Page 25 of 64 FirstFirst ...
15
23
24
25
26
27
35
... LastLast
  1. #481
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    Their shares are already down 4.2% in under a week. Ironically much more than they would have had to charge, per pizza, to cover healthcare for their employees.
    John Schnatter is worth 600 million dollars. ~4000 businesses with a base average of 6 employees (only 4 at the location where I'm at) so 24,000 employees and he can't cover .14 cents? That's only 3360.00 a month, he probably pays that in an electric bill for that big ass house of his. Don't pity the 1% for the taxes that are coming for them.

  2. #482
    Quote Originally Posted by Bayhas View Post
    John Schnatter is worth 600 million dollars. ~4000 businesses with a base average of 6 employees (only 4 at the location where I'm at) so 24,000 employees and he can't cover .14 cents? That's only 3360.00 a month, he probably pays that in an electric bill for that big ass house of his. Don't pity the 1% for the taxes that are coming for them.
    Its 14cents per pizza sold.

    Regardless of his net worth, that is an increase in business expenditure. I have massive doubts anyone ordering from Papa Johns is going to care about a 14c increase in the cost of each pizza. It is clearly a ploy to move to a more walmart-ish model where you employ a larger number of people but all of them part time so you don't have to pay for vacation or sick days or offer benefits, and blaming a political party he disagrees with for doing it.

  3. #483
    Pit Lord HeatherRae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    2,342
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    I suggest you do some more research.

    Papa Johns INTL sells both franchises (and takes 5-7% of their profits) and also operates many of its own stores in a corporate environment. Not every Papa Johns is a franchise.
    You're right, not every single Papa John's is a franchise. But the vast majority of them are. Outside of the area where the company was founded (Indiana), almost all of the stores are franchises. I don't think there's a single corporate-owned Papa John's in my state (Louisiana), Texas, or Arkansas (and I only list them because those are places where I have gone to the restaurant). The Papa John's I ordered from while in Washington, D.C.? A Franchise.

    It's the same for many other companies, as well. Blockbuster, Dominos, McDonalds, Taco Bell...you don't actually think those locations are owned by the respective companies, do you?

    Most Pizza companies (including Papa John's, Dominos, and Little Ceaser's) already have very few full-time workers. Franchisees not only pay the corporate company part of their profits for the privilege of using the brand name, they also are responsible for paying for their own workers. Your checks, when you work for one of these, do not come from the corporate office. They come from whoever owns the physical location you work at. These guys have to make ends meet, so what they'll do is reduce anyone not "necessary" at full-time down to part time, and avoid having to pay the health insurance on them.

    Which isn't that much different from the way it is now, true. But what should concern people isn't the owner of Papa John's pointing out what franchise owners will do. What should concern you is that an entire class of workers is being created who have 2-3 part time jobs, no health insurance provided by their employers (because they don't qualify under the current system, and they won't qualify under the one coming into play in the next few months), and no money to buy separate health insurance, as the premiums have risen sharply in the last 6 months and are still rising.

    ---------- Post added 2012-11-14 at 02:07 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    Its 14cents per pizza sold.

    Regardless of his net worth, that is an increase in business expenditure. I have massive doubts anyone ordering from Papa Johns is going to care about a 14c increase in the cost of each pizza. It is clearly a ploy to move to a more walmart-ish model where you employ a larger number of people but all of them part time so you don't have to pay for vacation or sick days or offer benefits, and blaming a political party he disagrees with for doing it.
    This is how pizza franchises already work.
    Tiriel <Demise> of US-Kel'Thuzad

    Thank you to Yoni for this AMAZING signature!

  4. #484
    Pandaren Monk Bantokar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Denmark/USA
    Posts
    1,986
    Quote Originally Posted by DEATHETERNAL View Post
    When you increase taxes and regulation and expenses, prices will go up and payrolls will go down. That is reality. If you don't like it, don't vote those who are for increased taxes and regulation and expenses.
    You really don´t know much about the world outside the US do you?

