Starbucks Increasing Wages and Benefits for 150K Employees

[Alabama_Indy10]

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2018/01/24/starbucks-to-increase-wages-improve-benefits-for-150k-employees.html

Tax Reform is being cited as a direct cause.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Grumble grumble rich corporations grumble...

[LimoLiberal]

Thank you Trump! You are a disgrace to this country, but thank you for your economic success!

[TheSaint250]

Thank you Trump! You are a disgrace to this country, but thank you for your economic success!

You're giving him credit for literally nothing but signing the bill. He did nothing to push this or even create it.

[Pyro]

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2018/01/24/starbucks-to-increase-wages-improve-benefits-for-150k-employees.html
Tax Reform is being cited as a direct cause.

Grumble grumble rich corporations grumble...

Increased profit margins since 2010 are cited as the cause for the recent oh-so benevolence of the Starbucks CEO. The tax cut, once more, affected the timing of an announcement rather than the contents.

If you consider the amount of fattening profit raked in by corporations like Starbucks, it is unspeakably shameful the working conditions and meager pay granted to the employees. They should not be commended if they decide that, due to a massive tax break, they pay an average employee $10/hr instead of $9/hr. It is sickening if we are expected to applaud a multi-billion dollar industry for "trickling down" table scraps onto its workforce.

[junior chįmp]

Good. The extra money from the tax scam will allow liberal baristas to donate more money to Dems and other libs. GOP shot itself in the foot yet again

[RINO Tom]

Good. The extra money from the tax scam will allow liberal baristas to donate more money to Dems and other libs. GOP shot itself in the foot yet again

I have a source that says this will, in fact, be an exit poll category in 2020.

[junior chįmp]

Good. The extra money from the tax scam will allow liberal baristas to donate more money to Dems and other libs. GOP shot itself in the foot yet again

I have a source that says this will, in fact, be an exit poll category in 2020.

Potentially Venti, if true

[Jeppe]

Where’s the catch? Like Walmart closing dozens of Sam’s Club warehouses and laying off thousands of workers, while they celebrated the tax reform bill and gave a meager raise to its workers.

[IndustrialJustice]

Grumble grumble rich corporations grumble...

lol

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Cool, better wages for Democrats.  Middle and rural Americans continue to be neglected.

[OSR stands with Israel]

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2018/01/24/starbucks-to-increase-wages-improve-benefits-for-150k-employees.html

Tax Reform is being cited as a direct cause.

Of Course, The Left will deny that , and then act like they know more why a company makes a decision more than the company it self.

[DrScholl]

But who will be fired later on? What stores will be closed? Those are valid questions considering what happened with Walmart. Speaking of Walmart, I just lost a future job assignment that involved Walmart. Seems interesting that after a tax cut that companies suddenly start cutting back.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Are any companies cutting back in any way besides WalMart? Seems more likely that WalMart is just awful.

[WritOfCertiorari]

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2018/01/24/starbucks-to-increase-wages-improve-benefits-for-150k-employees.html
Tax Reform is being cited as a direct cause.

Grumble grumble rich corporations grumble...

Increased profit margins since 2010 are cited as the cause for the recent oh-so benevolence of the Starbucks CEO. The tax cut, once more, affected the timing of an announcement rather than the contents.

If you consider the amount of fattening profit raked in by corporations like Starbucks, it is unspeakably shameful the working conditions and meager pay granted to the employees. They should not be commended if they decide that, due to a massive tax break, they pay an average employee $10/hr instead of $9/hr. It is sickening if we are expected to applaud a multi-billion dollar industry for "trickling down" table scraps onto its workforce.

This is stupid, because even an increase of $1 an hour for 150K employees multiplies out to a very large increase of pay, both for an individual worker and for the company as a whole.

Assuming the average worker puts in about 35 hours a week, to adjust for part time workers, that figure multiplies out to $5.25 billion extra pay a week, and over, let's say 48 paid weeks on average, that comes out to an increase of $252 million a year. For ONE EXTRA DOLLAR per hour. This is before we even consider whatever benefits are being included in this program.

