Is that low enough?

 

[sam_gordon]

Its almost like people feel there is an actual agreement between labor and employee rather than what actually is, “which is we pay you this, accept it or move on”… and the wage is so low, across the entire spectrum in most non degree jobs , no human being can afford the basics in life.

Hell , even teachers cannot afford houses and the common necessities and dignities one should have in life.

Meanwhile over 90 of all the wealth in this nation is shamelessly hoarded by 1 person in 10.

Job refuse to hire full time work, to avoid paying benefits, fire elderly full time workers to hire less experienced part time people who take any pay they can right now….they drop anyone with the hint of a long term illness, refuse to grant yearly raises that match inflation, and hire less people than needed to do a job well, and use substandard and dangerous ingredients and methods in their business.

Why?

Wall Street profit, and greed….regulation has been stripped away to push all money upward to the very few, while the “customer” has no recourse and is grifted at every turn.

Yes, I agree there is a "problem". Do you have a solution? Everyone wants to talk in generalities but the devil is in the details. Do you want to raise the wages of the lower earners? How much? Let's say the job pays $10 and you think it should be $15. What about the people with some experience who are making $15? Do they get a raise?

Do you limit the wages of the higher earners? How? Based on a ratio compared to the lower earners? Based on the income of the company (gross or net)?

 

[Mysterian]

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/business/article269426432.html

New McDonald’s by Fort Worth is unlike any you’ve seen: It serves burgers by conveyor

Kiosks, now conveyors. Soon truck shipments will be completely automated too. There'll hardly be any humans left in McDonalds.

One day we'll drive by a San Francisco McD's see only killer robot cops drinking coffee inside.

 

[goofyernmost]

Since this was a thread on McDonalds I'm curious how much do you think a person taking the orders and running the cash register or flipping the burgers should make?

However much it takes to get good help! If it is a place that is dealing with adult employees (not part-time teens, but they will have to make more as well) that need to pay a salaries that either pays more money or helps to provide some of the things like health care so they can afford to live and feed their families. Part time jobs could pay less, but not if they keep cutting hours to save money on benefits and then cry rivers when they can't get enough employees to cover the partial shifts.

If they are attempting to hire 10 part timers instead of 5 full timers then I have no sympathy for them at all. It is simple math that apparently most wealthy owners cannot understand. Even back when I was just starting out, in the stone age, I couldn't afford to take a job that was less then 40 hours and had at least some benefits. It was economically not going to work. I might have taken one until a better one came along, but when it gets to the point that it costs me more than I needed to live they could pound sand.

The employers mantra was... "There are hundreds of losers knocking down my door to take over for you". Instead of factoring in how much it is costing to train new people they only think about how they are saving on payroll and benefits. So they spend training money and lose more people because they can't fill in because they have to go to another part time job so they can support themselves and their families. On top of that you never manage to have seasoned, experienced, dependable help to keep the business running smoothly. It is gross ignorance to bite the hands that are keeping them wealthy. Just stupid. Especially now that they're are no long lines just clamoring to get in and work for them.

How thick do these people have to be to not realize that the picnic is over. We lost a lot of workers during the Pandemic and the best and brightest of the doing what was needed to put bread on the table moved on to better positions and those putting very little value on good people are now whining about how lazy people are instead of accepting and adjusting to the world as it is now, not yesterday. All the whining in the world will not create people to fill those positions.

 

[White Cat]

Its cool man, you can like and defend the current Stock Market and the people who have the means and ability to invest in it and take advantage of the low wage workers who cannot afford even rent now…

its cool, you defend those poor rich people ….

I prefer to fight for those who are being taken advantage of and who wages have been stolen from them for decades to make rich people even richer..

We are clearly on different sides of the fence, believe what you

Its almost like people feel there is an actual agreement between labor and employee rather than what actually is, “which is we pay you this, accept it or move on”… and the wage is so low, across the entire spectrum in most non degree jobs , no human being can afford the basics in life.

Hell , even teachers cannot afford houses and the common necessities and dignities one should have in life.

Meanwhile over 90 of all the wealth in this nation is shamelessly hoarded by 1 person in 10.

Job refuse to hire full time work, to avoid paying benefits, fire elderly full time workers to hire less experienced part time people who take any pay they can right now….they drop anyone with the hint of a long term illness, refuse to grant yearly raises that match inflation, and hire less people than needed to do a job well, and use substandard and dangerous ingredients and methods in their business.

Why?

Wall Street profit, and greed….regulation has been stripped away to push all money upward to the very few, while the “customer” has no recourse and is grifted at every turn.

Why do you hate rich people so much? If you collected all the currency and stocks, wealth let’s call it, distributed it all evenly, It would t take long for the wealth to go back to who had it first.

 

[GAN]

Maybe I'm not understanding the ratio right, but if the lowest person is making $15/hour, at 350:1, that means the highest paid(?) position is "allowed" nearly $11M? Who is subject to this "limitation" (whatever limitation you want to put on it)? Is that low enough?