    Try looking at most other "western" countries where taxes, regulation of corporations and expenses are higher. Guess what, our wages are a lot higher as well. Do you honestly believe that giving cooporations free reigns and just believing in their good nature will make things better? yeah turned out real well giving the banks and insurance industry a free pass to rape the world economy, thank you for starting the global economic crisis.
    Last edited by Bantokar; 2012-11-14 at 08:42 AM.
    8 year olds Dude.

  5. #485
    Quote Originally Posted by HeatherRae View Post

    This is how pizza franchises already work.
    I know. Which is why his claim that he has to fire people or cut hours because of Obamacare is bullshit. If he has a 14c per pizza increase, so does each of his competitors (Pizza Hut and Dominoes).

  6. #486
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    I know. Which is why his claim that he has to fire people or cut hours because of Obamacare is bullshit. If he has a 14c per pizza increase, so does each of his competitors (Pizza Hut and Dominoes).
    Pizza companies do not compete in a vacuum. They compete directly against every other fast food food chain with homedelivery, and indirectly against every other source of food. Those competitors who will not have their costs negatively affected by ACA will gain while those who do will lose.

    And yes, people will notice a $0.14 increase in pizzas. If they didn't, he would already have raised the price by so much.

  7. #487
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    Pizza companies do not compete in a vacuum. They compete directly against every other fast food food chain with homedelivery, and indirectly against every other source of food. Those competitors who will not have their costs negatively affected by ACA will gain while those who do will lose.

    And yes, people will notice a $0.14 increase in pizzas. If they didn't, he would already have raised the price by so much.
    Ignore the argument that he needs do nothing because he already does not allow employees to have enough hours to qualify for full time status, and instead you start whining about prices in a Vacuum? I assume you are fine with Corporations attempting to create some sort of 2-3 job class that works 15-25 hours a week at each job so they can avoid paying any kind of benefits and sick time, right?

  8. #488
    I just want to say to all the corporations out there that: IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT YOUR BOTTOM LINE. YOU CAN BE SUCCESSFUL WITHOUT SHITTING ALL OVER THE PEOPLE WHO MADE YOU SUCCESSFUL IN THE FIRST PLACE.

    GROW THE FUCK UP, ALREADY!

  9. #489
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    Ignore the argument that he needs do nothing because he already does not allow employees to have enough hours to qualify for full time status, and instead you start whining about prices in a Vacuum?
    No, I was just expanding on your comment which in general is correct. For example if a VAT tax is introduced then everything will increase in price by the same %, which will have limited effects on competition (but it will change consumption habits). The ACA however doesn't affect everyone the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore
    I assume you are fine with Corporations attempting to create some sort of 2-3 job class that works 15-25 hours a week at each job so they can avoid paying any kind of benefits and sick time, right?
    Well I do not support the legislation that forces them to try and work around it in the first place. People in general do not seem to understand that benefits equal a certain cash wage increase. Removing benefits means you will have to increase the cash wage to attract the same number/quality of employees. Similarly, increasing benefits means you can lower your cash wage to attract the same employees.
    Last edited by Diurdi; 2012-11-14 at 09:29 AM.

  10. #490
    Wow... i'm once again impressed by the stupidity of some people. Its not the fact that you are stupid in general, but the fact that you just talk about things you dont nearly understand and believe in everything you get told by a single newspaper or blogger or what ever. Its okay if you dont understand how things work, no question. But then you should inform yourself if you want to talk about it. Go ahead and read multiple opinions and then form your own.

    Im glad that Obama got re-elected and yes, maybe he isnt the best choice. But at least the majority of the us people did unterstand the whole picture behind Romney. Its sad that the republican didnt have a better candidate tho for the sake of variety.

    Just please open your eyes. Take a look abroad. Healthcare works there just fine and its a gigantic gain, i can tell you that. Question everything what anybody says you and form your own opinion - always. And if you then dont agree with me, i'm okay with that. But i can't stand someone with a opinion, that is not his own, it's plain dumb.

