Doubling McDonalds' Paychecks Wouldn't Raise Menu Prices Much

Not McDonald's food, but one of several facts HuffPo
says the fast food industry doesn't want you to know.

Remember awhile back when the Papa John's founder (John McDoucherson, I think) balked at "ObamaCare," saying it would "force" him to raise the price of his pizzas by 14 cents each? And most rational people thought, "Wow! For 14 cents, the pizza workers can have health care? Great!" Well, except conservatives who for some reason don't want that. Anyway, the point is, nobody is going to cancel their pizza order over 14 cents, and look at all the good that would do.

Presently, McDonalds (and Walmart and others) are all in a twist over raising the minimum wage. Even though doing so wouldn't necessarily hurt business. In fact, it would create a larger base of consumers who can--you know--afford to buy things. What's more, given the big corporations' multi-billion dollar profits, they actually could afford to raise all of their workers' salaries, and still make a profit, just less profit. Or, they could raise their prices. But really, not all that much. Check out the story excerpted below.

And in a sidebar, I'd love a clarification on something. We hear, virtually every quarter, that Exxon-Mobil, BP and Shell have had record-breaking profits. In fact the biggest profits in the history of man. McDonalds makes billions too. A number of companies do. And then there's Walmart, with its handful of very, very lucky heirs. They rake in tens of billions in profits per year, per person! What is it to Alice Walton if she makes $10 billion this year, rather than $20 billion, but her employees can afford to shop in her own store? I'd seriously like to know, where do all of these multi-billions in profits go anyway? How much can Sheldon Adelson, for example, spend before he crumbles to dust? Why do the mega-rich try so hard to get even more mega-rich, while their employees can barely scrape by?

[Excerpt]

Doubling McDonald's Salaries Would Cause Your Big Mac To Cost Just 68¢ More: Study

McDonald's can afford to pay its workers a living wage without sacrificing any of its low menu prices, according to a new study provided to The Huffington Post by a University of Kansas student. . .

Read more at: Huffington Post

Romney's Bain Days: Profits from Abortion?

Image from Mother Jones

I'm very curious whether right-wing anti-abortion voters will make excuses for this? Or will they just choose to ignore it, because they so despise President Obama?

[Excerpt]


Romney Invested in Medical-Waste Firm That Disposed of Aborted Fetuses, Government Documents Show


Earlier this year, Mitt Romney nearly landed in a politically perilous controversy when the Huffington Post reported that in 1999 the GOP presidential candidate had been part of an investment group that invested $75 million in Stericycle, a medical-waste disposal firm that has been attacked by anti-abortion groups for disposing aborted fetuses collected from family planning clinics. Coming during the heat of the GOP primaries, as Romney tried to sell South Carolina Republicans on his pro-life bona fides, the revelation had the potential to damage the candidate's reputation among values voters already suspicious of his shifting position on abortion. . .

Read more at: Mother Jones

Obama, Durbin in War of Words with Bank of America

I'm a Bank of America customer in good standing, with a decent balance, and a 17-year history. I've been a good customer. I have a no-fee checking account, do all of my bill paying electronically, and make most purchases with my debit card. I might write out one physical check every couple of months. And I rarely carry more than twenty or thirty dollars on me.

I'll be honest, even with pay and benefit cuts in this economy, a $5 per month fee is not going to break me. But $60 a year just to continue banking as I have since the Clinton Administration seems ridiculous. So, I'm contemplating switching banks. Which takes study, detailed notes undoing and redoing my electronic payments. And what's to stop my hypothetical new bank from changing their policy, and charging me for their debit card? [Story continues below]




All of this came out of a bill by Barney Frank and Chuck Dodd, which was created to protect consumers from all sorts of financial abuse by the big banks. The relevant part here cut debit card "swipe" fees at retailers in half. Supposedly, doing this would save retailers money, and they'd pass on the savings. . .which, I'll admit, is dubious. Those swipe fees were costing retailers a huge chunk of change, and the banks were getting very fat and happy from it. I don't know how much it actually costs a bank to move money around electronically, but I'm betting it is in the low pennies range.


So, Dodd-Frank stemmed the tide of mega-millions of dollars the banks were essentially getting for nothing. They're still pocketing a lot, mind you. Just not as much. So, naturally, any corporate entity that finds profits cut needs to find a way to get it back. Even if it's sort of an "ill-gotten gains" sort of situation. And so, Bank of America is sticking it to customers. Good customers.  Like me. 


Details are hard to find. But what I've found so far seems to be this: if you have a mortgage at BofA, or a $20,000 combined account balance, your $5 fee is waived. The Other Half has the mortgage, and my balance isn't that healthy. But in this economy, what percentage of BofA customers' is? So for now, I guess I pay the $5. But I'm keeping my options open in the coming months.

[Excerpt]


Banks Fire Back at President Obama Over Debit Card Fees

The American Bankers Association is firing back at President Obama for his comments in an interview about bank fees, including Bank of America's move to add a monthly fee for customers to use its debit cards. . .

Read more at: ABC News

DVRs, On-Demand, and Profit

Image from source, TVSquad

We have an outrageously high cable bill here at Chez Greenlee, what with the bundled cable TV/internet/digital phone package. We've also got the HDTV box and most of the premium channels, and the On-Demand roster of programs to choose from. But the best $10 we spend on the package is the DVR.  I hear that people love their Tivos, but the standard Cox Cable one works for me.  It's great to let a program record for a little while, joining in to watch about 20 minutes in. That way, you can zip right through the commercials.  But that little luxury might be coming to an end.

Why? There's no profit in it.  The more people view their favorite shows on DVR, the fewer commercials get watched.  With On-Demand and online video, there are usually a limited number of commercials that you can't skip. This isn't really too bad, since you don't have to slog through three minutes of product pitches when you watch that way. But if they disable fast-forwarding on DVRs, we'll have no choice. 

One thing that isn't mentioned in the excerpted article below is something they've already done, at least on our particular model of cable box.  They recently upgraded the software (the old version looked about as sophisticated as the old Prodigy online service), which changed the way the DVR works.  You can still fast-forward in multiple speeds, but stopping it where you want has become a whole lot trickier.  The faster you go, the more likely it is that you'll be catapulted backward about 30 seconds.  More often than not, you catch at least part of the last commercial before the show comes back.  Maybe they could charge a premium for that last slot?

[Excerpt]

'Hawaii Five-0' Premiere the Most DVR'd of All Time, But It Doesn't Really Matter



As DVR penetration continues to grow, at around 40 percent now, its presence gives one rookie show something to crow about. In a season where there are no breakout stars among the newcomers, it's something to note that the premiere of CBS's 'Hawaii Five-0' is now the most DVR'd show of all time, according to The Washington Post. . .

Read more at: TVSquad

Exxon Mobil has Disappointing Quarter?

I know that I can sometimes sound pessimistic, seemingly able to find the dark cloud around the silver lining. But even I couldn't have dreamed up a negative headline for ExxonMobil's most recent flabbergastingly huge profit for a quarter.

[Excerpt]

Exxon Mobil slips on disappointing first quarter

US oil giant Exxon Mobil posted the smallest earnings increase among the world's top three oil companies, falling short of analyst estimates as production dropped and profit margins from refining narrowed.

Exxon's shares slipped 2.5pc to $90.77 in trading before US stock exchanges opened after the company said first-quarter profits rose to $10.9bn, from $9.28bn, a year earlier. . .

Read more at: Telegraph.uk