McDonald’s CEO Admits Obama’s Economy and Higher Wages Is A Rousing Success

[Rshermr]

And of course…

Despite the odds, became the first black president and then, was reelected by a wide margin.

Markle, the congenital idiot, said:

You're a waste of good air. You're afraid to post the link to your wild website.

You show a worthless word salad from an anonymous website titled:

*Progressives Coast to Coast

Let me help you, me poor congenital idiot con tool. The post I provided was not world salad. It was simply a list of bills and their numbers. Generally, you do not post a link to lists, because they are not open to interpretation. But I did. As you see above. But nice try. Imagine how much better things would go if you had a brain.

/QUOTE]

Rsherme typically has...nothing.

That would be your opinion, me boy. And you know how much I value your opinion.
Problem is you are a conservative. Here, read these. They may help you, though I doubt it:
"There are all types of statistics that could lead one to believe that liberals are smarter than conservatives. These include the fact that “Blue States” have higher graduation rates than “Red States” and the fact that most people who seek higher education have liberal ideologies."
5 Scientific, Peer-Reviewed Studies That Prove Republicans Are Just Stupid

 

[SuperDemocrat]

THe CEO is probably a democrat and judging by the fACT they got rid of the happy meal then yes they are probably obama bots.

 

[xband]

I don't know the management structure of McDonalds but the CEO is usually only a paid employee who the Chairman of the Board can fire at will.

 

[Rshermr]

I don't know the management structure of McDonalds but the CEO is usually only a paid employee who the Chairman of the Board can fire at will.

Uh, ok. That would be true. Generally with a vote of stockholders. But, why would you care if you have the golden parachute that all ceo's of very large corporations have?

 

[boedicca]

Machines are replacing people at Starbucks. A year ago the CEO announced an increase in the hourly wage. The result? Less hours for the workers.


One year later, something "unexpected" has happened as a result of the Schultz' all too eager push to "share" his company's success by hiking minimum wages, namely the realization by the company's employees (if not so much the CEO, management and certainly shareholders) that total compensation is a function of two things: hourly wages and number of hours worked.

As Reuters reports, an online petition accusing Starbucks of "extreme" cutbacks in work hours at its U.S. cafes, hurting both employee morale and customer service, has been signed by more than 9,000 people. Suddenly Starbucks' eagerness to raise its wages becomes all too clear: after all, it would merely have to reduce work hours, to keep profitability humming.

The world's biggest coffee chain, trying to address cooling growth at its U.S. shops, recently introduced technology that allows customers to order and pay from mobile devices. That service aims to boost sales and reduce bottlenecks in stores; it also aims to reduce work hours.

In short: Starbucks is finding itself in a sales and profit squeeze (its shares have gone nowhere for the past year), and having been such a fervent supporter of minimum wage hikes, is now far less willing to "share" its success as a company, especially if it means a stagnant stock price for the foreseeable future....

Something "Unexpected" Happened After Starbucks Raised Minimum Wages | Zero Hedge

 

[Rshermr]

Machines are replacing people at Starbucks. A year ago the CEO announced an increase in the hourly wage. The result? Less hours for the workers.


One year later, something "unexpected" has happened as a result of the Schultz' all too eager push to "share" his company's success by hiking minimum wages, namely the realization by the company's employees (if not so much the CEO, management and certainly shareholders) that total compensation is a function of two things: hourly wages and number of hours worked.

As Reuters reports, an online petition accusing Starbucks of "extreme" cutbacks in work hours at its U.S. cafes, hurting both employee morale and customer service, has been signed by more than 9,000 people. Suddenly Starbucks' eagerness to raise its wages becomes all too clear: after all, it would merely have to reduce work hours, to keep profitability humming.

The world's biggest coffee chain, trying to address cooling growth at its U.S. shops, recently introduced technology that allows customers to order and pay from mobile devices. That service aims to boost sales and reduce bottlenecks in stores; it also aims to reduce work hours.