The total revenue of Starbucks last year was $22 billion. If we multiply out what the total wage of Starbucks workers would be at this new $10 price point, it would be about $2.7 billion for the entire payroll, minus the higher level managers and such. Not counting costs for the production of food, raw materials, re-investments back into the company, etc., the total profit for Starbucks was actually a relatively small $2.88 billion... a figure approximately equal to the payroll for these employees. Even increasing the minimum wage to $15 would probably move the company into, at best, a normal profit, basically breaking even for the year.

This also comes out to an extra $1,800 per worker, pre-tax. Not bad, and people in this relatively lower class tax bracket generally don't to pay a huge amount in taxes, anyway. Now, does this have much to do with the tax bill? Maybe not, but it puts the idea of "greedy corporations" into question.

[Tintrlvr]

Are any companies cutting back in any way besides WalMart? Seems more likely that WalMart is just awful.

Plenty. There's constant churn. E.g., Toys R Us just announced they're shuttering 20% of their locations and laying off most of the employees in those locations.

[IndustrialJustice]

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2018/01/24/starbucks-to-increase-wages-improve-benefits-for-150k-employees.html
Tax Reform is being cited as a direct cause.

Grumble grumble rich corporations grumble...

Increased profit margins since 2010 are cited as the cause for the recent oh-so benevolence of the Starbucks CEO. The tax cut, once more, affected the timing of an announcement rather than the contents.

If you consider the amount of fattening profit raked in by corporations like Starbucks, it is unspeakably shameful the working conditions and meager pay granted to the employees. They should not be commended if they decide that, due to a massive tax break, they pay an average employee $10/hr instead of $9/hr. It is sickening if we are expected to applaud a multi-billion dollar industry for "trickling down" table scraps onto its workforce.

This is stupid, because even an increase of $1 an hour for 150K employees multiplies out to a very large increase of pay, both for an individual worker and for the company as a whole.

Assuming the average worker puts in about 35 hours a week, to adjust for part time workers, that figure multiplies out to $5.25 billion extra pay a week, and over, let's say 48 paid weeks on average, that comes out to an increase of $252 million a year. For ONE EXTRA DOLLAR per hour. This is before we even consider whatever benefits are being included in this program.

The total revenue of Starbucks last year was $22 billion. If we multiply out what the total wage of Starbucks workers would be at this new $10 price point, it would be about $2.7 billion for the entire payroll, minus the higher level managers and such. Not counting costs for the production of food, raw materials, re-investments back into the company, etc., the total profit for Starbucks was actually a relatively small $2.88 billion... a figure approximately equal to the payroll for these employees. Even increasing the minimum wage to $15 would probably move the company into, at best, a normal profit, basically breaking even for the year.

This also comes out to an extra $1,800 per worker, pre-tax. Not bad, and people in this relatively lower class tax bracket generally don't to pay a huge amount in taxes, anyway. Now, does this have much to do with the tax bill? Maybe not, but it puts the idea of "greedy corporations" into question.

This is stupid, because it assumes that corporations of this size should even be allowed to exist if they can't manage to pay more than $10 an hour for the vast majority of its labor.

10 percent of Amazon employees in some states are on food stamps.

[IndustrialJustice]

Are any companies cutting back in any way besides WalMart? Seems more likely that WalMart is just awful.

Off the top of my head: Carrier, Comcast, AT&T, Wells Fargo, Kimberly-Clark...

[Virginiá]

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2018/01/24/starbucks-to-increase-wages-improve-benefits-for-150k-employees.html
Tax Reform is being cited as a direct cause.

Grumble grumble rich corporations grumble...

Increased profit margins since 2010 are cited as the cause for the recent oh-so benevolence of the Starbucks CEO. The tax cut, once more, affected the timing of an announcement rather than the contents.