    And i almost fogot about the maintopic. Companies are there for the people. Not the opposite. Sadly some greedy guys ignore that fact. Ofc there will be employees that get fired, but then it should be for the companie as a whole to stay alive. Not to solely increase the stockholders return or even give your frustration some room...
    Last edited by mkai; 2012-11-14 at 09:34 AM.

  11. #491
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    No, I was just expanding on your comment which in general is correct. For example if a VAT tax is introduced then everything will increase in price by the same %, which will have limited effects on competition (but it will change consumtion habits). The ACA however doesn't affect everyone the same.

    Well I do not support the legislation that forces them to try and work around it in the first place. People in general do not seem to understand that benefits equal a certain cash wage increase. Removing benefits means you will have to increase the cash wage to attract the same number/quality of employees. Similarly, increasing benefits means you can lower your cash wage to attract the same employees.
    So how does the free market prevent people from being crushed under the heels of large corporations, to where they can't take a day off because they are barely scraping by working three part time jobs? You are claiming that in a system where we have high unemployment somehow corporations are going to increase the wages or offer better benefits for low level positions? I'm not sure why you think that?

  12. #492
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    So how does the free market prevent people from being crushed under the heels of large corporations, to where they can't take a day off because they are barely scraping by working three part time jobs? You are claiming that in a system where we have high unemployment somehow corporations are going to increase the wages or offer better benefits for low level positions? I'm not sure why you think that?
    Why aren't all corporation right now paying the minimum wage and giving out the minimum legally mandated benefits to all their employees?

    Oh right, because there's a labour market. In which supply and demand meet. The lower the wage becomes, the more there is demand for the labour, the higher it becomes, the more there is supply for that particular labour. This means that the corporation can't "crush people under their heels", as there are always other competitors who are willing to hire people if the price is right.

    It's not the corporations fault if you can't take a day off because you have too low income. Your labour is simply not worth a lot in that case.

  13. #493
    Quote Originally Posted by Grummgug View Post
    I think I'd prefer it if europe and Canada gave the US free health care in exchange for all the free military service they've been providing for almost 100 years. Its so easy for them to sit back and pretend they don't need to spend on military when they know if anything bad happens, America will rush in and protect them and clean it up (Bosnia for example).

    How about a little give back? We protect europe, europe pays for American health care. Fair trade?

    Or America could make deep cuts to its military to pay for health care. Of course, that drives up the costs to europe when it comes to military spending.
    U'r serving as protection to Europe? Really, you came up with that? USA entering WW2 is a bit more complicated that that, but i'll give you hint. Your country entered to protect its loans. While big oil companies were selling oil to all sides up to a point.

    As a bystander I dont see USA as defender of democracy across the world I see it as protector if corporate interest. Same shit happened on much lower scale in exYU from where i come from. Independence war wasn't supposed to happen here but it did. It came down to money. They all wanted money and you would be surprised how profitable wars can be for bankers/weapon manufacturers and other corporate business.

    Almost entire world order is wrong today. We are a culture of money, we are indirectly thought to value money and praise to it, to ignore basic human compassion and decency. Like someone said why will layoffs happen. Because business exist to make only money, nothing else. While that remains the same, we as a world will not advance. They are used to make obscene amounts of money and if anyone or anything endangeres that they will take it out on their workers first, then on customers.

    All this world needs is to tone down on its greed,lust or obssesion for money and power and fill that "void" with good old common decency.

    ot: imagine all those greedy ceo pricks instead of lust for money had lust for learning, and all time they spend on increasing profit they spend on physics/chemistry/math. i bet we would have teleporatation and space travel in no time.
    Remember what we've been taught about opinions? They're like assholes, and it's impossible to convince someone yours smells better than theirs.

  14. #494
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkrulerxxx View Post
    People are boycotting companies like this because of what reason?? business??

    Newsflash, this is just the beginning and it's going to happen when obamacare forces companies to adapt to this new thing.

    You can't be mad for companies wanting to make profits, that's how business works. you vote for obamacare, expect the shitstorm to be happening.
    Company has several other options. They could either create something profitable for them to do but instead they decided to take the don't have to think-way out with layoffs.

  15. #495
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    Why aren't all corporation right now paying the minimum wage and giving out the minimum legally mandated benefits to all their employees?

