Dunkin Donut CEO Who Makes $4,887 an Hour Outraged at $15 Minimum Wage

[marmar]

This week, the New York Wage Board recommended that the state's fast food workers should make $15 per hour, which has been the rallying cry for the labor movement across the country.

The New York move was seen as a victory for workers in this industry, who are among the lowest-paid in the country.

Within a day, corporate America was on the attack, to stop the spread of this burgeoning national movement.

Dunkin Donuts CEO Nigel Travis—who previously held senior positions at Papa John's and Burger King, other low-wage employers—appeared on CNN and decried the $15 minimum wage as “absolutely outrageous.” He went on to claim that the move will prevent his company from hiring more people and would “affect small business and franchises.” ................(more)

http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/18277/dunkin_donuts_ceo_who_earns_10_million_claims_to_be_outraged_by_15_minimum

[City Lights]

1. Greedy people suck. nt

[Agschmid]

2. This.

[StrongBad]

9. Except...

...that if he were to forgo his entire salary completely that would translate to about 3 cents per hour more per worker.

Let's stay away from this empty rhetoric, please?

[Glassunion]

19. Actually the number is closer to 1.87 cents per hour

Assuming all 260,000+ franchise employees work full time worldwide.

That said, it is not empty rhetoric. You do realize that someone who makes more in one day, than a minimum wage employee makes in about 2 years, does seem quite hypocritical when they are decrying the evil of paying people a living wage?

If these Dunkin' brand assholes allowed their franchises to raise the price of coffee and donuts a nominal amount, they could pay a living wage to all of their employees.

[StrongBad]

20. Please explain your math.

EDIT: Sorry, I thought you wrote $1.87 dollars per hour increase, ignore calculations below as we agree but my point about legislating these outcomes still stands as being problematic. Even if we were to be extreme and legislate that it's illegal for Dunkin Donuts to make any profit whatsoever, it translates to a mere 64 cents per hour per worker (approximated).

I was actually being conservative estimating the employees at around the 160K mark.

But let's use your figure of 260,000.

CEO earns 10 million per year, divide all of that by 260,000 and you get $38.46 additional earned per employee per year.

Break that down into hours worked (52 weeks * 40 hours per week) = 2080 hours worked per employee per year

Final per hour calculation ($38.46/2080) = approx 1.84 cents per hour increase in wage.

Regarding raising the price of their goods, don't you think it's unethical to mandate how a private business should charge for their service? Where does that slippery slope end?

But, let's go ahead and legislate that because Dunkin Donuts are a bunch of assholes, they can't make any profit whatsoever.

The company currently profits around 216 million per year. Divide that by all employees (let's go back to my conservative estimate of 160K) and you get a 64 cent per hour increase per worker.

Should we legislate that Dunkin Donuts must give all profits to wages to give workers an extra .64 per hour?

Perhaps we should legislate that all Americans must buy a certain quota of Dunkin Donuts daily in order to increase their revenue?

[Glassunion]

23. What about legislating the minimum wage would be problematic?

That is my point of view. I never stated that we should legislate their prices.

[StrongBad]

24. But prices would rise if you increase the minimum wage.

As showed earlier, an increase in wage by .64 would result in the complete erasure of the company's profits assuming they don't lay off any workers or increase their prices. One of those outcomes would have to happen if there was a wage increase.

Instead of legislating the decisions of private businesses, the better course of action if you're really concerned about worker welfare would be the taxation and redistribution of income in the form of welfare programs.

[Glassunion]

31. I'm still not of the opinion that mandating the minimum wage

is "legislating the decisions of private business".

Your model will also raise prices, just from a different location and would also erase the company profits by taxation instead of employee compensation, causing them to raise prices.

Again, just my opinion. But would it not be better to have working employees fairly compensated with a living wage, as opposed to a full time employee having to rely on welfare programs? Because, this is where we currently are. We have working poor, relying on welfare to feed themselves even though they have a full time job.

[StrongBad]

45. My opinion...

...is that the decision making process regarding business operations is completely different than personal income and spending. And extracting revenue from personal income effects personal expenditure, which is better than effecting business decisions and expenditure.

[hifiguy]

55. That "interference" crap is

an age-old reichwing/libertarian talking point. Methinks someone is on the wrong board or moving the boat slowly through the water hoping to catch fish, if you get the picture.

[StrongBad]

57. I just proved to you using real life figures and calculations...

...that this particular company couldn't afford an increase of more than 64 cents per worker without completely eliminating their profit margins.

I'm sorry but math is not a right wing conspiracy.

Please prove using actual numbers how I am incorrect.

[Glassunion]

66. Your math is flawed.

It's based on the assumption that all Dunkin' employees are full time. This is absolutely not true, considering that just over 1/3 of employees qualifies for healthcare. The other 2/3rds do not. Which tells me that the remainder are working less than 35 hours a week otherwise they'd have to be offered healthcare under the ACA.

[StrongBad]

68. But the total amount of labor hours needed to produce current output is static

So while some employees may work more hours than others, each hour that is worked by an employee will only result in that employee receiving 64 cents per hour more than now.

So no, the math is not incorrect.

[Glassunion]

74. Yes, your math is incorrect.

Your final number is concluded based on the number of hours worked in a year for each employee on the assumption that they are all full time. That effects the outcome.

