Seattle minimum wage hike brings lawsuits

[OnePercenter]

If a business operates on a thin profit margin it's because they made it that way from funneling off profit. Net profit, corporate paychecks, corporate credit cards, paying house payments, etc.

It's called deferred income. You can't spend it but you can invest it, and more importantly you can borrow on it. Long term-interest only....think about it.

Yes. It's actually an everyday thing, but don't tell anyone.

WRONG! Smart-Rich-Guy.

You mean like absolutely any employee can put money in their 401K and then borrow against their 401K.... think about it?

So borrowing on a 401K and deferring income are the same?

And I highly doubt anyone would use company money, to buy a property, because that would make the property a possible liability to the company.

In other words, if I own an LLC, the entire purpose of doing that is to limit my liability. Hence the name "limited liability corporation".

If I pay my mortgage with money still in the LLC, that would make the property liable. If the company get's sued, they could very easily make a case that the property is owned by the company, and I could lose my home.... defeating the entire purpose of having the LLC to begin with.

Are there some people who do this? Perhaps. But I would wage few and far between. Most likely people who don't realize just how much danger they are putting their personal residence at. You claim it happens often, but I doubt it.

You've never heard of a home owned by a business? I have 3.

 

[Andylusion]

If a business operates on a thin profit margin it's because they made it that way from funneling off profit. Net profit, corporate paychecks, corporate credit cards, paying house payments, etc.

You have clearly never run a business. More than likely, you were born with a silver spoon up your ass & never WORKED a day in your life.

You are dumb as rat shit.

My point being is why would you have a business that has a thin profit margin?

Your question makes no sense. Most businesses have a thin profit margin.
Here Are The Profit Margins For Every Sector In The S&P 500 - Business Insider

How many businesses do you see with a net profit margin over 10%?

The average profit margin at a Walmart is just 3%.

The HR Capitalist: Brain Flex: You Own a McDonald's Franchise - How Much Would You Pay For 10% More in Revenue?

McDonald's shows an average profit margin of 6% to 8%.

Where do you get this idea that all businesses are raking in 20% profit margins? You must have a government contract business. That's about the only place outside of Pharma, that you see high profit margins.

 

[Andylusion]

It's called deferred income. You can't spend it but you can invest it, and more importantly you can borrow on it. Long term-interest only....think about it.

Yes. It's actually an everyday thing, but don't tell anyone.

WRONG! Smart-Rich-Guy.

So borrowing on a 401K and deferring income are the same?

And I highly doubt anyone would use company money, to buy a property, because that would make the property a possible liability to the company.

In other words, if I own an LLC, the entire purpose of doing that is to limit my liability. Hence the name "limited liability corporation".

If I pay my mortgage with money still in the LLC, that would make the property liable. If the company get's sued, they could very easily make a case that the property is owned by the company, and I could lose my home.... defeating the entire purpose of having the LLC to begin with.

Are there some people who do this? Perhaps. But I would wage few and far between. Most likely people who don't realize just how much danger they are putting their personal residence at. You claim it happens often, but I doubt it.

You've never heard of a home owned by a business? I have 3.

It's not that common, and again, if someone sues the business, or the business has fiscal troubles, you lose the house. It's not a wise move.

Not unless the home itself, is the business. Such as rental property. Once you have three or four fully paid for rental properties you should have them placed into LLCs to protect them from liability. Thus no single law suit can collect all of your properties, but only those in the specific LLC being sued.

Again, if you are operating a burger stand, the whole point of having the LLC, is to protect your private property, from someone suing the business. If you had the burger stand own the property, and someone sued the burger stand, they could take your home. That would be rather dumb on the part of the business owner.

As for deferred comp, and 401K, as far as I know, they are fairly well the same tax wise. And they are the same as far as the rules of borrowing.

But I'm more than open to the idea they may not be. Please explain how.

 

[PoliticalChic]

They are going at this the wrong way, States and by extension the cities within them are prohibited by the Constitution from impairing the obligations of contracts, that would include employment contracts. These communist enclaves need to be taught they are not exempt from the Constitution.