In short: Starbucks is finding itself in a sales and profit squeeze (its shares have gone nowhere for the past year), and having been such a fervent supporter of minimum wage hikes, is now far less willing to "share" its success as a company, especially if it means a stagnant stock price for the foreseeable future....
Something "Unexpected" Happened After Starbucks Raised Minimum Wages | Zero Hedge

You can always tell you are reading the post of a bat shit crazy con troll when you see the source of their drivel is Zero Hedge. Apparently, boedeca, the nut case conservative troll is simply trying to prove she is stupid. Though she proved it years ago.

 

[boedicca]

Machines are replacing people at Starbucks. A year ago the CEO announced an increase in the hourly wage. The result? Less hours for the workers.


One year later, something "unexpected" has happened as a result of the Schultz' all too eager push to "share" his company's success by hiking minimum wages, namely the realization by the company's employees (if not so much the CEO, management and certainly shareholders) that total compensation is a function of two things: hourly wages and number of hours worked.

As Reuters reports, an online petition accusing Starbucks of "extreme" cutbacks in work hours at its U.S. cafes, hurting both employee morale and customer service, has been signed by more than 9,000 people. Suddenly Starbucks' eagerness to raise its wages becomes all too clear: after all, it would merely have to reduce work hours, to keep profitability humming.

The world's biggest coffee chain, trying to address cooling growth at its U.S. shops, recently introduced technology that allows customers to order and pay from mobile devices. That service aims to boost sales and reduce bottlenecks in stores; it also aims to reduce work hours.

In short: Starbucks is finding itself in a sales and profit squeeze (its shares have gone nowhere for the past year), and having been such a fervent supporter of minimum wage hikes, is now far less willing to "share" its success as a company, especially if it means a stagnant stock price for the foreseeable future....
Something "Unexpected" Happened After Starbucks Raised Minimum Wages | Zero Hedge

You can always tell you are reading the post of a bat shit crazy con troll when you see the source of their drivel is Zero Hedge. Apparently, boedeca, the nut case conservative troll is simply trying to prove she is stupid. Though she proved it years ago.

*yawn* You are boring.

 

[Rshermr]

Machines are replacing people at Starbucks. A year ago the CEO announced an increase in the hourly wage. The result? Less hours for the workers.


One year later, something "unexpected" has happened as a result of the Schultz' all too eager push to "share" his company's success by hiking minimum wages, namely the realization by the company's employees (if not so much the CEO, management and certainly shareholders) that total compensation is a function of two things: hourly wages and number of hours worked.

As Reuters reports, an online petition accusing Starbucks of "extreme" cutbacks in work hours at its U.S. cafes, hurting both employee morale and customer service, has been signed by more than 9,000 people. Suddenly Starbucks' eagerness to raise its wages becomes all too clear: after all, it would merely have to reduce work hours, to keep profitability humming.

The world's biggest coffee chain, trying to address cooling growth at its U.S. shops, recently introduced technology that allows customers to order and pay from mobile devices. That service aims to boost sales and reduce bottlenecks in stores; it also aims to reduce work hours.

In short: Starbucks is finding itself in a sales and profit squeeze (its shares have gone nowhere for the past year), and having been such a fervent supporter of minimum wage hikes, is now far less willing to "share" its success as a company, especially if it means a stagnant stock price for the foreseeable future....
Something "Unexpected" Happened After Starbucks Raised Minimum Wages | Zero Hedge

You can always tell you are reading the post of a bat shit crazy con troll when you see the source of their drivel is Zero Hedge. Apparently, boedeca, the nut case conservative troll is simply trying to prove she is stupid. Though she proved it years ago.

*yawn* You are boring.

"yawn" You are a bat shit crazy con troll. And incapable of economic discussion. And boring.
So there. Dipshit.

 

[boedicca]

Machines are replacing people at Starbucks. A year ago the CEO announced an increase in the hourly wage. The result? Less hours for the workers.


One year later, something "unexpected" has happened as a result of the Schultz' all too eager push to "share" his company's success by hiking minimum wages, namely the realization by the company's employees (if not so much the CEO, management and certainly shareholders) that total compensation is a function of two things: hourly wages and number of hours worked.

As Reuters reports, an online petition accusing Starbucks of "extreme" cutbacks in work hours at its U.S. cafes, hurting both employee morale and customer service, has been signed by more than 9,000 people. Suddenly Starbucks' eagerness to raise its wages becomes all too clear: after all, it would merely have to reduce work hours, to keep profitability humming.

The world's biggest coffee chain, trying to address cooling growth at its U.S. shops, recently introduced technology that allows customers to order and pay from mobile devices. That service aims to boost sales and reduce bottlenecks in stores; it also aims to reduce work hours.

In short: Starbucks is finding itself in a sales and profit squeeze (its shares have gone nowhere for the past year), and having been such a fervent supporter of minimum wage hikes, is now far less willing to "share" its success as a company, especially if it means a stagnant stock price for the foreseeable future....
Something "Unexpected" Happened After Starbucks Raised Minimum Wages | Zero Hedge

You can always tell you are reading the post of a bat shit crazy con troll when you see the source of their drivel is Zero Hedge. Apparently, boedeca, the nut case conservative troll is simply trying to prove she is stupid. Though she proved it years ago.

*yawn* You are boring.

"yawn" You are a bat shit crazy con troll. And incapable of economic discussion. And boring.
So there. Dipshit.

Owwwwwww.......







Not.

You.Are.A.Dullard.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Machines are replacing people at Starbucks. A year ago the CEO announced an increase in the hourly wage. The result? Less hours for the workers.


One year later, something "unexpected" has happened as a result of the Schultz' all too eager push to "share" his company's success by hiking minimum wages, namely the realization by the company's employees (if not so much the CEO, management and certainly shareholders) that total compensation is a function of two things: hourly wages and number of hours worked.

As Reuters reports, an online petition accusing Starbucks of "extreme" cutbacks in work hours at its U.S. cafes, hurting both employee morale and customer service, has been signed by more than 9,000 people. Suddenly Starbucks' eagerness to raise its wages becomes all too clear: after all, it would merely have to reduce work hours, to keep profitability humming.

The world's biggest coffee chain, trying to address cooling growth at its U.S. shops, recently introduced technology that allows customers to order and pay from mobile devices. That service aims to boost sales and reduce bottlenecks in stores; it also aims to reduce work hours.

In short: Starbucks is finding itself in a sales and profit squeeze (its shares have gone nowhere for the past year), and having been such a fervent supporter of minimum wage hikes, is now far less willing to "share" its success as a company, especially if it means a stagnant stock price for the foreseeable future....
Something "Unexpected" Happened After Starbucks Raised Minimum Wages | Zero Hedge

You can always tell you are reading the post of a bat shit crazy con troll when you see the source of their drivel is Zero Hedge. Apparently, boedeca, the nut case conservative troll is simply trying to prove she is stupid. Though she proved it years ago.

*yawn* You are boring.

"yawn" You are a bat shit crazy con troll. And incapable of economic discussion. And boring.
So there. Dipshit.

Lmao this comming from the USMB Obama Peter puffer who doesn't have a clue about how to add or economics?


Fucking hilarious



.

 

[AntonToo]

Newsflash - automation is not really a question of minimum wage, it is a question of TIME.

In time, order placement and checkout process will be automated and expected by the consumer, there is no minimum wage low enough to prevent it.

 

[boedicca]

HAHAHA!!!! I was right. McDs is replacing humans with robots:


McDonald's hits all-time high as Wall Street cheers replacement of cashiers with kiosks

• Cowen says McDonald's will upgrade 2,500 restaurants to its "Experience of the Future" technology by year-end, which includes digital ordering kiosks....

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/20/

 

[Iceweasel]

Newsflash - automation is not really a question of minimum wage, it is a question of TIME.

In time, order placement and checkout process will be automated and expected by the consumer, there is no minimum wage low enough to prevent it.

Newsflash: automation will pay for itself since $15hr per hour per employee is a lot of money. Time isn't a factor now so your point makes no sense.

No zits to look at. No snot to eat. Less chance of a communicable illness. It's a win win for everyone except the unskilled drone that will be replaced wherever they look.