Applebee's Owner: The Truth About $15 Minimum Wage

[Spare_change]

I had to go to Walmart today on the wife's orders. Since I don't usually shop there I am not all that familiar with them. What struck me though, while watching the poor customer service, the rude behavior and the inability to make change, is that none of the employees I saw seemed to be worth whatever they are being paid let alone raising them to $15. A quick trip there should kill the idea of raising the minimum wage for any observant person.

It's amazing that with the bad employees that you listed, last year Walmart made $132B in gross profit. So maybe you're blowing smoke?

last year Walmart made $132B in gross profit.

What tax rate did they pay?

They paid 3% of total revenue in ALL taxes. The American worker pays 12% of wages in taxes.

Nice sleight of hand ....$132B in gross profit, and ONLY 3% of total revenue in taxes. When you're trying to hide something, the best way is to change the point of reference, right?

In case you didn't notice - and I'm sure you didn't - that means that Walmart paid $15 billion in taxes (on $488 billion total revenue). You also probably didn't notice that this was GROSS profit. Gross profit is defined as:

Revenue - (Direct materials + Direct labor + Factory overhead)

It does not include administrative costs (to include those costs necessary to maintain the work force - vacations, healthcare, etc.) Gross profit is a generally useless measurement of the efficiency, profitability, or value of a business. It is simply an intermediate step in the calculation of net profit (which IS a valid measurement of efficiency, etc.)

If you want to tell a story, at least tell the truth. Don't try to hoodwink the reader.

 

[Spare_change]

You're dreaming. High end venues average 8% profit. One restaurant in S.F. is able to make that 25% profit margin. One. The others are nowhere near that. It has the benefit of a captive market. As usual you know nothing of what you are talking.

I've invested in restaurants. I know the numbers. A well planned/financed restaurant IS a huge money maker. At the low end, 20%. At the high end, 30% or more.

Which 'one' restaurant do you write of?

No, you haven't, and no you don't. A good friend of mine is the Executive Chef for Hyatt Hotels worldwide, and he is far more knowledgeable in how they function than a known liar such as you.

Why don't you ask your Executive Chef friend these questions;

1) Who provides their food?

2) How is the food bill paid?

3) Is the food ordered by store or collectively by brands?

4) Percent markup on food and booze?

1. They do. They source the raw materials from local farms whenever possible.

2. By check

3. The raw material is ordered by individual restaurant, go's to a central office which collates the orders so they can do mass buys to save money and then the buyers head out to fill the orders.

4. Food markup is around 8-10% depending on which restaurant it is, the booze markup is over 40% depending on the type. Wine tends to get the best markup, but not always.

1) Sysco, through international contract. Local flavors

2) By wire transfer BEFORE the order is shipped.

3) Under an international contract food is ordered and delivered to the individual locations.

4) Food mark-up is minimum 400%, booze 500% to 700% or more.

Do you even know what those figures mean? 30% food costs means a markup of about 400% ---- you need to figure out what you are trying to say.

 

[westwall]

You're dreaming. High end venues average 8% profit. One restaurant in S.F. is able to make that 25% profit margin. One. The others are nowhere near that. It has the benefit of a captive market. As usual you know nothing of what you are talking.

I've invested in restaurants. I know the numbers. A well planned/financed restaurant IS a huge money maker. At the low end, 20%. At the high end, 30% or more.

Which 'one' restaurant do you write of?

No, you haven't, and no you don't. A good friend of mine is the Executive Chef for Hyatt Hotels worldwide, and he is far more knowledgeable in how they function than a known liar such as you.

Why don't you ask your Executive Chef friend these questions;

1) Who provides their food?

2) How is the food bill paid?

3) Is the food ordered by store or collectively by brands?

4) Percent markup on food and booze?

1. They do. They source the raw materials from local farms whenever possible.

2. By check

3. The raw material is ordered by individual restaurant, go's to a central office which collates the orders so they can do mass buys to save money and then the buyers head out to fill the orders.