If you consider the amount of fattening profit raked in by corporations like Starbucks, it is unspeakably shameful the working conditions and meager pay granted to the employees. They should not be commended if they decide that, due to a massive tax break, they pay an average employee $10/hr instead of $9/hr. It is sickening if we are expected to applaud a multi-billion dollar industry for "trickling down" table scraps onto its workforce.

Seconded.

The fact that we're supposed to applaud this kind of stuff is a testament to how far we've fallen as a society.

[WritOfCertiorari]

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2018/01/24/starbucks-to-increase-wages-improve-benefits-for-150k-employees.html
Tax Reform is being cited as a direct cause.

Grumble grumble rich corporations grumble...

Increased profit margins since 2010 are cited as the cause for the recent oh-so benevolence of the Starbucks CEO. The tax cut, once more, affected the timing of an announcement rather than the contents.

If you consider the amount of fattening profit raked in by corporations like Starbucks, it is unspeakably shameful the working conditions and meager pay granted to the employees. They should not be commended if they decide that, due to a massive tax break, they pay an average employee $10/hr instead of $9/hr. It is sickening if we are expected to applaud a multi-billion dollar industry for "trickling down" table scraps onto its workforce.

This is stupid, because even an increase of $1 an hour for 150K employees multiplies out to a very large increase of pay, both for an individual worker and for the company as a whole.

Assuming the average worker puts in about 35 hours a week, to adjust for part time workers, that figure multiplies out to $5.25 billion extra pay a week, and over, let's say 48 paid weeks on average, that comes out to an increase of $252 million a year. For ONE EXTRA DOLLAR per hour. This is before we even consider whatever benefits are being included in this program.

The total revenue of Starbucks last year was $22 billion. If we multiply out what the total wage of Starbucks workers would be at this new $10 price point, it would be about $2.7 billion for the entire payroll, minus the higher level managers and such. Not counting costs for the production of food, raw materials, re-investments back into the company, etc., the total profit for Starbucks was actually a relatively small $2.88 billion... a figure approximately equal to the payroll for these employees. Even increasing the minimum wage to $15 would probably move the company into, at best, a normal profit, basically breaking even for the year.

This also comes out to an extra $1,800 per worker, pre-tax. Not bad, and people in this relatively lower class tax bracket generally don't to pay a huge amount in taxes, anyway. Now, does this have much to do with the tax bill? Maybe not, but it puts the idea of "greedy corporations" into question.

This is stupid, because it assumes that corporations of this size should even be allowed to exist if they can't manage to pay more than $10 an hour for the vast majority of its labor.

10 percent of Amazon employees in some states are on food stamps.

This is stupid because the solution it implies would lead to a very small amount of companies which would operate in an oligopolistic fashion, since no one would start up or maintain newer corporations.

[IndustrialJustice]

This is stupid because the solution it implies would lead to a very small amount of companies which would operate in an oligopolistic fashion, since no one would start up or maintain newer corporations.

Or you could follow the actual logic of my argument and dust off the antitrust laws that people like Robert Bork castrated.  

But no, you're right: what we have is an incredibly healthy labor force that is in no way hurtling towards a breaking point. If Amazon can't afford to pay its employees $11 an hour while simultaneously swallowing up the economy, then by God, we can't ask them to fork over a penny more.

[Pyro]

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2018/01/24/starbucks-to-increase-wages-improve-benefits-for-150k-employees.html
Tax Reform is being cited as a direct cause.

Grumble grumble rich corporations grumble...

Increased profit margins since 2010 are cited as the cause for the recent oh-so benevolence of the Starbucks CEO. The tax cut, once more, affected the timing of an announcement rather than the contents.

If you consider the amount of fattening profit raked in by corporations like Starbucks, it is unspeakably shameful the working conditions and meager pay granted to the employees. They should not be commended if they decide that, due to a massive tax break, they pay an average employee $10/hr instead of $9/hr. It is sickening if we are expected to applaud a multi-billion dollar industry for "trickling down" table scraps onto its workforce.

This is stupid, because even an increase of $1 an hour for 150K employees multiplies out to a very large increase of pay, both for an individual worker and for the company as a whole.