Your 64 cents came from the following estimates:
Annual Profits (P) = $216,000,000
Employees (E) = 160,000
Annual Hours (H) = 2,080

P / E / H = .649

You cannot conclude the 64 cents without dividing an entire year's worth of hours for all employees at the full time hour count.

Now if only 1/3 of employees are full time and the other 2/3rds are working 10 to 20 hours a week (we'll go with 15) the numbers change drastically.

Annual Profits (P) = $216,000,000
Full time Employees (F) = 52,800
Full time annual hours (T) = 2080
Part time Employees (L) = 107,200
Part time annual hours (S) = 780

Full Time hours worked: F * T = 109,824,000
Part Time Hours worked: L * S = 83,616,000
Total Hours (X)= 193,440,000

P / X = $1.12

Your math is flawed, because simply lowering the hours worked by 2/3rds of the employees who are not eligible for healthcare (need to work more than 35 hours a week), almost doubles the number you came up with.

But you are so stuck on stripping away company profits that no one here is stating that we should. We are simply calling a hypocrite (the CEO) a hypocrite.

How about we look at it in a business sense using realistic numbers without touching their bottom line profits, or the CEO's $4,887 an hour salary? Wage Dollars and Sales...

According to Dunkin they have 11,300 stores world wide.
There are 260,000 employees of Dunkin' worldwide.
This gives us an average of 23 employees per store. (employees / stores)
Dunkin' sells 1.7 billion cups of coffee each year
This gives us an average of each store selling about 412 cups of coffee a day. (1.7 billion / 11,300 / 365)
There are 8082 stores in the U.S.

Of the 23 employees in each store, 22 are hourly. (store managers are usually salaried)
Of those 22 only 7 are full time average based on their qualifying for healthcare.
The average hourly pay is $8.99 an hour.
So those 7 full timers are working 40 hours a week totaling 280 Labor Hours
Those 15 employees are working 15 hours a week totaling 225 Labor Hours
Giving us a total of 505 labor hours a week to run the store.
At an average of $8.99 an hour this works out to $4539.95 Wage Dollars a week.
Now to get them up to $15.00 an hour you'd have to raise the hourly pay $6.01 an hour
This would increase your Wage Dollars to $7,575 (505 hours x $15).
Now the average store sells 2,884 cups of coffee a week (412 * 7).
If you raised the price of a cup of coffee $1.05 (that's too steep), you can make up the difference.

Now coffee is not their only item, and that $1.05 can be spread out to their other offers (donuts, bagels, coolattas, cookies, hash browns, breakfast sandwiches, snack and go's, etc...), so maybe only coffee (which mind you has a 95% margin, only goes up 25 or 30 cents, which is not unreasonable by any stretch.

All of this and your precious CEO can still rake in his $10.2 million dollars a year, the company still makes its $216 million in profits, the stock still pays out, and the franchise owners can still rake in 100's of thousands of dollars "without having to lift a finger", and drive home in their $250,000 Bentley, all the while getting the working poor a decent wage so they would not have to rely on welfare to feed themselves and their family.

[StrongBad]

77. Nope, my math is correct if you want to pay all employees equally performing the same position.

Your variations can occur if you pay full time more than part time, but something tells me you wouldn't think that's fair.

Also, you forgot about the law of supply and demand.

You admit that by increasing minimum wage prices will have to go up.

Well guess what, when you increase prices, demand falls and quantity sold falls as well, reducing revenue.

Additionally, you can't wave a magic want and say "ok, I'm going to increase prices and spread it around on items arbitrarily and it's going to have no effect on revenue whatsoever."

If that were the case, why not increase the price on the least popular item by $100?

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

83. "If that were the case, why not increase the price on the least popular item by $100? "

That shows that you're not taking this seriously. No one has said there is no price that makes successful sales untenable.

If a business can't sustain itself while paying employees a decent wage, then it is a failure and needs to die. When there are no jobs left, maybe we'll take the general welfare seriously and figure out what works to make a country without outrageous income inequality.

[StrongBad]

85. Right, because no wage paid to workers is better than minimum wage.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

88. If that's what it takes to bring on a major change, then yes.

[StrongBad]

89. Yikes.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

97. Yeah. I know. Scary for some to think people will finally revolt against this "free market" BS.

[Glassunion]

121. Your math is still wrong.

I laid it out how the increase would not only be 65 cents. You insist that all employees are full time and working a full 2080 hours a year. This is untrue. Your math is based on the assumption that all 260,000 employees work 2080 hours each, when in all probability only 1/3 of them do.

Now, your explanation of Reaganomics aside. Prices go up all of the time, and business flourishes just fine. Every day, rent, utilities, taxes, payroll, etc, increase and businesses have to decide how to absorb that cost. For example, just last year the price of coffee shot up. There was a shortage due to weather and rust (a disease effecting coffee), that left retailers with a choice over what to do. My company was one of them. Do we keep prices the same and lose profit, do we raise the price a little and lose a little profit and hope to make it up in volume, or do we match the market? We instead, raised our prices a bit but not enough to maintain margin, but we then raised the prices on other low margin items to increase their margin to make up for the shortfall. Our customer count still increased over last year, our item movement was not effected and we made our profit projections. Which is awesome, because 1/3 of all company profits are shared with the employees (all of us) in the form of cash compensation. The remaining 2/3 are used for benefits and company growth.