4. Food markup is around 8-10% depending on which restaurant it is, the booze markup is over 40% depending on the type. Wine tends to get the best markup, but not always.

1) Sysco, through international contract. Local flavors

2) By wire transfer BEFORE the order is shipped.

3) Under an international contract food is ordered and delivered to the individual locations.

4) Food mark-up is minimum 400%, booze 500% to 700% or more.

Good luck with that fantasy life you live there dudette.

 

[westwall]

I've invested in restaurants. I know the numbers. A well planned/financed restaurant IS a huge money maker. At the low end, 20%. At the high end, 30% or more.

Which 'one' restaurant do you write of?

No, you haven't, and no you don't. A good friend of mine is the Executive Chef for Hyatt Hotels worldwide, and he is far more knowledgeable in how they function than a known liar such as you.

Why don't you ask your Executive Chef friend these questions;

1) Who provides their food?

2) How is the food bill paid?

3) Is the food ordered by store or collectively by brands?

4) Percent markup on food and booze?

1. They do. They source the raw materials from local farms whenever possible.

2. By check

3. The raw material is ordered by individual restaurant, go's to a central office which collates the orders so they can do mass buys to save money and then the buyers head out to fill the orders.

4. Food markup is around 8-10% depending on which restaurant it is, the booze markup is over 40% depending on the type. Wine tends to get the best markup, but not always.

1) Sysco, through international contract. Local flavors

2) By wire transfer BEFORE the order is shipped.

3) Under an international contract food is ordered and delivered to the individual locations.

4) Food mark-up is minimum 400%, booze 500% to 700% or more.

Do you even know what those figures mean? 30% food costs means a markup of about 400% ---- you need to figure out what you are trying to say.

He's a clueless basement dweller. He tosses numbers out but has absolutely no clue what they mean, or what they refer to.

 

[Econ4Every1]

He's a clueless basement dweller. He tosses numbers out but has absolutely no clue what they mean, or what they refer to.

Perhaps you should practice what you preach?

 

[OnePercenter]

If that's what I meant, that's what I'd have written.

A well planned/financed restaurant IS a huge money maker. At the low end, 20%. At the high end, 30% or more.

You're dreaming. High end venues average 8% profit. One restaurant in S.F. is able to make that 25% profit margin. One. The others are nowhere near that. It has the benefit of a captive market. As usual you know nothing of what you are talking.

I've invested in restaurants. I know the numbers. A well planned/financed restaurant IS a huge money maker. At the low end, 20%. At the high end, 30% or more.

Which 'one' restaurant do you write of?

20~30% lol, talk about blowing smoke..I see you are still bullshitting


Gross Profit Margins for Upscale Restaurants




According to "Forbes" magazine, the average gross profit margin for a fine-dining restaurant is around 60 percent. Based on their stated 38 to 42 percent food cost range, if you sell an entree for $30, the food cost will be between $11.40 and $12.60, leaving a gross profit of $17.40 to $18.60. However, food costs are only a portion of what upscale restaurants pay, and their net profit margins typically fall between 5 and 8 percent.

Which it should. Less taxes.

You forgot to mention; owners pay, spouse pay, kids pay, house payment, vacation home payment, girl friend/sugar baby payment, car payment, etc, all of which are deducted BEFORE NET PROFIT.

The owner does not get to write off his morgage, kids tuition, sidechick, etc. That would all be under owner's pay, if the owner even draws a salary.

I have six properties that are officially owned by corporations.

I didn't write 'kids tuition,' I wrote kids pay.

I have two sugar babies, both are 'employees' that receive a paycheck and benefits.

 

[Spare_change]

You're dreaming. High end venues average 8% profit. One restaurant in S.F. is able to make that 25% profit margin. One. The others are nowhere near that. It has the benefit of a captive market. As usual you know nothing of what you are talking.

I've invested in restaurants. I know the numbers. A well planned/financed restaurant IS a huge money maker. At the low end, 20%. At the high end, 30% or more.

