• admiralteal@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    An $11,000 wage increase is ~$5/hr for a full time employee.

    Starting pay at Startbucks is around $15/hr. They’re famously stingy with full-time though, so in reality it is quite a bit more than a 25% increase.

    Honestly, I was expecting to find some glaring error in the logic on this but I don’t really see it.

    • Fermion@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      The glaring error is this screenshot is listing an income figure that is comparable to the 2022 total revenues in the 2022 fiscal report.

      https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/SBUX/starbucks/ebitda

      It looks like Starbucks 2023 EBITDA was $7.3 Billion and the net income was $4.1 Billion.

      The post makes a good point, but uses garbage data. Why do they do this? Although an $11,000 raise would elliminate the actual net earnings figure.

      • admiralteal@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        There it is. I kept finding investor reports claiming the same 25 bil number as the net profit, but that’s just goofy if their actual bottom-line was under 5.

        And that $11,000 figure is now about 6x too big. Meaning we’re talking about a less than a dollar raise. Not to even mention ebida is STILL more than bottom-line profits.

        • Goldmage263@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          From their press release website, $36 biliion consolidated net revenue reported at a 16% profit margin for fiscal year 2023 leaves $5.76 billion after every expense has been deducted.

            • yacht_boy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              First, that assumes the company makes no profit at all. Not a sustainable way to keep a company in business. If they go out of business, 400,000 people lose their jobs and a whole lot of them lose their health insurance. Starbucks is pretty well known for being generous with their benefits.

              Second, wages are typically only about 2/3 or even less of the total compensation, and don’t account for the employer’s share of payroll taxes.

              So figure that you think Starbucks should make half their current profits and give the other half to their employees. That puts it at $6250 per employee, which would likely translate to about $4000/ year before the employees’ portion of taxes, or about a $2/hour raise. Which would be great for employees making maybe $30k/year, but is not exactly going to vault them into the middle class.

  • doctorcrimson@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    10 months ago

    The company that owns Huggies Diapers managed to reduce costs of production multiple years in a row while raising prices for consumers at the same time.

  • PatFusty@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Revenue does not mean gross profit. Gross profit does not mean net earnings. The numbers this person posted is the money the conpany gets before any operation costs. This means this is how much the product sold regardless of how much it costs to produce, package, ship, r&d, worker cost, etc. This meme has to stop its poisoning your brains

    • Jaytreeman@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      These numbers are gross profit. A quick search would verify this for yourself.
      You seem to misunderstand what gross profit is because you decided to make a weird word salad.
      Gross profit is the profit a business makes after subtracting all the costs that are related to manufacturing and selling its products or services.
      So the numbers are relevant. It’s not worker wages that are the driving inflation. It’s not government handouts driving inflation. It’s corporate profits that are driving inflation

    • lledrtx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      What do you mean? It says they are profits right in the picture. Maybe read the thing properly before you condescendingly explain what revenue and profits mean?

  • Mango@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    All together it’s $528.773 billion! That’s $66 for each and every single person on the planet!

    What even the fuck.

    • jettrscga@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Convincing people they need to buy basically the exact same shit yearly.

      And fighting a lot of lawsuits involving their planned obsolescence and monopoly so they can keep it that way.

      • fastandcurious@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        I find it kinda ironic that apple users upgrade every year, cause iPhones can last forever, that’s the very reason I use it, my cousins 11 pro is still going very strong, and I plan to use mine atleast until I break it or Apple ends support

  • DarkGamer@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    Yeah, this inflationary period shows that it has to do with profit-seeking and not monetary supply. We made the money printers go BRRRRR for a very long time with almost no inflation, then suddenly COVID and supply chain hiccups gave corporations an excuse to transfer more of society’s wealth to themselves by raising prices and not lowering them again afterwards.

    • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Can’t expect change when all we elect are wealthy people who care more about their stock portfolios than their constituents.

      • kemsat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yup. It’s pure insanity that most of Congress is made up of lawyers & businesspeople.

          • RobertoOberto@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            10 months ago

            It should be made up of everyone. I don’t see any reason fry cooks and fork lift drivers shouldn’t be there, they definitely deserve representation.

            If you’re convinced those people are all too stupid or lazy for the job, then maybe you could at least get on board with engineers, doctors, scientific researchers, artists, farmers, teachers, etc. Anyone who works hard at whatever their chosen profession is should have a shot. But our current system selects for low ethical standards, improv skills, and self-preservation instincts rather than real achievement.

    • Fox@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Inflation quadrupled from 2020 to 2021 and then almost doubled again from 2021 to 2022.

      It’s not (just) because they’re greedy that they don’t lower them back down, it’s because they’d go out of business. One 2024 dollar was 83 cents in 2019, that’s way more than the net profit margin for most retail.

      Greed is a constant, they’re not any more greedy now than they were before covid.

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      It is sorted, it’s a list of “gigantic asshole companies” they just all tied for first.