Assuming the average worker puts in about 35 hours a week, to adjust for part time workers, that figure multiplies out to $5.25 billion extra pay a week, and over, let's say 48 paid weeks on average, that comes out to an increase of $252 million a year. For ONE EXTRA DOLLAR per hour. This is before we even consider whatever benefits are being included in this program.

The total revenue of Starbucks last year was $22 billion. If we multiply out what the total wage of Starbucks workers would be at this new $10 price point, it would be about $2.7 billion for the entire payroll, minus the higher level managers and such. Not counting costs for the production of food, raw materials, re-investments back into the company, etc., the total profit for Starbucks was actually a relatively small $2.88 billion... a figure approximately equal to the payroll for these employees. Even increasing the minimum wage to $15 would probably move the company into, at best, a normal profit, basically breaking even for the year.

This also comes out to an extra $1,800 per worker, pre-tax. Not bad, and people in this relatively lower class tax bracket generally don't to pay a huge amount in taxes, anyway. Now, does this have much to do with the tax bill? Maybe not, but it puts the idea of "greedy corporations" into question.

The thing is, one hundred percent of a corporation's earnings/due profit is the rightful property of its workers. There is no Starbucks Corporation without the wage workers manning the counters, preparing food and beverage, shipping, tracking and maintaining each store's goods, conducting customer service, etc (as well as those who deal in the raw materials necessary for the industry to run). This group generates the base profits enjoyed by the owners. If the total profit of Starbucks was several billion, the workers should thereby manage that flow of capital and direct how it is employed.

Now, in your calculations you are taking several liberties. The overwhelming majority of Starbucks workers are not provided with a complete 40 hour workweek (most are limited to, at best, 25-30) and many are not fully reimbursed for their agreed-to rate for labor (ie, holidays, uniform costs, training new employees, managerial errors and unpaid overtime). More so, if one were to take the annual financials listed by Starbucks on NASDAQ at face value, then by all means, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell to you, because one year's pure gain in income profit exceedingly outweighs the cost of granting employees an extra dollar or two per hour. In addition, presenting workers with "shareholder stakes" or the "opportunity" to receive paid leave or below-adequate healthcare (of which are the responsibility of the state, by the way) ought not to be considered suitable substitutes for securing a basic means of living. A $15/hr wage for baristas is the bare minimum these workers should be demanding.

tl,dr - In a society in which fast food CEOs make upwards of $10,000 per hour and are routinely awarded tax benefits and loopholes while their employees work several jobs to simply afford their essential means, please refrain from lecturing me on the altruism of those like Kevin Johnson who are supremely undeserving of their income brackets. On a side note, please be respectful when responding to a post ("this is stupid".)

[WritOfCertiorari]

This is stupid because the solution it implies would lead to a very small amount of companies which would operate in an oligopolistic fashion, since no one would start up or maintain newer corporations.

Or you could follow the actual logic of my argument and dust off the antitrust laws that people like Robert Bork castrated.  

But no, you're right: what we have is an incredibly healthy labor force that is in no way hurtling towards a breaking point. If Amazon can't afford to pay its employees $11 an hour while simultaneously swallowing up the economy, then by God, we can't ask them to fork over a penny more.

Yes, we need stronger antitrust, but most communists would say their problem isn't with monopolies. In fact, they are in favor of state run monopolies in the short term.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2018/01/24/starbucks-to-increase-wages-improve-benefits-for-150k-employees.html
Tax Reform is being cited as a direct cause.

Grumble grumble rich corporations grumble...

Increased profit margins since 2010 are cited as the cause for the recent oh-so benevolence of the Starbucks CEO. The tax cut, once more, affected the timing of an announcement rather than the contents.

If you consider the amount of fattening profit raked in by corporations like Starbucks, it is unspeakably shameful the working conditions and meager pay granted to the employees. They should not be commended if they decide that, due to a massive tax break, they pay an average employee $10/hr instead of $9/hr. It is sickening if we are expected to applaud a multi-billion dollar industry for "trickling down" table scraps onto its workforce.