Which 'one' restaurant do you write of?

20~30% lol, talk about blowing smoke..I see you are still bullshitting


Gross Profit Margins for Upscale Restaurants




According to "Forbes" magazine, the average gross profit margin for a fine-dining restaurant is around 60 percent. Based on their stated 38 to 42 percent food cost range, if you sell an entree for $30, the food cost will be between $11.40 and $12.60, leaving a gross profit of $17.40 to $18.60. However, food costs are only a portion of what upscale restaurants pay, and their net profit margins typically fall between 5 and 8 percent.

Which it should. Less taxes.

You forgot to mention; owners pay, spouse pay, kids pay, house payment, vacation home payment, girl friend/sugar baby payment, car payment, etc, all of which are deducted BEFORE NET PROFIT.

The owner does not get to write off his morgage, kids tuition, sidechick, etc. That would all be under owner's pay, if the owner even draws a salary.

I have six properties that are officially owned by corporations.

I didn't write 'kids tuition,' I wrote kids pay.

I have two sugar babies, both are 'employees' that receive a paycheck and benefits.

I guess I'm supposed to be impressed ... I just can't figure out why.

 

[OnePercenter]

I had to go to Walmart today on the wife's orders. Since I don't usually shop there I am not all that familiar with them. What struck me though, while watching the poor customer service, the rude behavior and the inability to make change, is that none of the employees I saw seemed to be worth whatever they are being paid let alone raising them to $15. A quick trip there should kill the idea of raising the minimum wage for any observant person.

It's amazing that with the bad employees that you listed, last year Walmart made $132B in gross profit. So maybe you're blowing smoke?

last year Walmart made $132B in gross profit.

What tax rate did they pay?

They paid 3% of total revenue in ALL taxes. The American worker pays 12% of wages in taxes.

Nice sleight of hand ....$132B in gross profit, and ONLY 3% of total revenue in taxes. When you're trying to hide something, the best way is to change the point of reference, right?

In case you didn't notice - and I'm sure you didn't - that means that Walmart paid $15 billion in taxes (on $488 billion total revenue). You also probably didn't notice that this was GROSS profit. Gross profit is defined as:

Revenue - (Direct materials + Direct labor + Factory overhead)

It does not include administrative costs (to include those costs necessary to maintain the work force - vacations, healthcare, etc.) Gross profit is a generally useless measurement of the efficiency, profitability, or value of a business. It is simply an intermediate step in the calculation of net profit (which IS a valid measurement of efficiency, etc.)

If you want to tell a story, at least tell the truth. Don't try to hoodwink the reader.

My attempt was to compare and contrast Walmart with a worker. Tax wise, Walmart paid 3% of all of the monies they made, the workers paid 12%+ of all of the monies they made.

 

[OnePercenter]

I've invested in restaurants. I know the numbers. A well planned/financed restaurant IS a huge money maker. At the low end, 20%. At the high end, 30% or more.

Which 'one' restaurant do you write of?

20~30% lol, talk about blowing smoke..I see you are still bullshitting


Gross Profit Margins for Upscale Restaurants




According to "Forbes" magazine, the average gross profit margin for a fine-dining restaurant is around 60 percent. Based on their stated 38 to 42 percent food cost range, if you sell an entree for $30, the food cost will be between $11.40 and $12.60, leaving a gross profit of $17.40 to $18.60. However, food costs are only a portion of what upscale restaurants pay, and their net profit margins typically fall between 5 and 8 percent.

Which it should. Less taxes.

You forgot to mention; owners pay, spouse pay, kids pay, house payment, vacation home payment, girl friend/sugar baby payment, car payment, etc, all of which are deducted BEFORE NET PROFIT.

The owner does not get to write off his morgage, kids tuition, sidechick, etc. That would all be under owner's pay, if the owner even draws a salary.

I have six properties that are officially owned by corporations.

I didn't write 'kids tuition,' I wrote kids pay.

