Pizza hut lays off all its drivers just because minimum wage was increased.

[Altfish]

It's only in California, but I'm sure everybody knows Pizza Hut chains make more than enough money to accommodate all employees, including the minimum wage increase.

This is just a disgusting show of
Incredible greed and disregard for the working people that had made that made this chain successful and without them Pizza Hut would not even be around.

Great way to show thanks and appreciation from the management at Pizza hut around Christmas to their workers.

MSN

I hope a boycott of the chain follows.

 

[Revoltingest]

Or you could treat all your employees with dignity and respect, and pay them a wage which reflects the value of their labour.

I always did.
And when I was an employee at many
different places, that's what I experienced.

And since you wouldn't be hiring if you weren't looking to profit yourself from that labour, we can reasonably assume that it's value to you is quite high.

Employees should be economically worth more
than they cost. Wages are only part of that cost,
which is sometimes more than double the wage
because of taxes, bennies, & idle time.

 

[Revoltingest]

I hope a boycott of the chain follows.

It won't
Love of fast food always trumps leftish labor activism.

I'm not saying this is right or wrong.
It's just what generally happens.
Hmmm....
It reminds me that too many fervent advocates
think of economics as what people should do.
Instead, it's about what people actually do.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I hope a boycott of the chain follows.

One thing I will say for the modern generation that's good actually, is that they're starting to really stand up to the olarchy and the rightful demand for income equality.

Something I wouldn't have supported in the past, but I do now once I saw the statistics on how corporations take advantage of their workers and the whole entire economy as well.

 

[Kenny]

It's only in California, but I'm sure everybody knows Pizza Hut chains make more than enough money to accommodate all employees, including the minimum wage increase.

This is just a disgusting show of
Incredible greed and disregard for the working people that had made that made this chain successful and without them Pizza Hut would not even be around.

Great way to show thanks and appreciation from the management at Pizza hut around Christmas to their workers.

MSN

I think it takes more study to come to the conclusion.

I found this information on an investment of about Yet with a whopping $936,000 investment cost, is this really a good business? How long would it take you to recoup your original investment? dollars. It would take about 10 years just to get a ROI - so costs have to be looked at very carefully:

How profitable is a Pizza Hut franchise?​

We estimate that the average Pizza Hut franchise makes $92,000 in profits per year. That’s a 9%

Pizza Hut Franchise Costs $935K: Profits & Costs (2023)

Yet with a whopping $935,575 investment cost and average sales of $906,911, is a Pizza Hut franchise really a good investment?

sharpsheets.io

 

[Twilight Hue]

I hope a boycott of the chain follows.

Not hard in light of the greasy sludge they put on top of their pies they happen to call a pizza.

 

[Heyo]

The business doesn't get the subsidy. Nay, the
business subsidizes employees with payroll taxes,
& usually other bennies, eg, health insurance.
For employees unable to earn enuf for the lifestyle
they want, voters have the state step in to assist.

You left out the most important part. The business that can load off part of the cost of operation to the tax payers has an advantage as they can offer lower prices. They use that advantage to drive businesses who work by market rule out, resulting in job loss - jobs that paid a living wage. The state subsidises this practise. That is not how a free market economy should work.
It is a "good" business strategy for the freeloaders, it is always better if you get someone else to pay your bills. It is also a "good" long term strategy as you destroy high paying jobs and those people now have to work for your conditions and the state has to take care of more of the wages.
Extrapolate that to the extreme and the state pays all workers while wages, prices and quality sink to the bottom. Then the only difference to state capitalism is that the capitalists still get their dividends.
To prevent this development the state, in self defence, imposes minimum wages (or strengthens unions). Pizza Hut and others (e.g. Amazon) don't like to see their subsidies gone and act aggressively.
Describing that as vulture capitalism is unfair to the vultures

Have you become one of those wild eyed right
wingers who uses "commie" as a broad epithet?

I qualified in which sense I meant it.

You'll pay for goods, services, & employee largesse
one way or another. It'll either by by prices, taxes,
or a reduction in value received.

