They can choose to go under from costs that exceed turnover. Let’s see how that works out for their employees. Let’s start with the big 3 car manufacturers where the unions forced a starting salary for the lowest paid staff of 90k. It worked out great for them.
You are correct. Though I wouldn't say the company has lots of alternatives it does have a few. Any company that faces an increase in the price it pays for any of the goods it uses has 3 choices. 1. It can pass the increased costs onto consumers by raising the price of its products. 2. It can absorb the increase in costs by reducing its profit margin. 3. It can reduce its consumption of the good that is costing it more. A company budget is no different in many ways to a personal budget. They both utilise private money in an attempt to enhance wealth. If an individual had a particular liking for a certain brand of beer and that beer went up in price, he would be faced with similar choices to any company experiencing a rise in the cost of goods it consumes. If he wants to continue to consume that brand of beer he would have to reduce his consumption of some other good, maybe lamingtons, or his increased costs would risk his ability to enhance his wealth. If he wasn't willing to do that then he would have to suck up the extra cost, this of course would harm his financial position and would be considered profligate by the majority of rational people. The third choice he has would be to stop buying that brand of beer and consume a cheaper one instead. A company can only push up the price of its goods so far before it damages its trading position. Likewise it can only absorb price increases so far until its trading position is also damaged. In the case of Red Robin, it cannot find an alternative like our beer drinking buddy, so it is left with only one option. Reduce its consumption of the good that is rising in price. It would be profligate to argue that a company should continue to consume a good that rises in cost without taking some course of action to reduce the harm it does to its financial position.
CEO earns 1.3 million and other execs similarly. Workers, if full time, near $20,000, or after the crippling pay rise, 22k. No better way to restructure than hang it on a pay rise.
Red Robin workforce of about 29 000. Using your figures that's an increase of $58 000 000 just in wages without a corresponding increase in productivity, that's crippling in my books. Cutting the CEO's salary wouldn't make much of a difference to that increase in cost. Come on JulieW, think rationally.
Pay rise for workers under the minimum as I read it. That is the bussers and wait staff. Also a lot of franchisees in those figures. Also when your lowest paid workers are receiving $6 an hour, and being sacked for receiving a rise to a liveable wage, is a CEO (and no doubt a coterie of executives) on $1.3 million and similar, a moral position? These are the points being made by Johnston in the above clip. And if you don't believe morality is part of business, then welcome to the late, great capitalist republic experiment that was USA. Here in Oz I could never work out why employers considered that the 'award wage' was THE wage to be paid regardless. It's actually a minimum and if you want a good workforce you treat them well. I remember a conversation with a fool I met once, who proudly regaled me with a tale of kicking dents into every panel loaded into a Ford company container back when the company was located in Melbourne. I thought at the time he and his mates were idiots for doing it, and the company was stupid for treating them like automatons to inspire that sort of payback. AND that was back in the late seventies when Ford provided a liveable wage. No wonder Detroit is as it is.
Of course it’s ethical to pay a CEO over $1million per year yet pay others $6. If they were worth more than $6/hr then they wouldn’t be bus boys. How is it immoral? Has anyone’s money been stolen? Has anyone’s rights been denied? As it is, they’ll now be unemployed. Is artificially increasing the cost of goods ethical?
Just testing this website to see whether they are using the latest technology to show that the poster thinks he is posting, but no-one else can see his comments
I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make, but just cut and pasting the same comments in different, unrelated threads is nothing more than spam. Please refrain.
And if you don't believe morality is part of business, then welcome to the late, great capitalist republic experiment that was USA. The point made in the clip is that government favouritism regulating on behalf of industry is the issue, not market economics. If the CEO, directors and shareholders had the will they'd keep those jobs, but a KPI bonus and another few cents on the share price is not worth those few hundred jobs. The same thing happens at budget time. 122 million for an opinion poll, or maintain funding for kindergartens or apprenticeships? Depends on your motivation. Btw: The difference between capitalism and socialism? Capitalism depends on the evil of man exploiting and corrupting his fellow man. In socialism it's the other way round.
btw I see zero justification for receiving a million dollar wage and believe it is immoral. If you believe you can justify same, I'm all ears.
i think hes wondering if everyone is "ignoring" his posts i dont have to use the ignore function i just see the coloured txt & scroll straight past lol hes never typed anything worth reading in my experience so i ignore without the ignore function.i even had to think twice before i typed this reply because i dont want to encourage him
Then the point is entirely lost because governments also regulate in favour of workers at the expense of business owners aka minimum wages. You obviously didn’t read my posts. Is simply who owns the means of production. Why do I need to justify it? I neither earn that sort of money (you probably wouldn’t believe how much I do earn) nor own any shares so I don’t pay anyone that sort of money. If you insist on reading a justification then go here: Does the Mayweather vs. McGregor Fight Create or Destroy Wealth?
Not sure who you are either so Please refrain from telling me what to do. Do you get it? You sound a bit Paranoid, Paranoid. Go and pick on another poster & just STFU. _JLG. I had a good reason to do what I did as an experiment on something I'd learned about website techniques. Do you like the colour, & size of the font Paranoid Person? I don't really give a $#.. , Pick on somebody else, PLEASE, pretty, pretty please.
That's easy. If a CEO wasn't worth his wage, the market simply wouldn't pay it. That is so lame... the lefty politics of envy. Just because someone earns more than you, they must be immoral, corrupt, and evil. Why don't people simply go and work for any one of those numerous corporations built on moral positions? C'mon.... obviously you can name them? Half the country is left, so there must be a lot of them started by some of the left population? Or, there is a good reason why they don't exist.
Tom Woods' point about the gender pay gap can be applied to CEO pay gaps as well (noting that - as per the initial post - crony capitalism no doubt influences the pay gaps in various industries):