I have two sugar babies, both are 'employees' that receive a paycheck and benefits.

I guess I'm supposed to be impressed ... I just can't figure out why.

I'm explaining how it's done and how foolish it is for worker bees to make excuses for corporations.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I had to go to Walmart today on the wife's orders. Since I don't usually shop there I am not all that familiar with them. What struck me though, while watching the poor customer service, the rude behavior and the inability to make change, is that none of the employees I saw seemed to be worth whatever they are being paid let alone raising them to $15. A quick trip there should kill the idea of raising the minimum wage for any observant person.

It's amazing that with the bad employees that you listed, last year Walmart made $132B in gross profit. So maybe you're blowing smoke?

last year Walmart made $132B in gross profit.

What tax rate did they pay?

They paid 3% of total revenue in ALL taxes. The American worker pays 12% of wages in taxes.

Nice sleight of hand ....$132B in gross profit, and ONLY 3% of total revenue in taxes. When you're trying to hide something, the best way is to change the point of reference, right?

In case you didn't notice - and I'm sure you didn't - that means that Walmart paid $15 billion in taxes (on $488 billion total revenue). You also probably didn't notice that this was GROSS profit. Gross profit is defined as:

Revenue - (Direct materials + Direct labor + Factory overhead)

It does not include administrative costs (to include those costs necessary to maintain the work force - vacations, healthcare, etc.) Gross profit is a generally useless measurement of the efficiency, profitability, or value of a business. It is simply an intermediate step in the calculation of net profit (which IS a valid measurement of efficiency, etc.)

If you want to tell a story, at least tell the truth. Don't try to hoodwink the reader.

My attempt was to compare and contrast Walmart with a worker. Tax wise, Walmart paid 3% of all of the monies they made, the workers paid 12%+ of all of the monies they made.

Tax wise, Walmart paid 3% of all of the monies they made

The fact that you think revenue = "monies they made" is why you're mocked here.

 

[OnePercenter]

No, you haven't, and no you don't. A good friend of mine is the Executive Chef for Hyatt Hotels worldwide, and he is far more knowledgeable in how they function than a known liar such as you.

Why don't you ask your Executive Chef friend these questions;

1) Who provides their food?

2) How is the food bill paid?

3) Is the food ordered by store or collectively by brands?

4) Percent markup on food and booze?

1. They do. They source the raw materials from local farms whenever possible.

2. By check

3. The raw material is ordered by individual restaurant, go's to a central office which collates the orders so they can do mass buys to save money and then the buyers head out to fill the orders.

4. Food markup is around 8-10% depending on which restaurant it is, the booze markup is over 40% depending on the type. Wine tends to get the best markup, but not always.

1) Sysco, through international contract. Local flavors

2) By wire transfer BEFORE the order is shipped.

3) Under an international contract food is ordered and delivered to the individual locations.

4) Food mark-up is minimum 400%, booze 500% to 700% or more.

Do you even know what those figures mean? 30% food costs means a markup of about 400% ---- you need to figure out what you are trying to say.

He's a clueless basement dweller. He tosses numbers out but has absolutely no clue what they mean, or what they refer to.

If I'm wrong then you should 'skool' me. The problem is, you don't know, so you can't.

 

[Muhammed]

"Liberal" policy?

Who the fuck is "Matt"?

His name is "Floor Matt! Asshole. He's one of those quadriplegics that lays on the floor in the foyer at Applebee's for your convenience to wipe off your shoes when you enter.

 

[OnePercenter]

It's amazing that with the bad employees that you listed, last year Walmart made $132B in gross profit. So maybe you're blowing smoke?

last year Walmart made $132B in gross profit.

What tax rate did they pay?

They paid 3% of total revenue in ALL taxes. The American worker pays 12% of wages in taxes.

Nice sleight of hand ....$132B in gross profit, and ONLY 3% of total revenue in taxes. When you're trying to hide something, the best way is to change the point of reference, right?