Isn't the idea of liberalism that the state shouldn't interfere into the economy more than necessary? This form of subsidies isn't only wrong morally it is wrong in a liberalist market system.

 

[Revoltingest]

You left out the most important part.

Nyuh uh!

The business that can load off part of the cost of operation to the tax payers has an advantage as they can offer lower prices.

If you refer to subsidizing the wage of an employee who needs
a higher wage than they're paid, that's not a business cost.
If society wants to provide assistance to low wager earners,
the way to do this is by government taxation. This broadens
not just the burden, but also allows assisting all in need.

The following histrionics needn't be addressed.

They use that advantage to drive businesses who work by market rule out, resulting in job loss - jobs that paid a living wage. The state subsidises this practise. That is not how a free market economy should work.
It is a "good" business strategy for the freeloaders, it is always better if you get someone else to pay your bills. It is also a "good" long term strategy as you destroy high paying jobs and those people now have to work for your conditions and the state has to take care of more of the wages.
Extrapolate that to the extreme and the state pays all workers while wages, prices and quality sink to the bottom. Then the only difference to state capitalism is that the capitalists still get their dividends.
To prevent this development the state, in self defence, imposes minimum wages (or strengthens unions). Pizza Hut and others (e.g. Amazon) don't like to see their subsidies gone and act aggressively.
Describing that as vulture capitalism is unfair to the vultures


I qualified in which sense I meant it.


Isn't the idea of liberalism that the state shouldn't interfere into the economy more than necessary? This form of subsidies isn't only wrong morally it is wrong in a liberalist market system.

 

[Heyo]

Nyuh uh!

If you refer to subsidizing the wage of an employee who needs
a higher wage than they're paid, that's not a business cost.
If society wants to provide assistance to low wager earners,
the way to do this is by government taxation. This broadens
not just the burden, but also allows assisting all in need.

Assume you are starting a new business. You got your shareholder who gave you enough money to buy a machine that produces some stuff. You've set your competitive price for the stuff (and you calculated a generous salary for you and a dividend that makes your shareholders happy). All works out but in that calculation you can't pay for the maintenance for the machine (which it needs regularly to function). Do you expect the state to foot that bill? Or do you have to go back to the drawing board and recalculate?

 

[Revoltingest]

Assume you are starting a new business. You got your shareholder who gave you enough money to buy a machine that produces some stuff. You've set your competitive price for the stuff (and you calculated a generous salary for you and a dividend that makes your shareholders happy). All works out but in that calculation you can't pay for the maintenance for the machine (which it needs regularly to function). Do you expect the state to foot that bill? Or do you have to go back to the drawing board and recalculate?

 

[Heyo]

Yep. That's what we are saying to Pizza Hut (and other businesses who until now relied on wage subsidies) and now have to pay a living wage: you overcome, you adapt - and don't throw a hissy fit.
Glad we came to an understanding.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yep. That's what we are saying to Pizza Hut (and other businesses who until now relied on wage subsidies) and now have to pay a living wage: you overcome, you adapt - and don't throw a hissy fit.
Glad we came to an understanding.

Who says they now pay a living wage?
I doubt that's the case...it's just a higher minimum wage.
The only "hissy fits" I see are from those carping about
Pizza Hut's respondse. They know their business far
better than we do.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It's only in California, but I'm sure everybody knows Pizza Hut chains make more than enough money to accommodate all employees, including the minimum wage increase.

This is just a disgusting show of
Incredible greed and disregard for the working people that had made that made this chain successful and without them Pizza Hut would not even be around.

Great way to show thanks and appreciation from the management at Pizza hut around Christmas to their workers.

MSN

Yeah, I've read this, and I don't believe it. I forget which pizza parlor it was, but there is one chain that also canceled delivery, and they did it BEFORE the new minimum wage went into effect. So it is not minimum wage which is driving this.

Back in the 1950's, a working Joe could get an unskilled job at the local factory, and afford a home, a car, and a tv, and could support a wife and kids. So I will never EVER believe that business NEEDS slave wage laborers.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yeah, I've read this, and I don't believe it. I forget which pizza parlor it was, but there is one chain that also canceled delivery, and they did it BEFORE the new minimum wage went into effect. So it is not minimum wage which is driving this.