Alas, I sigh for the days when the Constitution was honored....before FDR cowed the court, and shredded that document.




1. ...the 1935 U.S. Supreme Court case Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, in which the “Four Horsemen” — Supreme Court Justices George Sutherland, James C. McReynolds, Willis Van Devanter, and Pierce Butler — banded together in an unsuccessful attempt to hold back the forces of statism and collectivism.


2. The Blaisdells, like so many other Americans in the early 1930s, lacked the money to make their mortgage payments. They defaulted and the bank foreclosed, selling the home at the foreclosure sale. The Minnesota legislature had enacted a law that provided that a debtor could go to court and seek a further extension of time in which to redeem the property. The Supreme Court of Minnesota upheld the constitutionality of the new redemption law, and the bank appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.


3. Constitution: “No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts. . ..”

Did the Minnesota redemption law impair the loan contract between the building and loan association and the Blaisdells? It would seem rather obvious that it did. But in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held otherwise. American statists and collectivists won the Blaisdell case, which helped to open the floodgates on laws, rules, and regulations at the state level governing economic activity in America. And their leader, Franklin Roosevelt, was leading their charge on a national level.


4. In the old horse-and-buggy era, the individual and his freedom were supreme but now in the new modern era, the collective interests of “society” would have to prevail.

And society could no longer be bound by such quaint notions of constitutional limitations on state power, especially not during emergencies and especially not when the “good of all” depends on state action.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0302a.asp



This is the way the world ends:
This is the way the world ends:
Not with a bang but a whimper.

The Hollow Men

 

[Andylusion]

They are going at this the wrong way, States and by extension the cities within them are prohibited by the Constitution from impairing the obligations of contracts, that would include employment contracts. These communist enclaves need to be taught they are not exempt from the Constitution.

Alas, I sigh for the days when the Constitution was honored....before FDR cowed the court, and shredded that document.




1. ...the 1935 U.S. Supreme Court case Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, in which the “Four Horsemen” — Supreme Court Justices George Sutherland, James C. McReynolds, Willis Van Devanter, and Pierce Butler — banded together in an unsuccessful attempt to hold back the forces of statism and collectivism.


2. The Blaisdells, like so many other Americans in the early 1930s, lacked the money to make their mortgage payments. They defaulted and the bank foreclosed, selling the home at the foreclosure sale. The Minnesota legislature had enacted a law that provided that a debtor could go to court and seek a further extension of time in which to redeem the property. The Supreme Court of Minnesota upheld the constitutionality of the new redemption law, and the bank appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.


3. Constitution: “No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts. . ..”

Did the Minnesota redemption law impair the loan contract between the building and loan association and the Blaisdells? It would seem rather obvious that it did. But in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held otherwise. American statists and collectivists won the Blaisdell case, which helped to open the floodgates on laws, rules, and regulations at the state level governing economic activity in America. And their leader, Franklin Roosevelt, was leading their charge on a national level.


4. In the old horse-and-buggy era, the individual and his freedom were supreme but now in the new modern era, the collective interests of “society” would have to prevail.

And society could no longer be bound by such quaint notions of constitutional limitations on state power, especially not during emergencies and especially not when the “good of all” depends on state action.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0302a.asp



This is the way the world ends:
This is the way the world ends:
Not with a bang but a whimper.

The Hollow Men

So here is my question.

Constitution: “No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts. . ..”

So does this also apply to contracts that do not exist?

In other words, clearly the state can't make a law that invalidates an existing contract.

But does that apply to contracts not yet created? I am unemployed (let's say), and you say that they can not pass a law saything an existing employer employee contract must pay x wage.

Ok, what about my future employer? Can they pass a law that future employment must pay a minimum wage?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

If I were an older worker making say, $20-$30 and hour, I'd be really pissed that some wet behind the ears kid would be getting that kind of pay right out of the box.

I'd be demanding a raise.

 

[PoliticalChic]

They are going at this the wrong way, States and by extension the cities within them are prohibited by the Constitution from impairing the obligations of contracts, that would include employment contracts. These communist enclaves need to be taught they are not exempt from the Constitution.

