Chick-fil-A restaurant in CA will pay employees $17 an hour

[Wyatt earp]

lol you don't know jack shit

I know more than you......low bar, admittedly.


No, $17 an hour is, dumbass

Hey, fucktard, it you only add $10 an hour in value, you won't get hired at $17 an hour, you'll be unemployed

at $0 an hour.

Oh pipe down, troll; you're just another spammer with an agenda, and an especially dumb one at that. You know nothing about business or labor costs, period, and you know squat about 'adding value' to anything. You don't even know how to fill out those 1040 EZ's you have HR Block do for you every year. You just take their word for it what you owe.

Anybody who can't pay $17 an hour isn't doing enough business to hire anybody in the first place. IT's either a glutted market, or one of no real value to anybody. That's all there is to it.

No the troll is you ...todd knows exactly what he is talking about


.

No, he doesn't, which why none of you losers ever post any real numbers to back up the stupid bullshit. that's because they don't exist.

It's a zero game that's all minimum wage is, and I won't say anymore, you have an IQ of like 23..

.

That's 22 points higher than yours. Go ahead and show us how much $17 an hour is going to add to the average fast food order at any store with a decent business.. We'll wait. Well, maybe not for Todster, since he has no idea what the question even means.

So now we are just talking the fast food bussiness?


You are stupid 50% of American workers make less then $17 an hour

.

 

[hadit]

[

How long have you been obsessed with me that you would say that? Seriously, do you think I'm in the idle rich class?

I'm just answering your posts, so who's 'obsessed', here? ....

Now stop trying to change the subject onto me.

that's pretty funny, since that's what you resorted to almost immediately ',,, as always.

We're talking about those who take huge risks being able to earn big rewards and those who envy them.

They aren't 'taking hug risks', they're hiding behind a wonderful gimmick called 'limited liability corporations'.

Try again.

They aren't 'taking hug risks', they're hiding behind a wonderful gimmick called 'limited liability corporations'.

And nobody ever loses money when they run an LLC...…….moron!

their personal wealth is protected; they aren't taking 'huge risks'. Get back to me when shareholders have to start paying their own bills and debts they owe to the penny instead of that crooked stop-loss scam that lets them keep whatever they plundered out of the companies over the weekend before filing bankruptcy on Monday.

As I said and you keep on proving in every post, you don't know shit about any of it, you're just a parrot.

You obviously have never started a business, never struggled to make it succeed, never had to meet payroll when cash flow fell off. In short, you're arguing from a position of vast ignorance.

Now, please try to get the subject back on me. I'm fascinating.

 

[hadit]

Another Hero of the Corporate Ass Kissers

Right, understanding economics means I'm an ass kisser. DERP!!

lol you don't know jack shit; you're just another parrot.

in the comfort of fast food workers making $7.25 an hour.

$0 is so much better than $7.25.

No, $17 an hour is, dumbass. See, you're too stupid to get by without somebody holding your hand.

lol you don't know jack shit

I know more than you......low bar, admittedly.


No, $17 an hour is, dumbass

Hey, fucktard, it you only add $10 an hour in value, you won't get hired at $17 an hour, you'll be unemployed

at $0 an hour.

Oh pipe down, troll; you're just another spammer with an agenda, and an especially dumb one at that. You know nothing about business or labor costs, period, and you know squat about 'adding value' to anything. You don't even know how to fill out those 1040 EZ's you have HR Block do for you every year. You just take their word for it what you owe.

Anybody who can't pay $17 an hour isn't doing enough business to hire anybody in the first place. IT's either a glutted market, or one of no real value to anybody. That's all there is to it.

Anybody who can't pay $17 an hour isn't doing enough business to hire anybody in the first place.

And that's why you don't care if your hike in the minimum wage costs low skilled people their jobs. ​

Hadit, seems to have had it, with providing any rebuttals.

That isn't the case in Seattle or San Francisco. Both have lower unemployment rates than the national average.

You have no explanation. The left does.

Seattle and San Fransisco also have a lot of wealthy people who don't mind paying more for stuff. You're ignoring that.

 

[danielpalos]

lol you don't know jack shit; you're just another parrot.

No, $17 an hour is, dumbass. See, you're too stupid to get by without somebody holding your hand.

lol you don't know jack shit

I know more than you......low bar, admittedly.


