So a 25% wage increase resulted in price rises of less than 4%. This is such a good trade off that you’d have to be extremely intellectually dishonest to be able to be against it.
Or extremely selfish. They see their wage stagnating while costs increase and think of lower-income earners as deserving of their place in squalor, rather than respected and dignified.
Those price increases of 25%+ are not because of this change, that’s just opportunism. Price increases of between 5 and 7% still seem worth it to me.
I found a McDonald’s franchise cost breakdown where staff wages were 27.5% of the total cost: https://www.mymoneyblog.com/mcdonalds-franchise-cost-vs-profit.html . A 25% increase on those wages, would mean a total cost increase of almost 7%, so it seems like Mr Rodrick is honest with his pricing.
So a 25% wage increase resulted in price rises of less than 4%. This is such a good trade off that you’d have to be extremely intellectually dishonest to be able to be against it.
Or extremely selfish. They see their wage stagnating while costs increase and think of lower-income earners as deserving of their place in squalor, rather than respected and dignified.
removed by mod
Aww :(
Those price increases of 25%+ are not because of this change, that’s just opportunism. Price increases of between 5 and 7% still seem worth it to me.
I found a McDonald’s franchise cost breakdown where staff wages were 27.5% of the total cost: https://www.mymoneyblog.com/mcdonalds-franchise-cost-vs-profit.html . A 25% increase on those wages, would mean a total cost increase of almost 7%, so it seems like Mr Rodrick is honest with his pricing.