I never stated that price increases should be arbitrary. But you can indeed increase the prices of several items to absorb a cost. Coffee ain't all dunkin' sells. A good marketing team can figure it out and make it happen.

Keep in mind that dunkin' raised their coffee prices last year at about 9% or about 22 cents a cup. They still managed to sell 1.7 billion cups of coffee last year.

Raising prices does not cause demand to drop. This is also a false assumption. It would in your absurd method of making an egg-white breakfast sandwich $100. But making a big and toasted with hash browns 6.39 as opposed to 6.19 will in all likelihood have a nominal to zero effect on purchases.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

78. How long should I wait to see StrongBad's reply to this argument?

[StrongBad]

81. One minute. It's already there.

[Glassunion]

82. They doubled (actually tripled) down.

[Glassunion]

76. Indeed.

[RichVRichV]

103. Prices are already rising without touching the minimum wage.

At the absolute bare minimum, the wages have to rise to keep up with inflation or spending power decreases.


Also you're only looking at supply side of economics. If more people are making more money then more people are spending more money (especially when those people are low wage earners who can't afford to save very much). Increased sales have to be calculated to determine actual costs.

[laundry_queen]

128. +1000

That poster is not surprising though. Too many business schools suck.

[Hissyspit]

110. You're asking other people to stay away from empty rhetoric?

[TeamPooka]

119. #Bazinga

[CreekDog]

129. Actually, if you took the excess compensation of the CEO

and added it to the entry level wages, you'd reduce turnover at the entry level and likely improve the quality of the candidates for the jobs. that would likely improve customer service.

also by improving the wages of low paid workers, you'd probably make more of them customers of your products, and make some of that money back.

it's actually a lot more wasteful to overpay a CEO than to pay entry level workers more than the minimum wage and/or the going rate.

[HassleCat]

3. I would be more sympathetic, but...

His doughnuts are terrible, his coffee lousy, and his stores dirty. Maybe if he paid his people better, his products and outlets would be better.

[onehandle]

5. I can't believe Dunkin Donuts exists.

It's not just the bad product and filth, but the unhappy employees clearly show they are.

[smirkymonkey]

70. True. People complain about Starbucks, but I get a much different vibe

from Starbucks employees than I do from DD. They just seem happier, more on the ball, nicer, etc. I never really thought about it much before, but I always prefer to go to Starbucks unless DD is the only place around.

[Glassunion]

75. Here is a little secret...

Shhhh....

Starbucks pays better, offers benefits to part-time employees, etc... http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/best-companies/2013/snapshots/94.html

[smirkymonkey]

108. Good to know!

I always kind of wondered about the reverse snobbism here in the Boston area. Like DD is supposed to be so much more "real" or something. I always go to Starbucks when I have a choice. I don't find it more expensive (actually my quad over ice in a venti cup is cheaper than a DD large iced coffee and tastes better.) and I really like the Starbucks employees. They all seem like really bright, friendly people who are on their way to better things and Sbux is just a job to get them to where they are going.

[kelliekat44]

4. Why do working men and women take their business to these companies? There are much better donuts

around. Shoppers has the best and much cheaper and fresher.

[whatthehey]

6. While he is doubtless overpaid and minimum wage earners the reverse, CEO pay comparisons are always

absurd.

DD has 270000 employees. I have no inside stats but it's typical in such companies for about 75% or more to be frontline staff.

That means about 200,000 donut (actually mostly drinks) handlers.

Let's be insanely optimistic and say they currently average $10 an hour. It's likely worse, but the math's easy.

That means a $5 increase per hour costs $1M to DD (mostly its franchisees).

Meaning that it would cover that CEO's exhorbitant salary in additional costs in less than a single day. In other words DD could hire 365+ Travises for the cost of that wage increase.

Is it a good idea to do so? (the increase, not 365 CEOs!) Probably. Those 200,000 are far far higher on the marginal propensity to consume scale than he is and that additional money would drive far more consumer spending thanks to the multiplier effect, including doubtless some at DD. But his pay is an insignificant fraction of what it would cost DD to do that.

[Historic NY]

7. Why most of the DD's are franchises.

[StrongBad]

8. Great idea! Let's pay the CEO $0 per year and distribute all his money equally to DD employees.

Let's see, there are about 160,000 DD employees total.

Take 10,000,000 divide it by 160,000.

That comes to an extra $62.50 per employee per year, or approximately 3 cents more per hour.

By God I think you solved the poverty problem!

[marmar]

10. Huh?

What does paying $15 an hour have to do with spreading the CEO's salary among employees? What are you talking about?

[StrongBad]

12. The article implies you're upset at the disparity between CEO and employee pay.

My comment was pointing out that paying the CEO $0 does not solve the wage problem.

Did I misinterpret? Ok, let's apply the same example to company profits.

The company profits around 216 million per year. Divide that by all employees and you get a 64 cent per hour increase per worker.

Should we legislate that Dunkin Donuts must give all profits to wages to give workers an extra .64 per hour?

Perhaps we should legislate that all Americans must buy a certain quota of Dunkin Donuts daily in order to increase their revenue?

[gollygee]

25. The point is that someone making that much an hour is in no place to call $15 a ridiculously high

wage.

[StrongBad]

27. Disagree

When a CEO recognizes that a wage increase of just 64 cents would completely erase his company's profit margins and force him to either raise prices (and lose to competition) or layoff workers, it's a completely understandable response.