Alas, I sigh for the days when the Constitution was honored....before FDR cowed the court, and shredded that document.




1. ...the 1935 U.S. Supreme Court case Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, in which the “Four Horsemen” — Supreme Court Justices George Sutherland, James C. McReynolds, Willis Van Devanter, and Pierce Butler — banded together in an unsuccessful attempt to hold back the forces of statism and collectivism.


2. The Blaisdells, like so many other Americans in the early 1930s, lacked the money to make their mortgage payments. They defaulted and the bank foreclosed, selling the home at the foreclosure sale. The Minnesota legislature had enacted a law that provided that a debtor could go to court and seek a further extension of time in which to redeem the property. The Supreme Court of Minnesota upheld the constitutionality of the new redemption law, and the bank appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.


3. Constitution: “No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts. . ..”

Did the Minnesota redemption law impair the loan contract between the building and loan association and the Blaisdells? It would seem rather obvious that it did. But in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held otherwise. American statists and collectivists won the Blaisdell case, which helped to open the floodgates on laws, rules, and regulations at the state level governing economic activity in America. And their leader, Franklin Roosevelt, was leading their charge on a national level.


4. In the old horse-and-buggy era, the individual and his freedom were supreme but now in the new modern era, the collective interests of “society” would have to prevail.

And society could no longer be bound by such quaint notions of constitutional limitations on state power, especially not during emergencies and especially not when the “good of all” depends on state action.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0302a.asp



This is the way the world ends:
This is the way the world ends:
Not with a bang but a whimper.

The Hollow Men

So here is my question.

Constitution: “No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts. . ..”

So does this also apply to contracts that do not exist?

In other words, clearly the state can't make a law that invalidates an existing contract.

But does that apply to contracts not yet created? I am unemployed (let's say), and you say that they can not pass a law saything an existing employer employee contract must pay x wage.

Ok, what about my future employer? Can they pass a law that future employment must pay a minimum wage?

" ...clearly the state can't make a law that invalidates an existing contract."

Why would you post this, when I just showed the opposite to be true?

 

[PoliticalChic]

If I were an older worker making say, $20-$30 and hour, I'd be really pissed that some wet behind the ears kid would be getting that kind of pay right out of the box.

I'd be demanding a raise.

We are governed by politicians for whom passing feel good legislation takes precedent over reality.

 

[Andylusion]

If I were an older worker making say, $20-$30 and hour, I'd be really pissed that some wet behind the ears kid would be getting that kind of pay right out of the box.

I'd be demanding a raise.

I had exactly that experience working Wendy's back in the 90s.

I came in on time, worked the entire time, didn't take 20 minute smoke breaks, didn't steal, or back talk to the manager, or cause any problems. I got a raise.

Then the minimum wage went up, and everyone who barely showed up, called in 'sick' every Friday, and had smoke breaks every 30 minutes, and barely worked at all... was earning the same as me.

I was not happy about it.

 

[Andylusion]

Alas, I sigh for the days when the Constitution was honored....before FDR cowed the court, and shredded that document.




1. ...the 1935 U.S. Supreme Court case Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, in which the “Four Horsemen” — Supreme Court Justices George Sutherland, James C. McReynolds, Willis Van Devanter, and Pierce Butler — banded together in an unsuccessful attempt to hold back the forces of statism and collectivism.


2. The Blaisdells, like so many other Americans in the early 1930s, lacked the money to make their mortgage payments. They defaulted and the bank foreclosed, selling the home at the foreclosure sale. The Minnesota legislature had enacted a law that provided that a debtor could go to court and seek a further extension of time in which to redeem the property. The Supreme Court of Minnesota upheld the constitutionality of the new redemption law, and the bank appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.


3. Constitution: “No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts. . ..”

Did the Minnesota redemption law impair the loan contract between the building and loan association and the Blaisdells? It would seem rather obvious that it did. But in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held otherwise. American statists and collectivists won the Blaisdell case, which helped to open the floodgates on laws, rules, and regulations at the state level governing economic activity in America. And their leader, Franklin Roosevelt, was leading their charge on a national level.