It is actually based on the “average” employee compensation, so if $15/hr is the lowest the average would higher in most cases. The ratio is just based on statistics. So for example, in the ‘70’s if the “average” Disney employee made $18,000 then the CEO‘s overall compensation could have been somewhere around $1.2M. Today, if the “average” employee compensation is $50,000 , then the CEO’s total compensation would be in the neighborhood of $20M. Sounds kind of familiar. That’s the way I read it. So… if Chapek or Iger or whoever was to have a similar compensation package as the CEO from the ’70’s, their pay should be closer to $3.5M. They’ve effectively swindled $16M of compensation that could have helped many lower level employees today -maybe cover the cost of medical, or reinstate all those pensions that our parents may have been lucky enough to take advantage of that we barely see anymore.

 

[sam_gordon]

It is actually based on the “average” employee compensation, so if $15/hr is the lowest the average would higher in most cases. The ratio is just based on statistics. So for example, in the ‘70’s if the “average” Disney employee made $18,000 then the CEO‘s overall compensation could have been somewhere around $1.2M. Today, if the “average” employee compensation is $50,000 , then the CEO’s total compensation would be in the neighborhood of $20M. Sounds kind of familiar. That’s the way I read it. So… if Chapek or Iger or whoever was to have a similar compensation package as the CEO from the ’70’s, their pay should be closer to $3.5M. They’ve effectively swindled $16M of compensation that could have helped many lower level employees today -maybe cover the cost of medical, or reinstate all those pensions that our parents may have been lucky enough to take advantage of that we barely see anymore.

But, didn't the people who hired Iger get to decide how much he made? Or did Iger pick a number and they had no say in it? That's my point. Someone (or a group of someones) has decided that Iger is "worth" $27M (counting bonuses). Just like you get to decide how much an item is worth to you every time you buy it. If Iger said "I'll only accept $27M and not a penny less!", TPTB could simply say "no".

 

[GAN]

Why do you hate rich people so much? If you collected all the currency and stocks, wealth let’s call it, distributed it all evenly, It would t take long for the wealth to go back to who had it first.

I don’t think anyone hates “rich” people. Heck …I don’t even know, maybe I’m one myself . I know I’m better off than most. But that doesn’t mean I choose to ignore what is happening in Corporate America -the big steal has been slowly creeping for 50 years. I‘m all for making money, but I also have enough moral fiber to realize that if I’m doing well then anyone working with me or under me should be doing equally well at the same rate(or declining if that’s the case). This was the case 40 or 50 years ago …but its pretty rare today. And the statistics I posted earlier prove it. I‘m relatively fortunate, as the person who owns my business is willing to share significant amounts of profit as long as he makes his money, which is a relatively low percentage(but it’s times Billions so not a bad chunk of change ). A lot of companies aren’t so generous!

 

[GAN]

But, didn't the people who hired Iger get to decide how much he made? Or did Iger pick a number and they had no say in it? That's my point. Someone (or a group of someones) has decided that Iger is "worth" $27M (counting bonuses). Just like you get to decide how much an item is worth to you every time you buy it. If Iger said "I'll only accept $27M and not a penny less!", TPTB could simply say "no".

Sure …do you know who makes up the Board that decides his compensation. Primarily, CEO’s and Executives of other billion dollar companies. It’s a huge boys(and girls) network. They all take care of each other -it’s such a joke! Do you see where this is going? And do you know who owns huge chunks of Disney stock (other than large brokerages)? Yeah …members of the Board . Again, it would be great if they said they would work for a more modest compensation if it benefits other employees but it just doesn’t happen anymore.

 

[xipotec]

Many other countries have proven you can pay the people “flipping burgers and taking orders” a wage that allows them decent living conditions without breaking Mcdonald's or the stock owners. Its really not that hard…

Awful derogatory to assume that person flipping burgers and taking orders somehow does not work as hard as a CEO……or there is any real value difference in them when it comes to basic survival.

Me thinks they work way harder and suffer a great deal more on a daily basis then those people in the board rooms taking 3 hour lunches and driving to their 6000 sq ft home in a company paid car.

I bet those lunches are never Mcdonald’s either…

 

[Colleen27]

Yes, I agree there is a "problem". Do you have a solution? Everyone wants to talk in generalities but the devil is in the details. Do you want to raise the wages of the lower earners? How much? Let's say the job pays $10 and you think it should be $15. What about the people with some experience who are making $15? Do they get a raise?

Do you limit the wages of the higher earners? How? Based on a ratio compared to the lower earners? Based on the income of the company (gross or net)?

We actually had a solution for a long time in this country, and it is one that other countries still have success with - progressive taxation with high top brackets discourages wealth hoarding and encourages more of a slow-and-steady approach to growth. and using that revenue for a robust social safety net puts companies and executives in the position of paying enough for employees to live on one way or the other. At this point in time it isn't as simple as bringing that back; there need to be other changes too, since so much of the corporate power structure is a good ol boys club where execs from one company are often board members at others, voting on the compensation of people who will then vote for their compensation in turn. But a robust regulatory environment can and does narrow the wage gap just as surely as a half-century of deregulation widened it. But actually doing anything along those lines would take a massive shift in public opinion and a reversing of perhaps the most damaging change in thinking in recent history, the idea that the only entity capable of enforcing worker rights or taking action on behalf of the people is actually bad while profit-seeking enterprises are good and trustworthy.