[gollygee]

30. It sounds like you're opposed to a higher minimum wage

If all of New York has to increase their workers' wages, his competition and he are in the same boat as far as that goes.

[StrongBad]

33. And they all collectively can decide to layoff workers rather than raise prices.

Because, ultimately for such an indistinguishable commodity, price point is going to be the main factor in where people decide to purchase. And if a business thinks they can get an edge by having fewer employees do the same amount of work, they will take that route.

I think personal income taxation and redistribution is the smarter idea because personal income decision making is separate from business decision making.

[ThePhilosopher04]

32. Except you are wrong that a $15 minimum wage ...

would completely erase his company's profit margins, not to mention it would likely create more customers for his product. And you do realize without his woefully underpaid grunt workers, there would be no Dunkin Donuts? Of course you don't.

[StrongBad]

40. Wrong.

See the numbers and calculations I laid out elsewhere in this thread. A mere 64 cent increase in wages per worker completely eliminates all their profit margin. These are real numbers from their public financial statements.

So, in order to accommodate an increase to $15, the company would either have to layoff a lot of workers or increase their prices substantially.

And if a business thinks they can get away with having fewer workers do the same amount of work in order to keep prices low, they will do that because having low prices will attract customers from competition.

Please feel free to calculate for me using real world numbers from their public financial statements how a .64 increase per hour per worker does not erase profit margin.

Heck, I'll lay it out for you again:

The company profits around 216 million per year. Let's say we want to erase all profits and distribute them equally to all 160K employees.

Divide 216 mill by 160K and you get $1,350 extra per worker per year.

Break that down to a per hour basis (52 weeks * 40 hours per week = 2,080 hours)

$1,350/2080 = .658

Ok, so maybe it would be an extra 65 or 66 cents per hour. Either away the point still stands.

[tenderfoot]

118. Strong is bad.

And might - wrong.

Have a nice day under your bridge.

[Initech]

11. He doesn't care about small business. He only cares about his fortune.

[StrongBad]

15. But if he gave away his entire salary that would translate to a whopping 3 cent increase per hour.

[hifiguy]

26. Understood. But the underlying issue

Is one of moral and economic justice: this overpaid POS crybaby who makes $10 mil pitching a tantrum because people who actually WORK for a living want a decent wage.

And if this shitstain is making ten million you can bet that there is a boatload of "executives" hauling down high six figure and low/mid seven figure salaries beneath him.

Just what are any if those tossers, most of whom have input into setting their own salaries actually DO to justify more than $100-200 K? Jack shit most likely.

[StrongBad]

29. Dude, you have no idea what sort of skills and work ethic is required to run a company.

Let alone a national franchise with thousands of locations.

It's certainly takes more skill than putting donuts in a bag, pouring coffee in a cup, operating a cash register and doing some minimal cleaning/upkeep.

Do you think that's worth $15/hour?

I agree that all workers should be taken care of, but interfering with markets is not the way. Progressive income tax and redistribution is the better way to go here.

[ThePhilosopher04]

34. Neither do you

There are no free markets anywhere on earth except in the wild. We don't live in the wild.

[hifiguy]

35. Yup. As long as there are some kind of

applicable rules its no longer a "free" market. The question, as Joe Stiglitz so pithily puts it is who those rules are engineered to benefit.

[hifiguy]

41. Given the massive layers of bureaucracy,

Much of it redundant, in large companies, and which handles the day to day stuff, I'd bet that no CEO is ever going to die from the stress of overwork.

And how ever DO the heads of equally large or even much larger enterprises in countries like Germany and Japan manage to get by being paid a paltry 15 times what their lower paid workers make? Riddle me that. The US is the only country in the developed world with these obscene 300-1, even 400-1 CEO-worker pay ratios.

That isn't the "laws" of economics, just pure, selfishness and GREED.

[pepperbear]

84. are you saying that severe income disparity is always the cost of doing business?

please explain what you mean by redistribution.

[StrongBad]

87. If there aren't enough skilled workers, yes.

By redistribution, I mean taxation of income and usage of that to promote social welfare programs.

[Hissyspit]

115. "Interfering with markets"

What utter nonsense.

[Gormy Cuss]

120. It's call a cost of doing business.

Dunkin Donuts will survive a $15/hr minimum wage. Prices will increase but so will the potential sales because more people have money in their pockets.

[smirkymonkey]

111. +1000

[ieoeja]

13. Dunkin Donuts stockholders would like to know why the CEO has been hiring unneeded employees.

If "the move will prevent his company from hiring more people" then he must not need those "more people". So why was he going to hire them before?

[Populist_Prole]

16. Exactly!

Hiring additional employees is the prudent thing to do if demand requires it. In fact, if one does not hire additional employees to satisfy increased demand then they will lose more business and lower profits far more than an increase in pay would.

To hear some claim that they would hire more employees if the wages were lower, or if their taxes were lowered is utter "supply-side" nonsense.

Not hiring more employees that are actually needed, and not hiring them out of pure political or power/control spite would make said CEO a rather incompetent businessman.

[StrongBad]

21. Nope.

If the price of labor increases, a business can just make less employees produce the same output by requiring them to do more work. Happens all the time. Not the sort of outcome a populist prole would want, eh?