Back in the 1950's, a working Joe could get an unskilled job at the local factory, and afford a home, a car, and a tv, and could support a wife and kids. So I will never EVER believe that business NEEDS slave wage laborers.

What changed is the emphasis of CEOs where they used to be company oriented, a big successful company, skilled labors, well paid employees, but now it's changed into a new type of CEO where profit and shareholders were the focus rather than the company itself which is secondary.

Its why so many companies now are run into the ground and new ones crop up just to be run into the ground again once the profitability is used up and shuttered by these parasitic CEOs

 

[Shaul]

6.8 billion dollars in revenue. Those are all the qualifications I require

Also even further....

Pizza Hut CEO Email & Net Worth 2023 | Aaron Powell Salary

Pizza Hut CEO Aaron Powell is an alumnus of Washington University...Aaron Powell net worth & salary in 2023...Pizza Hut CEO email is...

listofceo.com

Snippet...

Pizza Hut Net Worth 2023 – Is Pizza Hut Profitable?​

As of 2023, Pizza Hut belongs to Yum! Brands, Inc., which reportedly has a net worth of 35-45 billion USD. Yes, Pizza Hut is profitable.

....and they just cannot afford their drivers at all because if they do they will definitely go bankrupt and out of business.

Pizza Hut uses a franchise business model. Whether the Pizza Hut corporation is profitable has no bearing on the profitability of a franchise location.

 

[Revoltingest]

What changed is the emphasis of CEOs where they used to be company oriented, a big successful company, skilled labors, well paid employees, but now it's changed into a new type of CEO where profit and shareholders were the focus rather than the company itself which is secondary.

Its why so many companies now are run into the ground and new ones crop up just to be run into the ground again once the profitability is used up and shuttered by these parasitic CEOs

Perhaps some day all that inefficiency & greed
will disappear when government takes over all
businesses. Everything will embody government
efficiency, fairness, competence, quality, &
responsiveness to the citizens.

 

[Heyo]

What changed is the emphasis of CEOs where they used to be company oriented, a big successful company, skilled labors, well paid employees, but now it's changed into a new type of CEO where profit and shareholders were the focus rather than the company itself which is secondary.

Its why so many companies now are run into the ground and new ones crop up just to be run into the ground again once the profitability is used up and shuttered by these parasitic CEOs

The CEOs look like the monsters but they are only doing the bidding of the shareholders (or what they think the bidding of the shareholders is). (Doesn't apply when the CEOs are the shareholders.)
That's capitalism in it's pure form, you want your money to multiply so you give it to the one who promises the most profit. Everything else is a black box.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The CEOs look like the monsters but they are only doing the bidding of the shareholders (or what they think the bidding of the shareholders is). (Doesn't apply when the CEOs are the shareholders.)
That's capitalism in it's pure form, you want your money to multiply so you give it to the one who promises the most profit. Everything else is a black box.

No. The modern CEO is a completely different animal as compared to CEOs of the past although granted most all of them were notably greedy ********.

 

[Heyo]

No. The modern CEO is a completely different animal as compared to CEOs of the past although granted most all of them were notably greedy ********.

I agree to a point. This CEO job has only come into favour recently. Old time corporations often had the founder or his family as major share holder and CEO/president. They had an emotional attachment to the business and sometimes even to the workers, seeing them as extended family. The idea that a corporations first and only duty is to turn a profit and that the profit has to be min-maxed is relatively new.

 

[RestlessSoul]

No. The modern CEO is a completely different animal as compared to CEOs of the past although granted most all of them were notably greedy ********.

It's capitalism in action, and it's hardly new. Greed becomes the highest virtue, and a man or woman is judged on how much he owns, regardless of how he came to own it.

Not that communism is any sort of alternative, since Marxism is a materialist doctrine. When materialism becomes the bedrock of a culture, that culture has lost all sense of value. Man must find a spiritual solution to the raft of dilemmas presented to him by his own nature. He must, or he'll sink the ship and drown the crew, like Captain Ahab in Moby Dick.