• admiralteal@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    121
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    10 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
      90
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      10 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
        36
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 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.

        • Goldmage263@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          10 months ago

          From their press release website, $36 biliion consolidated net revenue reported at a 16% profit margin for fiscal year 2023 leaves $5.76 billion after every expense has been deducted.

            • yacht_boy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              First, that assumes the company makes no profit at all. Not a sustainable way to keep a company in business. If they go out of business, 400,000 people lose their jobs and a whole lot of them lose their health insurance. Starbucks is pretty well known for being generous with their benefits.

              Second, wages are typically only about 2/3 or even less of the total compensation, and don’t account for the employer’s share of payroll taxes.

              So figure that you think Starbucks should make half their current profits and give the other half to their employees. That puts it at $6250 per employee, which would likely translate to about $4000/ year before the employees’ portion of taxes, or about a $2/hour raise. Which would be great for employees making maybe $30k/year, but is not exactly going to vault them into the middle class.

      • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 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
      18
      ·
      10 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