    Oh right, because there's a labour market. In which supply and demand meet. The lower the wage becomes, the more there is demand for the labour, the higher it becomes, the more there is supply for that particular labour. This means that the corporation can't "crush people under their heels", as there are always other competitors who are willing to hire people if the price is right.

    It's not the corporations fault if you can't take a day off because you have too low income. Your labour is simply not worth a lot in that case.
    For skilled labour, yes. But in a global labor market, the US cannot compete on a large majority of unskilled jobs, and as robotics becomes better and better, those same unskilled people are more and more out of jobs. So they can do local service jobs for shitty wage because their is a huge glut of unskilled workers without jobs.

    Just for my curiosity, Diurdi, are you against a Tax-Payer Funded Single Payer Health Care system?

  16. #496
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    But in a global labor market, the US cannot compete on a large majority of unskilled jobs, and as robotics becomes better and better, those same unskilled people are more and more out of jobs. So they can do local service jobs for shitty wage because their is a huge glut of unskilled workers without jobs.
    The US isn't "supposed" to compete in that market either. In an industrialized nation such as the US, the vast majority of unskilled jobs will be in the service sector - handling tasks that robots cannot perform efficiently. These are however only entry-level jobs. As a person grows and gets more experienced, he/she is no longer unskilled labor.

    If your labor isn't worth much, you shouldn't be paid much. If this low pay isn't high enough, you might want to implement supporting welfare measures.

    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore
    Just for my curiosity, Diurdi, are you against a Tax-Payer Funded Single Payer Health Care system?
    Yes. Tax-payer funded healthcare should only be for those without the means to purchase basic healthcare on their own.

  17. #497
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    The US isn't "supposed" to compete in that market either. In an industrialized nation such as the US, the vast majority of unskilled jobs will be in the service sector - handling tasks that robots cannot perform efficiently. These are however only entry-level jobs. As a person grows and gets more experienced, he/she is no longer unskilled labor.

    If your labor isn't worth much, you shouldn't be paid much. If this low pay isn't high enough, you might want to implement supporting welfare measures.

    Yes. Tax-payer funded healthcare should only be for those without the means to purchase basic healthcare on their own.
    So what is your stance on Obamacare? It is forcing everyone to involve themselves in the Insurance Market, and having the Federal Gov pay for those who are 'too poor' to afford the premiums? Is it _the_ 'free market' answer to trying to make sure your citizens have healthcare?

  18. #498
    Quote Originally Posted by Bantokar View Post
    You really don´t know much about the world outside the US do you?

    Try looking at most other "western" countries where taxes, regulation of corporations and expenses are higher. Guess what, our wages are a lot higher as well. Do you honestly believe that giving cooporations free reigns and just believing in their good nature will make things better? yeah turned out real well giving the banks and insurance industry a free pass to rape the world economy, thank you for starting the global economic crisis.
    This. The Americans who listen to Faux News and drink the Right's Kool Aid are pretty ignorant of the rest of the world and economics in general. Obama/Clinton are responsible classical Republicans along the same vein of Reagan and Taft who promote small business and sought to bring down big business because they know big business tries to take any shortcut it can and exploits local communities, hiring as few people as possible to make profit from the most people as possible. Most of us fiscally responsible and knowledgeable Americans breathed a sigh of relief when Mittens was thoroughly defeated.

  19. #499
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    So what is your stance on Obamacare? It is forcing everyone to involve themselves in the Insurance Market, and having the Federal Gov pay for those who are 'too poor' to afford the premiums? Is it _the_ 'free market' answer to trying to make sure your citizens have healthcare?
    No, Obamacare is a horrible policy. It doesn't tackle the real cost drivers of the US healthcare market. Its effect will probably be the opposite: higher costs.

  20. #500
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    No, Obamacare is a horrible policy. It doesn't tackle the real cost drivers of the US healthcare market. Its effect will probably be the opposite: higher costs.
    What do you view as the real cost drivers of the US healthcare market. If you say litigation I'm going to get mad.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •