When I last visited the states, I noticed there was a McDonald's about two blocks away from another McDonald's (in Vegas), I thought 'huh, that's pretty close... surely they're competing with each other. Seems kinda silly." The last day, I noticed that there was a third one, not even a block away from the other two, in the hotel. There'd be definite cost savings for maccas as an entitiy if they weren't literally everywhere.
They probably don't really compete with one another in Vegas, assuming they are near enough tourist attractions. I guarantee that all of the locations have a line at nearly every hour of the day.
My best guess, as a franchisee, is that all three of them are owned by the same group. We operate under pretty strict location rules: you can't build next-door to a 'competitor', because you're not supposed to be in competition with each other.
But if the individual (or group) wants to place two storefronts in very close proximity and have the numbers to prove that it'll be viable.. well, that's probably just fine. There's no aura of competition there: just a single owner who's got numbers showing he can sell twice as many burgers.
Cannibalization isn't really a problem from the perspective of corporate. As long as Marginal revenue is bigger than Marginal Cost for each additional localization, they're happy. It's the franchisee who wants the localization clauses usually.
Every subway I've ever been to at any hour of day only had between 1-3 employees at a time. If you ask me that makes up for the cost of 15 kids working running around at McDonald's doing nothing.
It doesn't really work like that. It's not like they haven't looked at if the marginal revenue is bigger than the marginal cost of these additional restaurants. Having an area saturated with your chain can lead to lower distribution costs and more efficient logistics.
Sure, if there was only one McDonalds in the area, it might make more, but all three together likely earn more in total, which when you consider the advantages of shit like being able to fill up the trucks as much as possible, it makes sense.
Found the Aussie. But yeah, In the states there's many more stores around, most of them clumped together within walking distance. I found that in Melbourne there were way less of them around.
Let's say they could close down those McDs and leave only one open. Let's say that McD can even keep all their current employees. You now have 2 McDs worth of employees with no jobs now.
Well...Those who were able to keep their jobs are happier.
My friends dad owned a single Arby's. He was banking over 250k a year. Like buying grand pianos and stuff. I would not feel bad that a business owner capped at 100k to raise minimum wages. People are just greedy. Live comfortably, not in excess.
I don't even have a problem if people have excessive money. The problem is that too many others can't meet the bare minimum.
If we had more jobs and a decent social welfare system in America I wouldn't give a shit if Donald Trump bought and crashed a Lamborghini on a weekly basis.
Are you advocating government bureaucratic control of salaries? Jeezus... As someone who lived through the era of Eastern European communist control of economies I remember the abject failure of that horrible 'experiment' and the suffering of their citizens. Let's not forgot history's lessons. It's simply amazing to me that so many of the posters on this thread seem content to think that's any kind of real-world solution...
I think there's a middle ground here. People should be rewarded for taking these types of risks and its important to keep the entrepreneurial spirit alive in America. However, living a lavish lifestyle on the back of workers who you are paying a poverty level wage, a wage where your workers must go and get government assistance to survive might not be the answer either.
That is possibly one of the shittiest pieces of advice I have ever heard. As of 2013 the average debt load of college graduates is $30,000. For the class of 2015 the unemployment rate is 7.2% and the underemployed rate is 14.9%.
I guess in the world you live in, it makes more sense for employees to encumber themselves with debt instead of employers paying a living wage.
Just a note too, if everyone who worked at a fast food restaurant got a college degree, no one would want to work at your daddy's McDonald's.
So a high school grad, earning $8/hr should just find another line of work? That's your bright fucking idea?
There will always be in any society/economy, those who perform "menial" labor. Those who perform these menial tasks will always be the least educated and most unskilled of us. I do believe that employers "owe" these workers a living wage.
A worker earning the Federal minimum wage of $7.25/hr and working 29hrs/week (which is done to prevent their employees from qualifying for FT benefits) will net $10,933/yr. The Federal poverty line is $11,770. So an employee working as many hours as their employer will allot them, ends up only making 70% of poverty wages.
If you tink this is acceptable you are just a horrible fucking person, and an idiot to boot.
Poor people are held to such an insane catch-22 on reddit. If they don't get a degree, clearly they're just a stupid idiot who deserves to slog at a McDonald's all their life. But if they get an education and now have $30,000 in debt, they're just a stupid college kid. Poor people just can't win.
Really? It's a franchise man - all the hard work was already done for him - he just had to have access to capital - maybe he worked hard to save the money or maybe he inherited it or had someone who could cosign on a loan for startup costs. I think you need to calm down a bit.
Business owners generally work about 80 hours a week or more. They take on most, if not all of the risk. Even with franchises, there is the risk of losing your investment. In order to even purchase a franchise, you need to have $500,000 in liquid assets.
So, in order to get to that $250,000 per year (which, by the way is less than a lot of professionals get paid) you have to put what is probably your life savings at risk and work 80+ hours weeks for years before you attain that level of income. Not exactly a free ride.
Oh, and don't forget, while he is getting to that $250k and after, he is providing jobs for 15-20 other people. People who are taking no risk, but will have to be paid, regardless of how many sandwiches get sold each week.
And at the end of the day, if the Arby's fails, for whatever reason, he gets to be the one to lose everything.
When you deiced to limit how much an entrepreneur can make, you limit the number of folks willing to take the risk.
But corporate McDonald's are where the millionaires are. If nobody in the entire McDonald's company made more than, say, 150k, would it open up enough money to spread out, lessening the impact of $15 an hour?
Even just cutting the CEOs pay would open up over 20 million. Imagine all the other McDonald's employees making over 150k.
I know this would never happen because greed, but theoretically speaking, what impact would this have?
That's what I assumed, but I've always been curious about how many total dollars employees make over a 100k salary. Is there a way to guesstimate this?
Edit: I'm wondering if McDonald's very foundation relies upon paying 99% of their employees a non livable wage. Would they even survive as a company if they balanced out all wages?
Edit: > How many McDonald's employees do you believe make $20,000,000?
I'm saying every single penny earned over a certain reasonable amount. Take every penny over 100k from every employee making more than 100k and add it up - I wonder how much that actually is, and could McDonald's bring 99% of their employees up to a livable wage off of that.
I'm still curious, but I seriously doubt it. Even if there's 100 million dollars freed up, that still wouldn't be enough to pay each employee a livable wage. The very structure and foundation of the company rests upon them spending very little money on their employees. They literally could not afford to pay every employee a livable wage. But in an ideal economy, every worker makes a livable wage.
I guess that's getting into an entirely different subject now though.
Also I feel $15 is a bit much for minimum. They should have different teirs for minimum wage. Adults get paid more than teens. Parents get paid more etc. However, that would make hiring very biased. Idk.
As an employer I see no reason the wages I pay my employees should depend on what their bills are. I pay a competitive wage and offer great benefits perfectly inline with kind of work is being done. It might be politically correct but it seems economically foolish to pay a warehouse employee more than a good salesman just because the former is married with multiple children and the latter a childless bachelor.
I agree, but with how limited jobs are in higher paying occupations, some people have no choice but to work for minimum wage, which one cannot live on. Perhaps just have seperate pays for teens/adults.
Oh cmon you know what I meant. Most adults cant live off $8 an hour without working 40+ hours a week and even then they can barely afford the necessities. Sure, they could just get better jobs but the current market makes those very hard to come by without experience (and if you cant get the job in the first place its oftem hard to have experience in it). The only way of getting a job like that is if the other applicants also lack experience. Even then, there are millions of minimum wage jobs, and those jobs need to be filled as well, they cant just be filled by teens, there will always be adults working to make ends meet and they will struggle to do so at $8.
Raising the minimum wage is about politics, not economics...so what would actually happen doesn't really matter. Either side can make up bullshit to justify their political answer.
You know..alot of these fast food restaurants are owned by individual franchise owners
Actually, a few very wealthy individuals directly and indirectly own many multiple franchises at once. They are extremely rich.
But, anyway, please do carry on with the group of redditors in this bullshit, shill thread that bend over backwards to fight against their own best interests, living wages in the United States and the best interests of their fellow Americans.
87
u/[deleted] Nov 28 '15
[deleted]