4. In the old horse-and-buggy era, the individual and his freedom were supreme but now in the new modern era, the collective interests of “society” would have to prevail.

And society could no longer be bound by such quaint notions of constitutional limitations on state power, especially not during emergencies and especially not when the “good of all” depends on state action.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0302a.asp



This is the way the world ends:
This is the way the world ends:
Not with a bang but a whimper.

The Hollow Men

So here is my question.

Constitution: “No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts. . ..”

So does this also apply to contracts that do not exist?

In other words, clearly the state can't make a law that invalidates an existing contract.

But does that apply to contracts not yet created? I am unemployed (let's say), and you say that they can not pass a law saything an existing employer employee contract must pay x wage.

Ok, what about my future employer? Can they pass a law that future employment must pay a minimum wage?

" ...clearly the state can't make a law that invalidates an existing contract."

Why would you post this, when I just showed the opposite to be true?

I'm already confused. This is why I'm not a constitutional lawyer. lol

 

[OnePercenter]

You have clearly never run a business. More than likely, you were born with a silver spoon up your ass & never WORKED a day in your life.

You are dumb as rat shit.

My point being is why would you have a business that has a thin profit margin?

Your question makes no sense. Most businesses have a thin profit margin.
Here Are The Profit Margins For Every Sector In The S&P 500 - Business Insider

How many businesses do you see with a net profit margin over 10%?

The average profit margin at a Walmart is just 3%.

The HR Capitalist: Brain Flex: You Own a McDonald's Franchise - How Much Would You Pay For 10% More in Revenue?

McDonald's shows an average profit margin of 6% to 8%.

Where do you get this idea that all businesses are raking in 20% profit margins? You must have a government contract business. That's about the only place outside of Pharma, that you see high profit margins.

'There is a ton of shit BEFORE the net.' Coined by a divorce Attorney who specialized in high net couples.

Walmart has three privately owned (Walmart 7) companies BEFORE Walmart Stores Inc. Procurement, distribution, and transportation which all have profit making before the sale to stores.

McDonalds franchisees net profit doesn't include principal pay, or contributions to retirement, trust, etc., raising the net profit into the 15% to 20% net.

FYI, if you are a business person and you're not making 20% net, including pay, contributions, etc., then why are you in business?

 

[OnePercenter]

If I were an older worker making say, $20-$30 and hour, I'd be really pissed that some wet behind the ears kid would be getting that kind of pay right out of the box.

I'd be demanding a raise.

So 'I've got mine and fuck everyone else?' Tad bit sociopath.

 

[OnePercenter]

It's called deferred income. You can't spend it but you can invest it, and more importantly you can borrow on it. Long term-interest only....think about it.

Yes. It's actually an everyday thing, but don't tell anyone.

WRONG! Smart-Rich-Guy.

So borrowing on a 401K and deferring income are the same?

And I highly doubt anyone would use company money, to buy a property, because that would make the property a possible liability to the company.

In other words, if I own an LLC, the entire purpose of doing that is to limit my liability. Hence the name "limited liability corporation".

If I pay my mortgage with money still in the LLC, that would make the property liable. If the company get's sued, they could very easily make a case that the property is owned by the company, and I could lose my home.... defeating the entire purpose of having the LLC to begin with.

Are there some people who do this? Perhaps. But I would wage few and far between. Most likely people who don't realize just how much danger they are putting their personal residence at. You claim it happens often, but I doubt it.

You've never heard of a home owned by a business? I have 3.

It's not that common, and again, if someone sues the business, or the business has fiscal troubles, you lose the house. It's not a wise move.

Not unless the home itself, is the business. Such as rental property. Once you have three or four fully paid for rental properties you should have them placed into LLCs to protect them from liability. Thus no single law suit can collect all of your properties, but only those in the specific LLC being sued.

Again, if you are operating a burger stand, the whole point of having the LLC, is to protect your private property, from someone suing the business. If you had the burger stand own the property, and someone sued the burger stand, they could take your home. That would be rather dumb on the part of the business owner.