Also, you're not taking into consideration expansion of new franchises and locations. If the cost of labor is too high, it can become cost prohibitive to open up a new store and thus you lose out on all of those potential new jobs created at the potential new location.

[AOR]

36. The narrative in your posts in this thread...

represent the narrative of lifetime social scabs in service to the ruling class.. Right Wing Libertarian labor-baiting horseshit is exactly what it is.

[StrongBad]

43. I'm sorry you don't like basic mathematics.

[AOR]

47. The horseshit you're posting in this thread...

has nothing to do with "mathematics." It is labor-baiting in it's purest form. If you understood "mathematics" you would understand the simple math behind the institutionalized theft of surplus value that is wage-labor.

[StrongBad]

48. Take your Marxist bullshit elsewhere, comrade.

Has 20th century history taught you nothing regarding how that ship has sailed and been completely invalidated?

[AOR]

50. LMFAO...

you're on a forum that used to represent the left friend. It is you that should take the Right Wing labor-baiting horseshit elsewhere. Try Discussionist...your narrative, red-baiting, and labor-baiting will fit in perfectly and be more welcome there. Many here might not like "the Marxists", but most here are certainly not buying the Libertarian ownership class bootlicking that you're selling in this thread.

[StrongBad]

52. It's wrong to suggest the Democratic Party = Marxism.

It's simply not true.

[AOR]

64. Really don't give a shit what people are calling themselves these days...

what matters is who is putting the priorities of capital and the owners over the priorities of labor and the struggling workers and the poor. You have made clear what your priorities are in this thread. You are openly defending capital and the owners over labor and the struggling in this thread. Capitalism has stolen the labor of the working class for crumbs in return.

The working class laborers have built this country that allows CEO parasites their lifestyle. Without labor, they are NOTHING. Labor is what produces food, labor is what produces wealth, labor is what builds societies, labor is what builds infrastructure that the defenders of capital over labor take for granted, labor produces everything a society depends on. Workers and laborers produce all wealth and everything that allows a societies existence. That wealth created on the backs and the sweat of workers is not realized by the workers - in anything close to equal measure - in this exploitative and parasitic system that dooms millions to toil as mere slaves of an empire run by a ruling class of useless parasites and owners profiting on the labor of the working class. Without labor there is nothing.

[StrongBad]

72. Sorry, you get paid depending on your skills and what value you provide to an employer.

People aren't equal. Some people are more intelligent, more productive, and more deserving of higher wages than others.

You aren't due free money just by virtue of being born. If you want to get paid more, increase your value and your skill set to those that are willing to pay for it. Money doesn't appear out of thin air.

Hiding behind Marxist rhetoric just proves you have nothing to offer and can't compete with others in the labor market.

Furthermore, want real life proof that labor is nothing without capital? Observe the obliteration of labor that will occur due to technological advances in this century. Case in point, within a decade fast food jobs won't exist because capital will soon be able to reproduce without labor in many cases.

Solidarity, brother.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

79. How about businesses thrive or fail based on their value to society? If your business can't succeed

without depending on workers not making a living wage, then your business is harmful. When your scenario of fast food, and to extrapolate, countless other jobs are gone, what do you think is gong to happen to our people and our country? Or doesn't it matter, as long as "free marker" principles are protected?

There's plenty of truth in Marxist philosophy that, when ignored, leads to masses of poor, unemployed, miserable people. Which makes for a failure of a country.

[StrongBad]

80. That's why I support income tax and redistribution rather than market intervention.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

86. Both are necessary. I don't buy the magic markets BS.

Why the Idea of a "Free Market" Is Total BS
There has never been and never will be a "free" market. All markets have rules.
By Robert Reich / RobertReich.org September 16, 2013

One of the most deceptive ideas continuously sounded by the Right (and its fathomless think tanks and media outlets) is that the "free market" is natural and inevitable, existing outside and beyond government. So whatever inequality or insecurity it generates is beyond our control. And whatever ways we might seek to reduce inequality or insecurity -- to make the economy work for us -- are unwarranted constraints on the market's freedom, and will inevitably go wrong.

By this view, if some people aren't paid enough to live on, the market has determined they aren't worth enough. If others rake in billions, they must be worth it. If millions of Americans remain unemployed or their paychecks are shrinking or they work two or three part-time jobs with no idea what they'll earn next month or next week, that's too bad; it's just the outcome of the market.

According to this logic, government shouldn't intrude through minimum wages, high taxes on top earners, public spending to get people back to work, regulations on business, or anything else, because the "free market" knows best.

In reality, the "free market" is a bunch of rules about (1) what can be owned and traded (the genome? slaves? nuclear materials? babies? votes?); (2) on what terms (equal access to the internet? the right to organize unions? corporate monopolies? the length of patent protections? ); (3) under what conditions (poisonous drugs? unsafe foods? deceptive Ponzi schemes? uninsured derivatives? dangerous workplaces?) (4) what's private and what's public (police? roads? clean air and clean water? healthcare? good schools? parks and playgrounds?); (5) how to pay for what (taxes, user fees, individual pricing?). And so on.

These rules don't exist in nature; they are human creations. Governments don't "intrude" on free markets; governments organize and maintain them. Markets aren't "free" of rules; the rules define them.

http://www.alternet.org/why-idea-free-market-total-bs

[AOR]

90. Lol...once again you reveal yourself grasshopper...

you speak in the tongues of the lifetime social scab. The tongues of a right wing libertarian. Attacking me personally are we ? That is your argument ? Do you know me ? No, you know shit about me.