This is stupid, because even an increase of $1 an hour for 150K employees multiplies out to a very large increase of pay, both for an individual worker and for the company as a whole.

Assuming the average worker puts in about 35 hours a week, to adjust for part time workers, that figure multiplies out to $5.25 billion extra pay a week, and over, let's say 48 paid weeks on average, that comes out to an increase of $252 million a year. For ONE EXTRA DOLLAR per hour. This is before we even consider whatever benefits are being included in this program.

The total revenue of Starbucks last year was $22 billion. If we multiply out what the total wage of Starbucks workers would be at this new $10 price point, it would be about $2.7 billion for the entire payroll, minus the higher level managers and such. Not counting costs for the production of food, raw materials, re-investments back into the company, etc., the total profit for Starbucks was actually a relatively small $2.88 billion... a figure approximately equal to the payroll for these employees. Even increasing the minimum wage to $15 would probably move the company into, at best, a normal profit, basically breaking even for the year.

This also comes out to an extra $1,800 per worker, pre-tax. Not bad, and people in this relatively lower class tax bracket generally don't to pay a huge amount in taxes, anyway. Now, does this have much to do with the tax bill? Maybe not, but it puts the idea of "greedy corporations" into question.

The thing is, one hundred percent of a corporation's earnings/due profit is the rightful property of its workers. There is no Starbucks Corporation without the wage workers manning the counters, preparing food and beverage, shipping, tracking and maintaining each store's goods, conducting customer service, etc (as well as those who deal in the raw materials necessary for the industry to run). This group generates the base profits enjoyed by the owners. If the total profit of Starbucks was several billion, the workers should thereby manage that flow of capital and direct how it is employed.

Now, in your calculations you are taking several liberties. The overwhelming majority of Starbucks workers are not provided with a complete 40 hour workweek (most are limited to, at best, 25-30) and many are not fully reimbursed for their agreed-to rate for labor (ie, holidays, uniform costs, training new employees, managerial errors and unpaid overtime). More so, if one were to take the annual financials listed by Starbucks on NASDAQ at face value, then by all means, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell to you, because one year's pure gain in income profit exceedingly outweighs the cost of granting employees an extra dollar or two per hour. In addition, presenting workers with "shareholder stakes" or the "opportunity" to receive paid leave or below-adequate healthcare (of which are the responsibility of the state, by the way) ought not to be considered suitable substitutes for securing a basic means of living. A $15/hr wage for baristas is the bare minimum these workers should be demanding.

tl,dr - In a society in which fast food CEOs make upwards of $10,000 per hour and are routinely awarded tax benefits and loopholes while their employees work several jobs to simply afford their essential means, please refrain from lecturing me on the altruism of those like Kevin Johnson who are supremely undeserving of their income brackets. On a side note, please be respectful when responding to a post ("this is stupid".)

I agree with a lot of your points, but I'm not going to sit here and do a full analysis of what workers make. I'm not an accountant. It was a quick analysis. At most it would change the numbers by 10 or 15 percent, anyway. Also, as for profit, their profit statement may be misleading, but it is legally valid, because while gross profit might be higher, net profit is what is represented in those statements.

Anyway, if the workers alone are responsible for all of the profit of the company, then they should start a collective. By your logic, they should be as profitable as any corporation, since the owners add nothing. And don't give me bullsh**t about how they wouldn't have enough capital to start the business, because then you're admitting the owners do actually add something.

I will be more polite in the future, and I apologize for saying your post was stupid.

[IndustrialJustice]

Well, sure, I'd love to nationalize Starbucks in the abstract and give all of their workers a well-deserved raise tomorrow. Within the confines of capitalism, I'm fine with just smashing it to smithereens.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Well, sure, I'd love to nationalize Starbucks in the abstract and give all of their workers a well-deserved raise tomorrow. Within the confines of capitalism, I'm fine with just smashing it to smithereens.

Communism has failed everywhere