As for deferred comp, and 401K, as far as I know, they are fairly well the same tax wise. And they are the same as far as the rules of borrowing.

But I'm more than open to the idea they may not be. Please explain how.

It happens more often than you think. You have to remember that where there is one corporation there are sub-corporations that encompass different parts of the financial holdings. Depending on the state, if the primary causes damage, one has to prove that any or all sub-corporations also caused damage to be able to file suit on the subs. Good luck with that. Home builders are BIG at this.

Deferred compensation is almost always additional compensation above and beyond usual pay. Known as 'other.' There are no limitations such as vesting, matching, or reducing income for savings.

 

[Andylusion]

If I were an older worker making say, $20-$30 and hour, I'd be really pissed that some wet behind the ears kid would be getting that kind of pay right out of the box.

I'd be demanding a raise.

So 'I've got mine and fuck everyone else?' Tad bit sociopath.

No, it has to do with people who have not worked for anything, being given everything, others have worked hard to get. Someone like you with a silver spoon, given everything he's ever gotten in life, would never understand that.

 

[Andylusion]

So borrowing on a 401K and deferring income are the same?



You've never heard of a home owned by a business? I have 3.

It's not that common, and again, if someone sues the business, or the business has fiscal troubles, you lose the house. It's not a wise move.

Not unless the home itself, is the business. Such as rental property. Once you have three or four fully paid for rental properties you should have them placed into LLCs to protect them from liability. Thus no single law suit can collect all of your properties, but only those in the specific LLC being sued.

Again, if you are operating a burger stand, the whole point of having the LLC, is to protect your private property, from someone suing the business. If you had the burger stand own the property, and someone sued the burger stand, they could take your home. That would be rather dumb on the part of the business owner.

As for deferred comp, and 401K, as far as I know, they are fairly well the same tax wise. And they are the same as far as the rules of borrowing.

But I'm more than open to the idea they may not be. Please explain how.

It happens more often than you think. You have to remember that where there is one corporation there are sub-corporations that encompass different parts of the financial holdings. Depending on the state, if the primary causes damage, one has to prove that any or all sub-corporations also caused damage to be able to file suit on the subs. Good luck with that. Home builders are BIG at this.

Deferred compensation is almost always additional compensation above and beyond usual pay. Known as 'other.' There are no limitations such as vesting, matching, or reducing income for savings.

Well duh... of course home builders are big into that, and should be. The home itself, is the business. Master of the obvious here, pointing out that home builders pay for homes with money from the home building business. Crap dude. Did you go to school for that?

And matching 401K is also above and beyond normal compensation. Again... what is the fundamental difference tax wise? I don't pay taxes on my matching 401K either.

 

[Andylusion]

My point being is why would you have a business that has a thin profit margin?

Your question makes no sense. Most businesses have a thin profit margin.
Here Are The Profit Margins For Every Sector In The S&P 500 - Business Insider

How many businesses do you see with a net profit margin over 10%?

The average profit margin at a Walmart is just 3%.

The HR Capitalist: Brain Flex: You Own a McDonald's Franchise - How Much Would You Pay For 10% More in Revenue?

McDonald's shows an average profit margin of 6% to 8%.

Where do you get this idea that all businesses are raking in 20% profit margins? You must have a government contract business. That's about the only place outside of Pharma, that you see high profit margins.

'There is a ton of shit BEFORE the net.' Coined by a divorce Attorney who specialized in high net couples.

Walmart has three privately owned (Walmart 7) companies BEFORE Walmart Stores Inc. Procurement, distribution, and transportation which all have profit making before the sale to stores.

McDonalds franchisees net profit doesn't include principal pay, or contributions to retirement, trust, etc., raising the net profit into the 15% to 20% net.

FYI, if you are a business person and you're not making 20% net, including pay, contributions, etc., then why are you in business?

Your question doesn't make sense. Most businesses don't make 20% net. So apparently that isn't an important factor to most businesses.

The entire question is irrelevant, because your profit from doing business, your wage that you take home from the business, is not determine by margin alone. It's determined by margin on sales. If I have only a 2% net profit margin, and I'm making $5 Million in sales, that's $100,000 in my pay check. I think I could handle making $100,000 a year.