 

[Colleen27]

Why do you hate rich people so much? If you collected all the currency and stocks, wealth let’s call it, distributed it all evenly, It would t take long for the wealth to go back to who had it first.

That's because the problem is systemic and requires system-level solutions, not a one time reshuffling of resources. I don't hate anyone. But I do see that the system we have is unsustainable on a number of fronts, the shrinking portion of our workforce earning a living wage only one among them, and I'd rather see marginal change to reverse course back towards a more balanced whole than the continued degradation of the US standard of living and companies abandoning the American consumer in favor of foreign markets where there is a growing or stable/thriving middle class. We have a consumer-based economy, so squeezing American earners so that they have to find ways to consume less is simply not a recipe for success.

 

[soccerdad72]

It is actually based on the “average” employee compensation, so if $15/hr is the lowest the average would higher in most cases. The ratio is just based on statistics. So for example, in the ‘70’s if the “average” Disney employee made $18,000 then the CEO‘s overall compensation could have been somewhere around $1.2M. Today, if the “average” employee compensation is $50,000 , then the CEO’s total compensation would be in the neighborhood of $20M. Sounds kind of familiar. That’s the way I read it. So… if Chapek or Iger or whoever was to have a similar compensation package as the CEO from the ’70’s, their pay should be closer to $3.5M. They’ve effectively swindled $16M of compensation that could have helped many lower level employees today -maybe cover the cost of medical, or reinstate all those pensions that our parents may have been lucky enough to take advantage of that we barely see anymore.

The problem with trying to put a cap like that is that the vast majority of c-suite compensation packages is in stock options, which are not a set value. Their net worth and annual compensation is pretty much directly tied into how the company performs.

 

[Kennywood]

Aside from the managerial positions, when did a job at a fast food restaurant become a household's main source of income? Those jobs were meant as part time work for those in school or those looking for part time work.

The cry went out that these jobs deserve $15/hour. So, the salaries were increased. (Whether on not it was to $15/hour is not the point I'm making here.) The stores still average the same number of patrons, yet the payroll of those stores has increased. There are two options; raise prices and/or cut employees. So, the stores did both. They cut employees, added kiosks & apps, and raised prices. And people have the nerve to act surprised and upset. (Be careful what you wish for.....)

As for these evil CEOs sitting in their money vaults like Scrooge McDuck counting their gold coins, what about the shareholders? Oh, it's been implied that the shareholders are the so-called 1%. What about those of us who have 401k retirement plans which diversify into various companies? I hate to shatter preconceived notions, but I am hardly one of the 1% crowd. Do you now to after the various retirement plans?

Do not expect a 7-figure income with a 5-figure level of education.

 

[xipotec]

Aside from the managerial positions, when did a job at a fast food restaurant become a household's main source of income? Those jobs were meant as part time work for those in school or those looking for part time work.

The cry went out that these jobs deserve $15/hour. So, the salaries were increased. (Whether on not it was to $15/hour is not the point I'm making here.) The stores still average the same number of patrons, yet the payroll of those stores has increased. There are two options; raise prices and/or cut employees. So, the stores did both. They cut employees, added kiosks & apps, and raised prices. And people have the nerve to act surprised and upset. (Be careful what you wish for.....)

As for these evil CEOs sitting in their money vaults like Scrooge McDuck counting their gold coins, what about the shareholders? Oh, it's been implied that the shareholders are the so-called 1%. What about those of us who have 401k retirement plans which diversify into various companies? I hate to shatter preconceived notions, but I am hardly one of the 1% crowed. Do you now to after the various retirement plans?

Do not expect a 7-figure income with a 5-figure level of education.

This notion of fast food workers being “part time” is so antiquated its almost laughable.

What jobs are left? We ARE a service economy now, those are the jobs that have the most positions…..

No one is claiming its worth high 6 figures, but lets be honest, CEOs are not worth that either..::no one is.

The stock market and the country became a mess when Wall Street decided they were in charge of what a company “should” make….

They are not happy with a company unless it makes double digit profits year after year…..and guess what? That math is not sustainable….we are seeing the rewards that kind of management gives us now…

As far as a 401k. Most people do not have one, and to expect double digit returns on that is a huge part of the problem. Along with stock payments to the highest earners.

40 years ago, a CEO running a company the way most do now would be fired for not thinking of the long term health of the company, now its considered good management….

Its just more of the “greed is good” and “get your while you can “ mentality thats destroying Americas opportunity and dividing us into super wealthy and poor and struggling.

You say the only options when raising wages it to increase prices or cut
employees? This statement alone shows how entrenched you are in this system…
There IS a third option…LOWER profits….but we cant do that can we? Heaven forbid the people that already have way more than their workers have to take a little less…
No ivory backscratcher for them.