• admiralteal@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    71
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 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
      46
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      7 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
        19
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 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.

      • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        7 months ago

        Why do they do this?

        Incredibly frustrating.

        Should we form an eat the rich union, obviously.

        Is sharing garbage data on social media the way to get there, no! Real data (like on wealth concentration) is offensive enough!

    • Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      7 months ago

      I did the math, too, and came to the same conclusion.

      I’ll just be over here eating cake, like a good sans-culottes

  • DarkGamer@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    7 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
      18
      ·
      7 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
        2
        ·
        7 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
            ·
            7 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.

  • Mango@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 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.

  • Dim0N@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Ah yes, the famous Walmart, having 2 times the profits of Apple but costing 5 times less in stock.

    The picture totally makes sense, no questions asked.

  • doctorcrimson@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 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.

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

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

      :P

  • kajdav@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

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

    1. a Bonus, not a raise. If it was a Raise, it’d be per Month and you’d have to multiply it by 12 again, making it 53bn, more than double the Profit
    2. these 400k ignore a lot of people working in franchises that would go empty-handed

    Anyone trying to portray anything as a simple Issue is lying to you. Don’t fall for it.

    • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 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
      ·
      7 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.

  • PatFusty@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    7 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
      17
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 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

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

        Gross profit is NOT how much money a company makes after all costs. This is the basic misunderstanding. Here is an example

        Kraft Heinz Quarterly Revenue

        2023-09-30 $6,570

        2023-06-30 $6,721

        2023-03-31 $6,489

        2022-12-31$7,381

        TOTAL: 27.161B

        Kraft Heinz Quarterly Gross Profit

        2023-09-30 $2.235B

        2023-06-30 $2.261B

        2023-03-31 $2.113B

        2022-12-31 $2.364B

        Total: $8.973B

        Kraft Heinz Quarterly Net Profit

        2023-09-30 $262M

        2023-06-30 $1,000M

        2023-03-31 $836M

        2022-12-31 $890M

        Total: 2.988B

        https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/KHC/kraft-heinz/revenue

        For clarification, I’m not saying I’m against increasing labor pay. I am just saying the numbers used are misleading.

        • alexrmay91@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          7 months ago

          But only some numbers. Apple’s, for instance, is net profit from what I can see. Heinz isn’t. I haven’t looked into any more of them, but they’re just inconsistent.

          Crappy posts like this bug me so much because it makes “my side” look like we’re full of shit. There are mountains of true and verified facts to support the conclusion that workers should be paid more and corporations are ruthlessly greedy.

    • MonsiuerPatEBrown@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      before any operation costs

      paying employees a wealth generating compensation should be an operational cost, my friend.

    • lledrtx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 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?

      • kajdav@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        The picture is using a mix of revenue and gross profits, as far as I see no net profits. Gross profit is revenue after cost of goods, but without accounting for the cost of running the business. In starbucks’ case it likely means “this is how much we brought in revenue, minus the cost of the coffee, syrups, etc.”. They still have to pay employees, leases, etc. before you actually get to surplus or net profit.

        According to this, their net profit for 2023 was ~$4 billion. Giving the same argument with that number is a little less profound.

  • tygerprints@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    7 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.

    • x2Zero7@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      7 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
        8
        ·
        7 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
          7
          ·
          7 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.

    • Neil@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 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.

    • Seraph@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      7 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
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Market Capitalism is essentially a means of separating the workers from the machines and resources capitalists 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.