The idea I would give that up because I wasn't making the arbitrary 20% margin some nit wit on the internet came up with, seems rather stupid to me.

Back to McDonald's. We have a fiscal budget from a Franchise McDonald's. I don't see those things you listed, on there. So can you prove your claim?

And as for Walmart... that was kind of my point.

Each Walmart is a separate business. Each service of Walmart is a separate business. When you say Walmart has all these profits.... that's not a monolithic company.

Each section of Walmart business, is a self contained business. They each have to make a profit of their own, or they go out of business. Thus each employee that wants a raise, can't get a raise unless the specific business they are employed by has the money to give those raises. You can't use the profits of Walmart HQ, to justify Employee of Walmart Store A, getting a raise. Because Store A doesn't have access to the money of Walmart HQ.

That's why when the minimum wage went up, the average number of employees per Walmart store went down. The average number of employees at a Walmart went from 360 in 2006 (before the minimum wage went up), to 290 in 2010 (after the minimum wage went up).

Even though during that time, sales were going up overall.

So I don't know what you think your claim means.

 

[OnePercenter]

It's not that common, and again, if someone sues the business, or the business has fiscal troubles, you lose the house. It's not a wise move.

Not unless the home itself, is the business. Such as rental property. Once you have three or four fully paid for rental properties you should have them placed into LLCs to protect them from liability. Thus no single law suit can collect all of your properties, but only those in the specific LLC being sued.

Again, if you are operating a burger stand, the whole point of having the LLC, is to protect your private property, from someone suing the business. If you had the burger stand own the property, and someone sued the burger stand, they could take your home. That would be rather dumb on the part of the business owner.

As for deferred comp, and 401K, as far as I know, they are fairly well the same tax wise. And they are the same as far as the rules of borrowing.

But I'm more than open to the idea they may not be. Please explain how.

It happens more often than you think. You have to remember that where there is one corporation there are sub-corporations that encompass different parts of the financial holdings. Depending on the state, if the primary causes damage, one has to prove that any or all sub-corporations also caused damage to be able to file suit on the subs. Good luck with that. Home builders are BIG at this.

Deferred compensation is almost always additional compensation above and beyond usual pay. Known as 'other.' There are no limitations such as vesting, matching, or reducing income for savings.

Well duh... of course home builders are big into that, and should be. The home itself, is the business. Master of the obvious here, pointing out that home builders pay for homes with money from the home building business. Crap dude. Did you go to school for that?

It's liability....'Dude!'

And matching 401K is also above and beyond normal compensation. Again... what is the fundamental difference tax wise? I don't pay taxes on my matching 401K either.

Really? Where do you get the monies to match with?

 

[OnePercenter]

Your question makes no sense. Most businesses have a thin profit margin.
Here Are The Profit Margins For Every Sector In The S&P 500 - Business Insider

How many businesses do you see with a net profit margin over 10%?

The average profit margin at a Walmart is just 3%.

The HR Capitalist: Brain Flex: You Own a McDonald's Franchise - How Much Would You Pay For 10% More in Revenue?

McDonald's shows an average profit margin of 6% to 8%.

Where do you get this idea that all businesses are raking in 20% profit margins? You must have a government contract business. That's about the only place outside of Pharma, that you see high profit margins.

'There is a ton of shit BEFORE the net.' Coined by a divorce Attorney who specialized in high net couples.

Walmart has three privately owned (Walmart 7) companies BEFORE Walmart Stores Inc. Procurement, distribution, and transportation which all have profit making before the sale to stores.

McDonalds franchisees net profit doesn't include principal pay, or contributions to retirement, trust, etc., raising the net profit into the 15% to 20% net.

FYI, if you are a business person and you're not making 20% net, including pay, contributions, etc., then why are you in business?

Your question doesn't make sense. Most businesses don't make 20% net. So apparently that isn't an important factor to most businesses.