In case you didn't notice - and I'm sure you didn't - that means that Walmart paid $15 billion in taxes (on $488 billion total revenue). You also probably didn't notice that this was GROSS profit. Gross profit is defined as:

Revenue - (Direct materials + Direct labor + Factory overhead)

It does not include administrative costs (to include those costs necessary to maintain the work force - vacations, healthcare, etc.) Gross profit is a generally useless measurement of the efficiency, profitability, or value of a business. It is simply an intermediate step in the calculation of net profit (which IS a valid measurement of efficiency, etc.)

If you want to tell a story, at least tell the truth. Don't try to hoodwink the reader.

My attempt was to compare and contrast Walmart with a worker. Tax wise, Walmart paid 3% of all of the monies they made, the workers paid 12%+ of all of the monies they made.

Tax wise, Walmart paid 3% of all of the monies they made

The fact that you think revenue = "monies they made" is why you're mocked here.

I wrote; Tax wise, Walmart paid 3% of all of the monies they made, the workers paid 12%+ of all of the monies they made. Do you think that is fair?

 

[OnePercenter]

The bottom line: The Applebee's owner is full of shit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

last year Walmart made $132B in gross profit.

What tax rate did they pay?

They paid 3% of total revenue in ALL taxes. The American worker pays 12% of wages in taxes.

Nice sleight of hand ....$132B in gross profit, and ONLY 3% of total revenue in taxes. When you're trying to hide something, the best way is to change the point of reference, right?

In case you didn't notice - and I'm sure you didn't - that means that Walmart paid $15 billion in taxes (on $488 billion total revenue). You also probably didn't notice that this was GROSS profit. Gross profit is defined as:

Revenue - (Direct materials + Direct labor + Factory overhead)

It does not include administrative costs (to include those costs necessary to maintain the work force - vacations, healthcare, etc.) Gross profit is a generally useless measurement of the efficiency, profitability, or value of a business. It is simply an intermediate step in the calculation of net profit (which IS a valid measurement of efficiency, etc.)

If you want to tell a story, at least tell the truth. Don't try to hoodwink the reader.

My attempt was to compare and contrast Walmart with a worker. Tax wise, Walmart paid 3% of all of the monies they made, the workers paid 12%+ of all of the monies they made.

Tax wise, Walmart paid 3% of all of the monies they made

The fact that you think revenue = "monies they made" is why you're mocked here.

I wrote; Tax wise, Walmart paid 3% of all of the monies they made, the workers paid 12%+ of all of the monies they made. Do you think that is fair?

I wrote; Tax wise, Walmart paid 3% of all of the monies they made

I wrote, The fact that you think revenue = "monies they made" is why you're mocked here.

Do you think that is fair?

Comparing revenue to income isn't fair.

 

[westwall]

The bottom line: The Applebee's owner is full of shit.

If he were, he wouldn't be closing restaurants. It makes no sense to close restaurants if they make money now does it? Seems it is you who doesn't know your ass from the proverbial hole in the ground.

 

[OnePercenter]

They paid 3% of total revenue in ALL taxes. The American worker pays 12% of wages in taxes.

Nice sleight of hand ....$132B in gross profit, and ONLY 3% of total revenue in taxes. When you're trying to hide something, the best way is to change the point of reference, right?

In case you didn't notice - and I'm sure you didn't - that means that Walmart paid $15 billion in taxes (on $488 billion total revenue). You also probably didn't notice that this was GROSS profit. Gross profit is defined as:

Revenue - (Direct materials + Direct labor + Factory overhead)

It does not include administrative costs (to include those costs necessary to maintain the work force - vacations, healthcare, etc.) Gross profit is a generally useless measurement of the efficiency, profitability, or value of a business. It is simply an intermediate step in the calculation of net profit (which IS a valid measurement of efficiency, etc.)

If you want to tell a story, at least tell the truth. Don't try to hoodwink the reader.