No, $17 an hour is, dumbass

Hey, fucktard, it you only add $10 an hour in value, you won't get hired at $17 an hour, you'll be unemployed

at $0 an hour.

Oh pipe down, troll; you're just another spammer with an agenda, and an especially dumb one at that. You know nothing about business or labor costs, period, and you know squat about 'adding value' to anything. You don't even know how to fill out those 1040 EZ's you have HR Block do for you every year. You just take their word for it what you owe.

Anybody who can't pay $17 an hour isn't doing enough business to hire anybody in the first place. IT's either a glutted market, or one of no real value to anybody. That's all there is to it.

Anybody who can't pay $17 an hour isn't doing enough business to hire anybody in the first place.

And that's why you don't care if your hike in the minimum wage costs low skilled people their jobs. ​

Hadit, seems to have had it, with providing any rebuttals.

That isn't the case in Seattle or San Francisco. Both have lower unemployment rates than the national average.

You have no explanation. The left does.

Seattle and San Fransisco also have a lot of wealthy people who don't mind paying more for stuff. You're ignoring that.

Doesn't explain it. Seattle has a fifteen dollar an hour an hour minimum wage. San Francisco has a fourteen dollar an hour minimum wage. Why is the Unemployment rate lower, if not for more People looking for work at that wage rate?

 

[hadit]

[

How long have you been obsessed with me that you would say that? Seriously, do you think I'm in the idle rich class?

I'm just answering your posts, so who's 'obsessed', here? ....

Now stop trying to change the subject onto me.

that's pretty funny, since that's what you resorted to almost immediately ',,, as always.

We're talking about those who take huge risks being able to earn big rewards and those who envy them.

They aren't 'taking hug risks', they're hiding behind a wonderful gimmick called 'limited liability corporations'.

Try again.

"As always"? Just how long have you been following me around? Fess up, you're obsessed with me, aren't you?

 

[Wyatt earp]

lol you don't know jack shit

I know more than you......low bar, admittedly.


No, $17 an hour is, dumbass

Hey, fucktard, it you only add $10 an hour in value, you won't get hired at $17 an hour, you'll be unemployed

at $0 an hour.

Oh pipe down, troll; you're just another spammer with an agenda, and an especially dumb one at that. You know nothing about business or labor costs, period, and you know squat about 'adding value' to anything. You don't even know how to fill out those 1040 EZ's you have HR Block do for you every year. You just take their word for it what you owe.

Anybody who can't pay $17 an hour isn't doing enough business to hire anybody in the first place. IT's either a glutted market, or one of no real value to anybody. That's all there is to it.

Anybody who can't pay $17 an hour isn't doing enough business to hire anybody in the first place.

And that's why you don't care if your hike in the minimum wage costs low skilled people their jobs. ​

Hadit, seems to have had it, with providing any rebuttals.

That isn't the case in Seattle or San Francisco. Both have lower unemployment rates than the national average.

You have no explanation. The left does.

Seattle and San Fransisco also have a lot of wealthy people who don't mind paying more for stuff. You're ignoring that.

Doesn't explain it. Seattle has a fifteen dollar an hour an hour minimum wage. San Francisco has a fourteen dollar an hour minimum wage. Why is the Unemployment rate lower, if not for more People looking for work at that wage rate?

We are so impressed


Seattle still doesn’t know what to do with thousands of people living in vehicles

Seattle still doesn't know what to do with thousands of people living in vehicles ...
The Seattle Times › homeless › seattle-stil...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, he doesn't, which why none of you losers ever post any real numbers to back up the stupid bullshit. that's because they don't exist.

It's a zero game that's all minimum wage is, and I won't say anymore, you have an IQ of like 23..

.

That's 22 points higher than yours. Go ahead and show us how much $17 an hour is going to add to the average fast food order at any store with a decent business.. We'll wait. Well, maybe not for Todster, since he has no idea what the question even means.

Go ahead and show us how much $17 an hour is going to add to the average fast food order at any store with a decent business..

Sounds like an interesting exercise.
You should definitely open a fast food restaurant, pay all your employees at least $17/hour and be
sure to post your results here. Your food will probably be cheaper than all your competitors, and your profits higher, because you're such an economics wiz.

We have metrics from establishments that passed on that cost via a surcharge.

No where near what right wing hearsayers and right wing soothsayers claim.

At the average McDonalds', it would add in the neighbor hood of 11 cents per order to raise the wages from $7.25 to $17 an hour. The cheapest order is around $1, or 11%, with a drink $2, or 5.5%, a regular breakfast meal at $4 or so, 2.75 %, etc., etc, etc. That Big giant increase in burgers?Well, a Big Mc meal is what, now, $6 or so? 1.8%

At the average McDonalds', it would add in the neighbor hood of 11 cents per order to raise the wages from $7.25 to $17 an hour.

An extra 975 cents per employee per hour would be paid for by 11 cents per order?
That would mean 89 orders per hour per employee. How many employees? 7? More?
I don't think your numbers add up.

Owning a McDonald’s Franchise: Purchase Cost vs. Annual Profit

Assuming "Crew Payroll" is the minimum wage employees, 17/7.25=2.345,
2.345 x 540,000 = 1,266,207. An increase of 726k.
726000/2700000(net sales) = 27%.

You think 11 cents an order is 27%? DERP!

Keep talking out of your ass, it's amusing.

 

[hadit]

lol you don't know jack shit

I know more than you......low bar, admittedly.


No, $17 an hour is, dumbass

Hey, fucktard, it you only add $10 an hour in value, you won't get hired at $17 an hour, you'll be unemployed

at $0 an hour.

Oh pipe down, troll; you're just another spammer with an agenda, and an especially dumb one at that. You know nothing about business or labor costs, period, and you know squat about 'adding value' to anything. You don't even know how to fill out those 1040 EZ's you have HR Block do for you every year. You just take their word for it what you owe.

Anybody who can't pay $17 an hour isn't doing enough business to hire anybody in the first place. IT's either a glutted market, or one of no real value to anybody. That's all there is to it.

Anybody who can't pay $17 an hour isn't doing enough business to hire anybody in the first place.

And that's why you don't care if your hike in the minimum wage costs low skilled people their jobs. ​

Hadit, seems to have had it, with providing any rebuttals.

That isn't the case in Seattle or San Francisco. Both have lower unemployment rates than the national average.

You have no explanation. The left does.

Seattle and San Fransisco also have a lot of wealthy people who don't mind paying more for stuff. You're ignoring that.

Doesn't explain it. Seattle has a fifteen dollar an hour an hour minimum wage. San Francisco has a fourteen dollar an hour minimum wage. Why is the Unemployment rate lower, if not for more People looking for work at that wage rate?

In case you haven't noticed, UE is down all over the country, which means labor is more valuable, which means employers are willing to pay more for it. Those two cities have enough wealth and economic activity that they can afford higher wages. You simply have cause and effect backwards.

Now, you try to impose a $15/he MW on Mobile, Ala and the story would be a little different. IOW, you're cherry picking two outliers and pretending they represent the entire graph.

 

[JoeMoma]

Oh pipe down, troll; you're just another spammer with an agenda, and an especially dumb one at that. You know nothing about business or labor costs, period, and you know squat about 'adding value' to anything. You don't even know how to fill out those 1040 EZ's you have HR Block do for you every year. You just take their word for it what you owe.

Anybody who can't pay $17 an hour isn't doing enough business to hire anybody in the first place. IT's either a glutted market, or one of no real value to anybody. That's all there is to it.

Anybody who can't pay $17 an hour isn't doing enough business to hire anybody in the first place.

And that's why you don't care if your hike in the minimum wage costs low skilled people their jobs. ​

Hadit, seems to have had it, with providing any rebuttals.

That isn't the case in Seattle or San Francisco. Both have lower unemployment rates than the national average.

You have no explanation. The left does.

Seattle and San Fransisco also have a lot of wealthy people who don't mind paying more for stuff. You're ignoring that.

Doesn't explain it. Seattle has a fifteen dollar an hour an hour minimum wage. San Francisco has a fourteen dollar an hour minimum wage. Why is the Unemployment rate lower, if not for more People looking for work at that wage rate?

We are so impressed


Seattle still doesn’t know what to do with thousands of people living in vehicles

Seattle still doesn't know what to do with thousands of people living in vehicles ...
The Seattle Times › homeless › seattle-stil...


View attachment 200315

I bet the homeless are not counted in the unemployment figures.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Anybody who can't pay $17 an hour isn't doing enough business to hire anybody in the first place.

And that's why you don't care if your hike in the minimum wage costs low skilled people their jobs. ​

Hadit, seems to have had it, with providing any rebuttals.

That isn't the case in Seattle or San Francisco. Both have lower unemployment rates than the national average.

You have no explanation. The left does.

Seattle and San Fransisco also have a lot of wealthy people who don't mind paying more for stuff. You're ignoring that.

Doesn't explain it. Seattle has a fifteen dollar an hour an hour minimum wage. San Francisco has a fourteen dollar an hour minimum wage. Why is the Unemployment rate lower, if not for more People looking for work at that wage rate?

We are so impressed


Seattle still doesn’t know what to do with thousands of people living in vehicles

Seattle still doesn't know what to do with thousands of people living in vehicles ...
The Seattle Times › homeless › seattle-stil...


View attachment 200315

I bet the homeless are not counted in the unemployment figures.

Not unless they actively looked for a job in the last 4 weeks.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Employers at these fast food outlets have fewer employees so they can afford to pay more. The newer Chick fil As have no dining rooms nor restrooms. There are four employees. One for the walk up window. One for the drive up window
Two for the kitchen. Of course they can pay more. No customer can get inside the building. There is only outdoor patio seating. The tables and chairs are bolted to the concrete.

It's the future.

 

[danielpalos]

Oh pipe down, troll; you're just another spammer with an agenda, and an especially dumb one at that. You know nothing about business or labor costs, period, and you know squat about 'adding value' to anything. You don't even know how to fill out those 1040 EZ's you have HR Block do for you every year. You just take their word for it what you owe.

Anybody who can't pay $17 an hour isn't doing enough business to hire anybody in the first place. IT's either a glutted market, or one of no real value to anybody. That's all there is to it.

Anybody who can't pay $17 an hour isn't doing enough business to hire anybody in the first place.

And that's why you don't care if your hike in the minimum wage costs low skilled people their jobs. ​

Hadit, seems to have had it, with providing any rebuttals.

That isn't the case in Seattle or San Francisco. Both have lower unemployment rates than the national average.

You have no explanation. The left does.

Seattle and San Fransisco also have a lot of wealthy people who don't mind paying more for stuff. You're ignoring that.

Doesn't explain it. Seattle has a fifteen dollar an hour an hour minimum wage. San Francisco has a fourteen dollar an hour minimum wage. Why is the Unemployment rate lower, if not for more People looking for work at that wage rate?

We are so impressed


Seattle still doesn’t know what to do with thousands of people living in vehicles

Seattle still doesn't know what to do with thousands of people living in vehicles ...
The Seattle Times › homeless › seattle-stil...


View attachment 200315

Right to work States are even less, impressive. At least, those who Can Find a Job in our "impressive right wing economy", can make enough to get out of that condition.

 

[OnePercenter]

Then why aren't any conservatives happy about:

Chick-fil-A restaurant in CA will pay employees $17 an hour

The poor may benefit.

The Working Poor will.

The ones laid off because their employer is forced to pay more than their labor is worth will not.

Workers are laid off for two reasons:

1) The employer is an idiot.

2) Investors want unrealistic returns.

You're displaying an astonishing lack of knowledge regarding business.

A perfect example of an idiot employer is Hostess Brands. Hostess failed to follow the "health kick" that fat Americans started in the 80's and never recovered.

McDonalds investors wanted higher returns. McDonalds answered back with a 36% increase to investors from 1999 to 2016. To pay for this, McDonalds laid off in 1998 and announced another set of layoff's this month.

 

[danielpalos]

It's a zero game that's all minimum wage is, and I won't say anymore, you have an IQ of like 23..

.

That's 22 points higher than yours. Go ahead and show us how much $17 an hour is going to add to the average fast food order at any store with a decent business.. We'll wait. Well, maybe not for Todster, since he has no idea what the question even means.

Go ahead and show us how much $17 an hour is going to add to the average fast food order at any store with a decent business..

Sounds like an interesting exercise.
You should definitely open a fast food restaurant, pay all your employees at least $17/hour and be
sure to post your results here. Your food will probably be cheaper than all your competitors, and your profits higher, because you're such an economics wiz.

We have metrics from establishments that passed on that cost via a surcharge.

No where near what right wing hearsayers and right wing soothsayers claim.

At the average McDonalds', it would add in the neighbor hood of 11 cents per order to raise the wages from $7.25 to $17 an hour. The cheapest order is around $1, or 11%, with a drink $2, or 5.5%, a regular breakfast meal at $4 or so, 2.75 %, etc., etc, etc. That Big giant increase in burgers?Well, a Big Mc meal is what, now, $6 or so? 1.8%

At the average McDonalds', it would add in the neighbor hood of 11 cents per order to raise the wages from $7.25 to $17 an hour.

An extra 975 cents per employee per hour would be paid for by 11 cents per order?
That would mean 89 orders per hour per employee. How many employees? 7? More?
I don't think your numbers add up.

View attachment 200314
Owning a McDonald’s Franchise: Purchase Cost vs. Annual Profit

Assuming "Crew Payroll" is the minimum wage employees, 17/7.25=2.345,
2.345 x 540,000 = 1,266,207. An increase of 726k.
726000/2700000(net sales) = 27%.

You think 11 cents an order is 27%? DERP!

Keep talking out of your ass, it's amusing.

Capitalists get tax breaks for simply paying wages. Labor does not get a tax break for simply working.

 

[danielpalos]

Oh pipe down, troll; you're just another spammer with an agenda, and an especially dumb one at that. You know nothing about business or labor costs, period, and you know squat about 'adding value' to anything. You don't even know how to fill out those 1040 EZ's you have HR Block do for you every year. You just take their word for it what you owe.

Anybody who can't pay $17 an hour isn't doing enough business to hire anybody in the first place. IT's either a glutted market, or one of no real value to anybody. That's all there is to it.

Anybody who can't pay $17 an hour isn't doing enough business to hire anybody in the first place.

And that's why you don't care if your hike in the minimum wage costs low skilled people their jobs. ​

Hadit, seems to have had it, with providing any rebuttals.

That isn't the case in Seattle or San Francisco. Both have lower unemployment rates than the national average.

You have no explanation. The left does.

Seattle and San Fransisco also have a lot of wealthy people who don't mind paying more for stuff. You're ignoring that.

Doesn't explain it. Seattle has a fifteen dollar an hour an hour minimum wage. San Francisco has a fourteen dollar an hour minimum wage. Why is the Unemployment rate lower, if not for more People looking for work at that wage rate?

In case you haven't noticed, UE is down all over the country, which means labor is more valuable, which means employers are willing to pay more for it. Those two cities have enough wealth and economic activity that they can afford higher wages. You simply have cause and effect backwards.

Now, you try to impose a $15/he MW on Mobile, Ala and the story would be a little different. IOW, you're cherry picking two outliers and pretending they represent the entire graph.

Nope. Doesn't explain it. Two different States.

Monopsony, explains it. A statutory minimum wage is what causes it. Normally, people respond to prices.

 

[OnePercenter]

Another Hero of the Corporate Ass Kissers

Right, understanding economics means I'm an ass kisser. DERP!!

lol you don't know jack shit; you're just another parrot.

in the comfort of fast food workers making $7.25 an hour.

$0 is so much better than $7.25.

No, $17 an hour is, dumbass. See, you're too stupid to get by without somebody holding your hand.

lol you don't know jack shit

I know more than you......low bar, admittedly.


No, $17 an hour is, dumbass

Hey, fucktard, it you only add $10 an hour in value, you won't get hired at $17 an hour, you'll be unemployed

at $0 an hour.

Oh pipe down, troll; you're just another spammer with an agenda, and an especially dumb one at that. You know nothing about business or labor costs, period, and you know squat about 'adding value' to anything. You don't even know how to fill out those 1040 EZ's you have HR Block do for you every year. You just take their word for it what you owe.

Anybody who can't pay $17 an hour isn't doing enough business to hire anybody in the first place. IT's either a glutted market, or one of no real value to anybody. That's all there is to it.

Let me guess. You've never had to make a payroll, have you?

If you do it correctly it isn't an issue.

Being adequately financed, know who to hire (which can be farmed out), and NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, hire relatives.

 

[OnePercenter]

[

How long have you been obsessed with me that you would say that? Seriously, do you think I'm in the idle rich class?

I'm just answering your posts, so who's 'obsessed', here? ....

Now stop trying to change the subject onto me.

that's pretty funny, since that's what you resorted to almost immediately ',,, as always.

We're talking about those who take huge risks being able to earn big rewards and those who envy them.

They aren't 'taking hug risks', they're hiding behind a wonderful gimmick called 'limited liability corporations'.

Try again.

They aren't 'taking hug risks', they're hiding behind a wonderful gimmick called 'limited liability corporations'.

And nobody ever loses money when they run an LLC...…….moron!

their personal wealth is protected; they aren't taking 'huge risks'. Get back to me when shareholders have to start paying their own bills and debts they owe to the penny instead of that crooked stop-loss scam that lets them keep whatever they plundered out of the companies over the weekend before filing bankruptcy on Monday.

As I said and you keep on proving in every post, you don't know shit about any of it, you're just a parrot.

their personal wealth is protected;

Except for the wealth they invested in the LLC.

How much "wealth" does it take to open a shell company?

 

[OnePercenter]

[

How long have you been obsessed with me that you would say that? Seriously, do you think I'm in the idle rich class?

I'm just answering your posts, so who's 'obsessed', here? ....

Now stop trying to change the subject onto me.

that's pretty funny, since that's what you resorted to almost immediately ',,, as always.

We're talking about those who take huge risks being able to earn big rewards and those who envy them.

They aren't 'taking hug risks', they're hiding behind a wonderful gimmick called 'limited liability corporations'.

Try again.

"As always"? Just how long have you been following me around? Fess up, you're obsessed with me, aren't you?

As we all know, it's all about you!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[

How long have you been obsessed with me that you would say that? Seriously, do you think I'm in the idle rich class?

I'm just answering your posts, so who's 'obsessed', here? ....

Now stop trying to change the subject onto me.

that's pretty funny, since that's what you resorted to almost immediately ',,, as always.

We're talking about those who take huge risks being able to earn big rewards and those who envy them.

They aren't 'taking hug risks', they're hiding behind a wonderful gimmick called 'limited liability corporations'.

Try again.

They aren't 'taking hug risks', they're hiding behind a wonderful gimmick called 'limited liability corporations'.

And nobody ever loses money when they run an LLC...…….moron!

their personal wealth is protected; they aren't taking 'huge risks'. Get back to me when shareholders have to start paying their own bills and debts they owe to the penny instead of that crooked stop-loss scam that lets them keep whatever they plundered out of the companies over the weekend before filing bankruptcy on Monday.

As I said and you keep on proving in every post, you don't know shit about any of it, you're just a parrot.

their personal wealth is protected;

Except for the wealth they invested in the LLC.

How much "wealth" does it take to open a shell company?

How much?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Another Hero of the Corporate Ass Kissers

Right, understanding economics means I'm an ass kisser. DERP!!

lol you don't know jack shit; you're just another parrot.

in the comfort of fast food workers making $7.25 an hour.

$0 is so much better than $7.25.

No, $17 an hour is, dumbass. See, you're too stupid to get by without somebody holding your hand.

lol you don't know jack shit

I know more than you......low bar, admittedly.


No, $17 an hour is, dumbass

Hey, fucktard, it you only add $10 an hour in value, you won't get hired at $17 an hour, you'll be unemployed

at $0 an hour.

Oh pipe down, troll; you're just another spammer with an agenda, and an especially dumb one at that. You know nothing about business or labor costs, period, and you know squat about 'adding value' to anything. You don't even know how to fill out those 1040 EZ's you have HR Block do for you every year. You just take their word for it what you owe.

Anybody who can't pay $17 an hour isn't doing enough business to hire anybody in the first place. IT's either a glutted market, or one of no real value to anybody. That's all there is to it.

Let me guess. You've never had to make a payroll, have you?

If you do it correctly it isn't an issue.

Being adequately financed, know who to hire (which can be farmed out), and NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, hire relatives.

Wow such great words of advice, so your telling is your lemonade stand failed, huh?