The entire question is irrelevant, because your profit from doing business, your wage that you take home from the business, is not determine by margin alone. It's determined by margin on sales. If I have only a 2% net profit margin, and I'm making $5 Million in sales, that's $100,000 in my pay check. I think I could handle making $100,000 a year.

The idea I would give that up because I wasn't making the arbitrary 20% margin some nit wit on the internet came up with, seems rather stupid to me.

Back to McDonald's. We have a fiscal budget from a Franchise McDonald's. I don't see those things you listed, on there. So can you prove your claim?

And as for Walmart... that was kind of my point.

Each Walmart is a separate business. Each service of Walmart is a separate business. When you say Walmart has all these profits.... that's not a monolithic company.

Each section of Walmart business, is a self contained business. They each have to make a profit of their own, or they go out of business. Thus each employee that wants a raise, can't get a raise unless the specific business they are employed by has the money to give those raises. You can't use the profits of Walmart HQ, to justify Employee of Walmart Store A, getting a raise. Because Store A doesn't have access to the money of Walmart HQ.

That's why when the minimum wage went up, the average number of employees per Walmart store went down. The average number of employees at a Walmart went from 360 in 2006 (before the minimum wage went up), to 290 in 2010 (after the minimum wage went up).

Even though during that time, sales were going up overall.

So I don't know what you think your claim means.

Is your chart of the 'average' Walmart monthly, quarterly, or yearly?

 

[Andylusion]

'There is a ton of shit BEFORE the net.' Coined by a divorce Attorney who specialized in high net couples.

Walmart has three privately owned (Walmart 7) companies BEFORE Walmart Stores Inc. Procurement, distribution, and transportation which all have profit making before the sale to stores.

McDonalds franchisees net profit doesn't include principal pay, or contributions to retirement, trust, etc., raising the net profit into the 15% to 20% net.

FYI, if you are a business person and you're not making 20% net, including pay, contributions, etc., then why are you in business?

Your question doesn't make sense. Most businesses don't make 20% net. So apparently that isn't an important factor to most businesses.

The entire question is irrelevant, because your profit from doing business, your wage that you take home from the business, is not determine by margin alone. It's determined by margin on sales. If I have only a 2% net profit margin, and I'm making $5 Million in sales, that's $100,000 in my pay check. I think I could handle making $100,000 a year.

The idea I would give that up because I wasn't making the arbitrary 20% margin some nit wit on the internet came up with, seems rather stupid to me.

Back to McDonald's. We have a fiscal budget from a Franchise McDonald's. I don't see those things you listed, on there. So can you prove your claim?

And as for Walmart... that was kind of my point.

Each Walmart is a separate business. Each service of Walmart is a separate business. When you say Walmart has all these profits.... that's not a monolithic company.

Each section of Walmart business, is a self contained business. They each have to make a profit of their own, or they go out of business. Thus each employee that wants a raise, can't get a raise unless the specific business they are employed by has the money to give those raises. You can't use the profits of Walmart HQ, to justify Employee of Walmart Store A, getting a raise. Because Store A doesn't have access to the money of Walmart HQ.

That's why when the minimum wage went up, the average number of employees per Walmart store went down. The average number of employees at a Walmart went from 360 in 2006 (before the minimum wage went up), to 290 in 2010 (after the minimum wage went up).

Even though during that time, sales were going up overall.

So I don't know what you think your claim means.

Is your chart of the 'average' Walmart monthly, quarterly, or yearly?

The chart clearly says McDonald's. Not walmart. That was yearly.

 

[Andylusion]

It happens more often than you think. You have to remember that where there is one corporation there are sub-corporations that encompass different parts of the financial holdings. Depending on the state, if the primary causes damage, one has to prove that any or all sub-corporations also caused damage to be able to file suit on the subs. Good luck with that. Home builders are BIG at this.

Deferred compensation is almost always additional compensation above and beyond usual pay. Known as 'other.' There are no limitations such as vesting, matching, or reducing income for savings.

It's liability....'Dude!'

And matching 401K is also above and beyond normal compensation. Again... what is the fundamental difference tax wise? I don't pay taxes on my matching 401K either.

Really? Where do you get the monies to match with?

The same place all monies come from in a business.