My attempt was to compare and contrast Walmart with a worker. Tax wise, Walmart paid 3% of all of the monies they made, the workers paid 12%+ of all of the monies they made.

Tax wise, Walmart paid 3% of all of the monies they made

The fact that you think revenue = "monies they made" is why you're mocked here.

I wrote; Tax wise, Walmart paid 3% of all of the monies they made, the workers paid 12%+ of all of the monies they made. Do you think that is fair?

I wrote; Tax wise, Walmart paid 3% of all of the monies they made

I wrote, The fact that you think revenue = "monies they made" is why you're mocked here.

Do you think that is fair?

Comparing revenue to income isn't fair.

I'm being mocked by showing the working guy how he/she is being bilked?

 

[OnePercenter]

The bottom line: The Applebee's owner is full of shit.

If he were, he wouldn't be closing restaurants. It makes no sense to close restaurants if they make money now does it? Seems it is you who doesn't know your ass from the proverbial hole in the ground.

Read the link. He's re-branding restaurants and completely misleading on the connoisseur concept.

 

[Muhammed]

last year Walmart made $132B in gross profit.

What tax rate did they pay?

They paid 3% of total revenue in ALL taxes. The American worker pays 12% of wages in taxes.

Nice sleight of hand ....$132B in gross profit, and ONLY 3% of total revenue in taxes. When you're trying to hide something, the best way is to change the point of reference, right?

In case you didn't notice - and I'm sure you didn't - that means that Walmart paid $15 billion in taxes (on $488 billion total revenue). You also probably didn't notice that this was GROSS profit. Gross profit is defined as:

Revenue - (Direct materials + Direct labor + Factory overhead)

It does not include administrative costs (to include those costs necessary to maintain the work force - vacations, healthcare, etc.) Gross profit is a generally useless measurement of the efficiency, profitability, or value of a business. It is simply an intermediate step in the calculation of net profit (which IS a valid measurement of efficiency, etc.)

If you want to tell a story, at least tell the truth. Don't try to hoodwink the reader.

My attempt was to compare and contrast Walmart with a worker. Tax wise, Walmart paid 3% of all of the monies they made, the workers paid 12%+ of all of the monies they made.

Tax wise, Walmart paid 3% of all of the monies they made

The fact that you think revenue = "monies they made" is why you're mocked here.

I wrote; Tax wise, Walmart paid 3% of all of the monies they made, the workers paid 12%+ of all of the monies they made. Do you think that is fair?

I think they should go on strike.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nice sleight of hand ....$132B in gross profit, and ONLY 3% of total revenue in taxes. When you're trying to hide something, the best way is to change the point of reference, right?

In case you didn't notice - and I'm sure you didn't - that means that Walmart paid $15 billion in taxes (on $488 billion total revenue). You also probably didn't notice that this was GROSS profit. Gross profit is defined as:

Revenue - (Direct materials + Direct labor + Factory overhead)

It does not include administrative costs (to include those costs necessary to maintain the work force - vacations, healthcare, etc.) Gross profit is a generally useless measurement of the efficiency, profitability, or value of a business. It is simply an intermediate step in the calculation of net profit (which IS a valid measurement of efficiency, etc.)

If you want to tell a story, at least tell the truth. Don't try to hoodwink the reader.

My attempt was to compare and contrast Walmart with a worker. Tax wise, Walmart paid 3% of all of the monies they made, the workers paid 12%+ of all of the monies they made.

Tax wise, Walmart paid 3% of all of the monies they made

The fact that you think revenue = "monies they made" is why you're mocked here.

I wrote; Tax wise, Walmart paid 3% of all of the monies they made, the workers paid 12%+ of all of the monies they made. Do you think that is fair?

I wrote; Tax wise, Walmart paid 3% of all of the monies they made

I wrote, The fact that you think revenue = "monies they made" is why you're mocked here.

Do you think that is fair?

Comparing revenue to income isn't fair.

I'm being mocked by showing the working guy how he/she is being bilked?

Comparing apples and oranges is why you're being mocked.