      :P

    • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Uh, no, they said raise. Nothing about this post mentions bonus, nor does it make any more sense to say “bonus” instead of “raise”. Why would a raise mean monthly? Pretty sure every Starbucks is a franchise. How would that change a structured raise plan?

    • myliltoehurts@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      A raise can be yearly as well (it’s how I’d interpret it by default in Europe). The only thing it implies is that they’d have to be paid that next year as well, which also seems far from realistic considering the cost of it is ~20% of current profits. (Plus it’d be tax exempt as an expense, so probably even less of profits)

      On point 2, the only source I’ve found is https://fourweekmba.com/starbucks-company-operated-employees/, implying the 400k includes franchised employees and 248k “company employees”, so it seems like it’s included.

  • kajdav@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    This is garbage data. Learn the difference between revenue, gross profit, and net profit.

    • ZOSTED@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      What do you mean by this, by the way? Dead thread now so no stakes, but still interested in how your take is different, because I haven’t heard this opposition from anyone before.

      • Aux@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago
        1. Most companies have “record profits” while having the same profit margins as before. That doesn’t mean they’re greedy or whatever, that means people are buying more shit than ever.
        2. Many companies had a few tough years before yet no one was posting about record loses.
        3. These profits are going into YOUR pocket at the end of the day. Because one way or another YOU are the investor. You should be happy when companies are doing good.
  • tygerprints@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    10 months ago

    This is news? Of course record profits drive inflation! That’s why we pay exhorbitant rates for things like gas during summer travel months. They know they have us by the short hairs and can raise prices anytime they want and people will still pay them.

    As a common proletariat it infuriates me to have to pay so much for stuff and get so little in return. As an aspiring member of the bourgeoisie, if I were in charge I’d keep raising prices as far as possible to make people pay through their teeth, assholes, and nards.

    It’s human nature. The whole point of George Orwell’s story, “Animal Farm.” Let’s revolt and take over the means of production so everything can be more equal. Uh oh, a group of pigs has decided they are in charge and should have a larger slice of the pie than everyone else.

    And so it goes.

    • Neil@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Yeah I went on a bit of a communist learning journey recently and ended up saying “well this all sounds awesome, but will never happen because people suck.” History has proven that as well.

    • x2Zero7@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      I’m not so convinced human history, especially with regard to collective societies, supports that idea as general statement - animal farm isn’t a bible of truth that says “wealth redistribution always works this way” it’s more a warning of authoritarian governments don’t implement checks/balances and try to divide the population and garner support among the elite fee

      This way our economy is organized is NOT how it has always been through history. It’s foolish to believe it has to be this way and every single person would absolutely just keep charging more for everything given the chance. Too many orgs are out there protecting community (see nonprofits in Canada buying up city land for the express purpose stewardship and preventing price gouging or food banks with negotiating power to bulk buy groceries cheaper) to support that idea. What do i know tho right?

      • tygerprints@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I’ve seen people try to buck the system and prove that wealth distribution doesn’t always work that way, and yet in the end they discover it’s back to the same system again and it actually almost always does work that way.

        Just sayin’. I enjoyed your comments and the feedback.

        • vexikron@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          And I have seen societies that have bucked a less equitable system, and meaningfully and materially change things for the average person.

          Kind of a core part of the concept of democracy is that it is meant to continuously have a feedback mechanism, continually allow for… you know, change.

          It is often when societies become significantly less democratic that this change stops and things ossify…

          …until the situation is so untenable for so many that they functionally revolt, often violently, though not always.

          Does this always turn out well? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

          This is all a very general overview.

          Your view of the world amd of the history of human societies is fatalistic, self perpetuating, dismissive, and overly simplistic.

          In other words, you are nearly certainly a conservative.

          Your statement is simply objectively false. Almost no social system in history that has attempted to redistribute wealth more equitably and then backslid on this has /reverted to the same system/.

          They are nearly always different in substantial, complex and meaningful ways.

          An example, a prominent one: Russia. Russia was a feudalistic/monarchical society, things got spicy, wealth was redistributed, a lot of people died but a lot of people were a lot better off in a lot of ways. Obviously this was not perfect and had many flaws. Eventually the ‘communist’ system collapsed into more or less a corrupt weird sort of blend of capitalism, lots of social programs, similar amounts of oppression, lots of authoritarianism.

          Not exactly ‘the same system,’ different in many complex and meaningful ways.

    • Seraph@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      10 months ago

      If you think what’s happening is normal profit margin then you’re not paying enough attention.

    • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Market Capitalism is essentially a means separating the workers from the the machines and resources they declare private property,

      Market capitalism means people who do nothing but sit back and exploit people get most of the profit because they say so, which they then use to exploit more, despite providing no labor in making or provision of the products or services they get the vast majority of the net profit of, which leaves the laborers that actually keep the world running perpetually struggling and market capitalists wealthier and more detached from the plight of their fellow man day by day.

      You literally defend the resource hostage taker’s demands.