Kolek planning to go pro
I also think the concept of a "headquarters" these days isn't what it used to be.
Fits a pattern. A year or two ago, Subway hired a Burger King executive to run the company.Earlier this year they announced a "new office" in Miami and several jobs were moving from Milford, CT to Miami and the only reason was the new President didn't want to leave Miami.
State and local tax rates
Hate to hear that about my hometown. Subway, Bic and Schick were Milford's claims to fame, corporation-wise. Oh, and Milford Jai-Alai, of course. Miss going there! Chula!
That $65MM was a one time pay out for performance. For a C suite that has returned nearly double digit revenue and profit growth annually the last 5 years for a behemoth of a company. And even a modest raise of $3-4 across 60K+ hourly workers adds up into the $100-200MM range rather quickly. Which is substantial for a company that has net income of around $300MM annually. Raising wages is good, but people can’t expect everything to stay dirt cheap if they do. Even if the execs worked for $50K a year, they would still need those price hikes to keep the company growing and in the black. Public companies aren’t run to break even. Especially ones with massive overhead, employee size, and high COGS.
Simple solution: Don't eat there. Make your Mexican food fresh, at home. It tastes better, or at least mine does.
You missed the point. Executive pay vs rest of company pay. Pay a living wage to your employees. Instead of doing so with record profits, they pass it on to customers. Paying a CEO $38 Million while saying you can’t afford hourly workers.
I didn’t miss any point. I literally said that the executive pay and bonuses wouldn’t cover the salary hikes and staffing increases. They need to hire 20K workers. If every one of those workers is only part time $14/hr, 25 hours per week (which is unlikely), that $38MM covers roughly 2000 new employees. To hire the 20K part time workers at $17,500 a year, that’s $350MM. Plus another $2-3 increase for the existing 40-50K hourly workers. Again, conservatively saying they are all only 25/hr a week part time, that’s another $150MM. It far outstrips any executive compensation.It’s the same fuzzy emotional math that people use to act like a simple tax hike here or there will cover $1T in new spending packages. Comparing Chipotle to Walmart as necessity born out of lack of option is utter BS.
Now do Chipotle's Billion Dollar stock buybacks etc...They have such a difficult time paying a living wage they are opening 200 additional restaurants this year.
How many employees do they have in total?One of my friends went on a Facebook rant about a similar CEO, and I pointed out that if he worked for zero salary, they could take that money and the rest of the company's employees pay by...ten cents an hour.There are many CEOs that aren't worth what they are being paid, but let's not pretend that a lower salary for executives can directly translate into a meaningful pay raise for everyone else in the organization.
IMO, it's not about any one organization or single CEO or single policy, etc.The entire system is broken.
Ive spoken out against buybacks here before. But stop shifting the goalposts. You literally just said executive compensation was the issue. But when I disproved that, you want to talk about buybacks. Then it will be food in the executive cafeteria or transportation allotments. Making profits and distributing them is evil, I get it. And when a company takes the right steps, they can now be criticized for not doing it the "right way". They've grown exponentially charging $2 for guac. I'm sure their customers will be fine with a 4% increase. Their customer base isn't buying dollar menu items cause they can't afford fresh fruits and veggies.And its not a "difficult time", they have greatly increasing labor costs, plain and simple. You dont only expand when you have free cash to completely cover the costs of doing so. Thats not how investing in expansion works. They would open those restaurants just fine if they weren't increasing labor costs across the board. If your stance is "well they shouldn't open more restaurants until they can completely afford to raise everyone's salaries without increasing prices"...well, I'm glad you dont run any business units I own or invest in. Especially in something as cutthroat and viciously cyclical as fast casual dining.
Have less people in your organization if you can't pay all of them a living wage with decent benefits.[/quote"Sorry, guys, we want to pay some other employees more money, so we are going to have to fire you."Like that?
Nice try. I never said Executive Pay is thr only issue. Now you are projecting and gaslighting about it. Change subject. Begrudgingly say stock buy backs are bad. Got it No one said making profit and distributing it is bad. You said that. What is bad is not taking care of your lower and lowest paid employees by not paying them a living wage with decent benefits. it isn't Chipotle specific. Chipotle is the example here because they are the ones who spoke about it recently. They are the ones who said they couldn't afford to pay their hourly employees a living wage without repeated recent price increases. That of course isn't true.
What would you consider a fair after-tax profit in terms of percentage?
For example, ince 1978, CEO pay has risen 940% vs 12% typical worker compensation. Gee I don't know, seems like a lot.https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/
That doesn't answer my question. What do you think is a reasonable bottom-line profit percentage for a corporation?
And you didn’t reapond to what I posted.There isn’t one quick set answer to your question.
How can you say that Chipotle can afford to pay everyone a living wage if you can't define how much of a hit to their profits is reasonable?