As I explained to another some time ago who was using your same labor-baiting and social scab tactics. It's not about me. It's about the workers as a whole. There is nothing in your existence that is not dependent on the labor of others now and before you came into existence. Do you grow all your own food ? Do you make all your own clothes ? Where did your "home" come from? Even if you built your own home you did not make the materials needed. Other workers did. Even wiping your ass is set in motion by the labor of others as evidenced by modern toilet paper... unless you are still using leaves... in which case you're excused from the herd on that count and may call yourself "self-made." Every single thing you do is social and depends on a collective society of labor. Once someone realizes that fact... solidarity with the demands of all workers should be a given rather than the idiotic and completely nonfactual notion of "self-made" and look at ME ME ME and MY "skill set."

Your ability to live relies on and is a function of many other workers - who are set in motion - whether you realize it or not. You're confused on who is doing all the producing that allows the "owners" to build capital and a business on the stolen surplus labor of others. Capital cannot exist without the theft of wage labor under the capitalist modes of production. The business owner is ENTITLED TO NOTHING. Not business loans at a "cut rate", not tax breaks, and certainly not entitled to anyone's surplus labor for profit. The big business owner is nothing more than a parasite - who in most cases does absolutely nothing - after an initial idea is brought forth. Not needed in any way shape or form for production of anything.

Many people have "ideas." Without the labor of others no "ideas" are implemented.That's what you fail to realize. You will not win the "debate" nor the "argument" when it comes to labor vs capital. The whole argument and defense of the parasite business owner revolves around two words and those are "cheap labor." Labor is entitled to ALL it creates. That you think capitalists are ENTITLED to cheap labor is beyond laughable. Any idea you come up with WILL DIE - without the labor of others - unless you can produce everything needed for your idea yourself. Save your libertarian horseshit for the gullible.

Fuck the owners today, tomorrow, and every day into the future. If these parasites can not give back crumbs... they don't belong in business... and that's being gentle... even under capitalist terms. There is a change coming down the pike my friend one way or the other. For too long the struggling workers have paid deference to these parasite owners. They will pay now in a nice way or they will pay later in a not so nice way. History tells us this.

As far as automation goes... you miss the point again in your right wing haze in defense of the owners. Without labor no automation is possible. Someone has to build the automation. You lose again and miss the point. The working class will have no problem taking over the automation and distributing the result of that production in a more equitable manner. We built it. We own it. Labor is entitled to ALL it creates.

Even capitalists of the of the past understand where labor stands in the equation.

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much higher consideration."

-- Abraham Lincoln

[StrongBad]

91. Heh. You're adorable.

Something tells me that if the workers can't command more than minimum wage in the labor market due to their lack of skills, they won't be able to engineer a planned economy and organize efficient distribution of its resources. Good luck though! I'll be busy earning my keep, thanks.

[AOR]

99. Very amusing grasshopper...

are you a worker "earning your keep"...? If you are and you think you stand outside of and independent of "those other workers beneath you"...then you have proven my point and have lost your way. Very sad...

Or maybe you're "an owner" and feel you're entitled to cheap labor and you imagine yourself " a superior human specimen"...?

Either way you're very confused and your posts in this thread are the antithesis of the advancing the human condition for ALL.

[randome]

109. Do you seriously believe that the DD CEO is worth what he's being paid?

No one is. Salaries like this are inflated due to societal momentum, not value.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[Glassunion]

122. I disagree, but only slightly.

In fact just a teensy little bit.

Some folks use "their" wealth for the benefit of others. The vast majority can go stick it. But there are a precious few who use their wealth for good. To me, they deserve it.

I was taking a course not too long ago, and we studied a few of the "men who built America" (sic), and I had the pleasure of learning about that dude who started the Hershey corporation. He used his wealth on his community, and left his entire fortune to help the less fortunate. A man of few words, he was quoted that "wealth should be used for the betterment of society".

He felt that the wealthy have a moral obligation to take care of others, and make society a better place. He practiced what he preached.

[smirkymonkey]

113. Thank YOU!

for saying what I would like to say, however much more eloquently.

[hifiguy]

53. If you were any more full of crap you would

explode. The only relevant thing the 20th century proved was that Leninism and Maoism were tubs of shit, which was something anyone with brains already knew.

Communism as Marx envisioned it is ridiculously utopian and at odds with human nature. His analysis of capitalist economics and its structures, however, remains as brutally and completely accurate as it was the day he laid down his pen. Not one word of it has been disproven. To the contrary, every day proves him more right about capitalism.

[StrongBad]

54. Gotcha, so they just didn't do it right.

I'm sure if it was tried again it would go swimmingly.

[hifiguy]

56. Reading comp is not your strong suit.

But you are pretty good at repeating libertarian/reichwing talking points. Not that it's much of a talent or skill.

[StrongBad]

58. Quick question

If we're going to raise minimum wage, why not just raise it to $70K/year.

Heck lets go all out and raise it to 100k/year

Once you break down the argument why the above is not feasible, you'll realize why an arbitrary target of minimum wage is not very rational.

[hifiguy]

61. Go read some Stiglitz, Piketty or Krugman.

I am done with your sophomoric quasi-libertarian BS.

[StrongBad]

62. Appeal to authority. Nice work.

[DonCoquixote]

92. here is one thing you dodge

and it is the reality that even Walmart has to face. The lower the wages of people, the LESS they BUY. Henry Ford, hardly a socialist, realized that if someone working at his plant could not buy his product, he would not be able to sell much. When minimum wages in a place like NYC (where rent can eat up most of your money) are too low, people will NOT be buying donuts and coffee. Here this CEO is, not realizing that people cannot buy his coffee and donuts. He is not like a Steve Jobs that could just outsource to China and India, no, his business is based on local people having enough cash to consider getting his product.

As far as Progressive taxation/social programs, you do realize that the countries that pull that off are ones that have higher wages than us, right? Germany and Australia LAUGH at our minimum wage, and because they can keep executives in check, they also have much better social programs, and oddly enough, their companies do quite well.

[StrongBad]

93. His company is making 216 million in profit a year.

So, yes, people are buying his product at current wage levels. Quite frequently actually.

[DonCoquixote]

95. and then they can start looking good

when Tim Hortons gears up and eats their profit.

BTW, I notice you did not address the fact Europe can handle the hogh wage and prgressive tax at the same time.

[StrongBad]

100. Sure they can.

They also have to suffer higher prices, inferior goods and higher unemployment.

Here's a fun game. Name one major innovation that has revolutionized the lives of humanity that has come out of Europe since the institution of their high tax/minimum wage state post World War II.

[DonCoquixote]

105. sure I will play

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet

Note the work of Tim Berners-Lee. Yes, the internet grew out an old cold war project, but Mr. lee actually made it work into something people could USE.

Let's also throw in VTOL craft, which were developed in the UK, and then ripped off by US.

Let's also throw in the idea of smaller cars, which were done first bu Europe, then copied by Japan,another high tax state, meanwhile Detroit's execs and sadly , even the Unions, continued to make clunkers, despite the fact all those Audis and Toyota were selling. Granted, Americans still love those big cars, but most of the world does not, which is why GM was getting it's head handed to it.

but of course, this mental knot you are trying to tie is "They also have to suffer higher prices, inferior goods and higher unemployment." Unlike we Yankees that let our rich people run amok. I smelled Libertarian miles away.

[Hissyspit]

114. No. He's appealing to their arguments.

Fail.

[Hissyspit]

112. Oh, for chrissake.

Conservative and Libertarian DUers. Used to get banned immediately.

Marx was wrong about a lot of stuff. He was also right about a lot of stuff. Just scream "Commie!" more, though.

[Hissyspit]

116. The vote was 4-3 to leave your red-baiting comment.

Congrats on helping to make it suck around here just a bit more.

[HughBeaumont]

42. "populist prole" . . . . WTF?

Smells like LOLibertarian Party bullshit to me.

Wages NEED to increase. Overall wages have been flatlined for decades and the current FMW represents a buying power LOSS over 40 years. So don't sit there and try to blather that businesses can't afford it. If they went in with the idea that $7.25 would be static forever and ever, they're the ones at fault, not the Fight for $15 movement.

[StrongBad]

44. Chill, I was just referencing his username.

[Populist_Prole]

107. And failing at that

Full disclosure: Yes, I am a sworn enemy of supply-side economics and anyone that espouses them. You failed trying to tether your version of what demand-side economics means to you, to not only my own aims, but the clinical definition of the term.

[hifiguy]

59. Because it is. It's just the same old plutocratic/oligarchic bullshit

in a slightly different, Turd Way sort of wrapoer.

[CreekDog]

130. "LOLbertarian"

i love it. thank you for that.

[Populist_Prole]

106. Horseshit

"If the price of labor increases, a business can just make less employees produce the same output by requiring them to do more work. Happens all the time."

Fails too. Carcasses like Circuit city and K-Mart come to mind as the product gets shittier and shittier.

"Not the sort of outcome a populist prole would want, eh?"

I made no such desire, nor do any other demand-side disciples. Utter fail at a "gotcha"

"Also, you're not taking into consideration expansion of new franchises and locations. If the cost of labor is too high, it can become cost prohibitive to open up a new store and thus you lose out on all of those potential new jobs created at the potential new location"

A labor cost being "too high" is just more your own circular logic argument bullshit that's been thrashed thus far in this thread.

[Turbineguy]

14. I can see his point

it would reduce his earnings multiple from 607 to 326. How can he be expected to appear in public with a multiple like that? Oh, the shame!

[olddots]

17. shouldn't we be asking ourselves what a donut has to do with a dollar

The stock market is doing the exact opposite of what it started out ro do .

[HickFromTheTick]

18. Living wages are for Eurotards. Look to Bangladesh for a better example.

Leave the minimum wage where it is!! We all know that countries with a livable minimum wage are unsuccessful hellholes with terrible standards of living as a result. Look at all those idiot Nordic countries with high minimum wages, slums, violence, and horrible living conditions.
Companies that pay high wages and have relaxed working conditions are unsuccessful also...Look what happened to Henry Ford and his ludicrous idea of paying his employees double the prevailing wage to work on his "assembly lines". Ford Motor Company DISAPPEARED OVERNIGHT as a result. Good Riddance, Commie Bastard!! Happy and successful employees are a bad thing, a communist thing, a retarded unMurcan thing. Look at those idiot Europeans with their 6 week vacations and huge social programs. In Sweden, a typical CEO only makes a dozen times more than a front line worker, and it shows in their low quality products and horrible standard of living. The lower the pay, the better the country!! Instead of U.S.A., a more appropriate slogan for this trope should be Bang-La-Desh!!! BAng-La-Desh!!! Now THERE's a symbol of how wage disparity SHOULD look..... low wages, and the resulting excellent social structure and quality of life. The U.S. is flat out racing to join Bangladesh in the pantheon of excellent countries in which to live. Godspeed, Captain America!! People NEED abject poverty to make them appreciate what being well-off could be like.

[StrongBad]

22. Ok, let's make it illegal for Dunkin Donuts to make any profits.

See above calculations and you'll see that it translates to a whopping 64 cent per hour increase to employees.

What other market intervention do you suggest?

Perhaps we should legislate that all Americans must buy a certain quota of Dunkin Donuts daily in order to increase their revenue?

[Politicalboi]

39. Maybe those making minimum wage should take a pay cut

So DD can make more money. This poor CEO must have to decide if he drives his Mercedes Benz, or the Bentley.

Nobody should have to choose that, he deserves a Rolls Royce. Don't forget, DD sells their coffee crap at grocery stores with NO employees selling it. These businesses have been saving money for decades under these stagnant wages, and it's pay back time for those of us who survived living on these shitty wages with no benefits.

[StrongBad]

46. I'm sorry that you don't like math.

[hifiguy]

28. Greece for Everybody!!

That is the plutocrats' end game.

[Juicy_Bellows]

37. These CEOs are so out to lunch (probably literally).

I'd bet dollars to donuts (hehe) that someone working in a really busy location of Dunkin Donuts works harder than Mr. Travis has worked in a long long time.

The CEOs make money like they are some kind of super star. Can he run multiple locations by himself? Does he fart out boxes of glazed raised? Does he shoot maple bar coating from his nose? The answer is no. He is not magic, or super human or probably even that intelligent. He likely is sociopathic and selfish.

We pay him like he is a super human when in reality he is a super dickbag.

[hifiguy]

49. The crowning glory of the CEO game is twofold.

These shitheels basically set their own salaries. Sure, there are "consultants" involved but how much return biz are those consultants gonna get if they don't give Mr High And Mighty the number he has already decided on?

Best of all are the severance packages. Joe Schmuck costs some big company ten grand in an honest mistake, he's fired and escorted to the door by an armed security guard. Crater the company, like Carly Fiorina, and they GIVE you TENS OF MILLIONS IF DOLLARS just to go away. Whatta deal. FUBAR everything and you are given enough money to live like a fucking sultan for the next 100 years!

Now THERE is meritocracy at work.

[Juicy_Bellows]

51. It sure is disgusting.

Golden parachutes and all that noise. It just makes me sick that people are so god damn greedy and selfish. Perhaps it's time to stop celebrating sociopathic behavior. I stopped long ago but our country seems to still be in love.

Cheers!

[StrongBad]

63. You're right. Since he's an asshole let's force him to work for $0/year

Now we can pay each worker an extra 3 cents per hour! See other posts in this thread for calculations proving this.

Hopefully you don't consider yourself an economist.

[Juicy_Bellows]

65. Millions or zero. Pretty binary thinking.

I'm no economist and you're no gentleman.

[StrongBad]

69. I'm just illustrating that even at the most ridiculous ($0 salary) scenario

That would only translate to 3 cents more per hour per worker.

Working at higher than zero would translate to less than a 3 cent increase per worker.

That's how math works.

[Juicy_Bellows]

71. One could argue that they could cut salaries by 3 cents

And he could double his pay. Why stop there? A reduction in his salary needn't go to the employees. They could take a few million and help make a better product. Japan's CEO wages are a lot closer in line to their workers.

[StrongBad]

73. Fair point. But who are we to decide if the company is succeeding?

[Live and Learn]

38. I find his salary absolutely outrageous. nt

[lpbk2713]

60. A one percenter and then some.

RWers would love this guy.

One of the current clown car passengers is going to make him their veep running mate.

[hobbit709]

67. He and society both would benefit from him being shortened.

[Nevernose]

94. 80 years of "minimum wage will collapse the economy"

And it ain't happened yet.

[ellie]

96. Greedy, greedy pig.

[Octafish]

98. Race to the bottom.

Led by bottom dweller Nigel Travis.

[liberal N proud]

101. Greedy fuck in CEO's see employees as property

They use you and abuse you and expect your loyalty.

Then they just toss you aside so they can make anot her million.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

102. there is a very bad smell drifting from down in this thread

someone here is dumb as a rock and dropping crap all over the place

[Snow Leopard]

104. Stunning

You better crap gold to deserve that much money.

[tenderfoot]

117. a lot of assholes here defending the ceo - how typical of the new DU

DoucheUnderground

[Glassunion]

123. "A lot"

I count one. If one = a lot. Then you have my apologies.

[tenderfoot]

124. One = one too many = a lot.

And one we'll have to tolerate for longer than necessary.

[Glassunion]

125. You're right.

[HFRN]

126. the more money the top paid make, the more they resent every cent the lowest paid person earns

i don't understand it, but I've definitely seen enough evidence of it

[killbotfactory]

127. Increase the price of donuts 15 cents and stfu. nt