Jump to content

Featured Replies

32 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

Meanwhile, McDonalds announced a 1.93 BILLION dollar profit for their first quarter of 2024.   While their customers may be hurting, McDonalds and it's shareholders certainly are not... 

 

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/mcdonalds-stock-drops-as-profit-comes-up-short-85d55390

 

With more than 40,000 restaurants worldwide, that's something like $48k per restaurant.  What number would have been low enough to satisfy you?  Or is it not good enough for you until the chain takes a loss?

  • Replies 5.9k
  • Views 286.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • Can you imagine the economic and population growth we would have if we let more people in? My wife and I know a half-dozen people from Ukraine who want to come here and not just because of the war. Th

  • BREAKING: The April Jobs Report is out!   - The Unemployment rate is at 3.4% - The Unemployment rate is the lowest in 50 years - The Unemployment rate under Trump never reached thi

  • ryanlammi
    ryanlammi

    I agree. We should make college education essentially free for prospective students. Why make kids borrow the money?

Posted Images

Yeah, "Greedflation" is a thing, but it's not necessarily the case for McDonald's.  There's plenty of competition in the fast-casual food space.  They wouldn't be able to hold onto their customer base if they jacked prices up more than their thousands of competitors.

 

You need to look at the areas where we have oligopolies to see real "Greedflation."

Edited by 10albersa

32 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

With more than 40,000 restaurants worldwide, that's something like $48k per restaurant.  What number would have been low enough to satisfy you?  Or is it not good enough for you until the chain takes a loss?

I am fine with McDonalds making a profit.   My point was, while consumers are going into debt on their cards to buy McDonalds, the corporation isn't going to debt at all. 

 

To be transparent--I actually eat at several of their 40,000 restaurants, but only in foreign countries, where the local food laws limit the use of chemicals that they are poisoning Americans with.   It's amazing how good McDonalds tastes (like i remember it from my childhood) when it's actually real beef and fries cooked in fat rather than some kind of triple-hydrogenated chem oil!    And those foreign stores still turn a profit.  AMAZING! 

59 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

With more than 40,000 restaurants worldwide, that's something like $48k per restaurant.  What number would have been low enough to satisfy you?  Or is it not good enough for you until the chain takes a loss?

Doesn't this number reflect only the profits of McDonald's Corp? Essentially, franchise fees and leases from franchisees to the Corp. Each location is likely making much more in profit. 

That crappy fryer oil here is the result of pressure from one American food safety advocate in 1990.

27 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

I am fine with McDonalds making a profit.   My point was, while consumers are going into debt on their cards to buy McDonalds, the corporation isn't going to debt at all. 

 

To be transparent--I actually eat at several of their 40,000 restaurants, but only in foreign countries, where the local food laws limit the use of chemicals that they are poisoning Americans with.   It's amazing how good McDonalds tastes (like i remember it from my childhood) when it's actually real beef and fries cooked in fat rather than some kind of triple-hydrogenated chem oil!    And those foreign stores still turn a profit.  AMAZING! 

 

It's a lot easier to for each location to turn a profit overseas because a city of two million has 10 locations instead of 150 like they do here.

1 hour ago, Cleburger said:

Meanwhile, McDonalds announced a 1.93 BILLION dollar profit for their first quarter of 2024.   While their customers may be hurting, McDonalds and it's shareholders certainly are not... 

 

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/mcdonalds-stock-drops-as-profit-comes-up-short-85d55390

McDonalds serves about 70 million customers per day, which comes out to roughly 25 billion transactions a year. I'll round your quarterly number up and assume $8 billion in profit per year. So basically for the typical restaurant order, the McDonalds' shareholders are making 30 cents in profit. Not exactly a huge margin.

Way to go USA! Reshore some more!

 

 

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck

Weird to talk about 1996-2020, and then only show a graph that starts in 2006....

 

Also, the Chips Act wasn't passed until 2022 under Biden. Not sure why he said 2020...

2% without a recession? But focksnooz says it's 1929 all over again 

 

YARDENI: “.. Even closer to the Fed's target are both the core PCED and #CPI inflation rates excluding rent, at 2.2% and 2.1% y/y. We continue to expect that inflation will moderate to 2.0% y/y over the rest of this year without a recession ..”

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck

I hate to be "that guy" who finds the cloud to a silver lining, but the strong labor market isn't going to help the real estate market, including new construction. As long as people are getting hired at this frenetic pace, the Fed isn't going to lower interest rates. And that means all these cool housing developments we want to see happen aren't going to happen unless they get a bunch of subsidies...

 

JobGrowth in May came in at 272K, well above economists' expectations of about 180K. Over the first 5 months of 2024, job creation has averaged nearly 250K a month. This is in line with average monthly job gains in 2023 and signals the continuation of a very healthy labor market.

https://www.linkedin.com/news/story/payrolls-popped-by-272k-in-may-5986529/

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck

33 minutes ago, KJP said:

I hate to be "that guy" who finds the cloud to a silver lining, but the strong labor market isn't going to help the real estate market, including new construction. As long as people are getting hired at this frenetic pace, the Fed isn't going to lower interest rates. And that means all these cool housing developments we want to see happen aren't going to happen unless they get a bunch of subsidies...

 

JobGrowth in May came in at 272K, well above economists' expectations of about 180K. Over the first 5 months of 2024, job creation has averaged nearly 250K a month. This is in line with average monthly job gains in 2023 and signals the continuation of a very healthy labor market.

https://www.linkedin.com/news/story/payrolls-popped-by-272k-in-may-5986529/

 

 

People are maxing out their credit cards/depleting retirement accounts, which forces full-timers to get a second job, part-timers to look for full-time, people who have been sitting on the couch for a few years to go get work, etc. 

 

 

 

It's all very paradoxical, and I'm a bit cynical about the reality of CPI and PPI's  relationship to the economy, which in itself is subjective (is endless GDP growth really that important?). And those numbers don't seem to run inversely with interest rates (anymore), certainly not from 08-22, and jobs, or rather generally lower paid jobs, seem completely disconnected.

 

Commercial real estate collapsing and AI are still decimating tech and other traditionally mid-to-higher income jobs. Interest rates dropping to 3 or 4% probably won't have a longterm impact. 

Yeah if it's only McJobs who cares. The economy has gotten super bottom-heavy like it was before the Depression. 

59 minutes ago, TBideon said:

It's all very paradoxical, and I'm a bit cynical about the reality of CPI and PPI's  relationship to the economy, which in itself is subjective (is endless GDP growth really that important?). And those numbers don't seem to run inversely with interest rates (anymore), certainly not from 08-22, and jobs, or rather generally lower paid jobs, seem completely disconnected.

 

Commercial real estate collapsing and AI are still decimating tech and other traditionally mid-to-higher income jobs. Interest rates dropping to 3 or 4% probably won't have a longterm impact. 

 

I'll be the first to criticize the use of GDP as a measurement, but yes, GDP growth and GDP growth per capita are still very relevant (and certainly more relevant than other measures of economic health such as the major stock market indexes, which reflect a combination of economic health and the pricing power of the indexed corporations).  But more importantly, you switched from talking about CPI/PPI to GDP within the same sentence, and those are not the same thing at all.  GDP is relevant-but-overdone; CPI (in addition to the things that CPI maybe attempts to measure but fails) could easily be election-determinative this year.

1 hour ago, KJP said:

I hate to be "that guy" who finds the cloud to a silver lining, but the strong labor market isn't going to help the real estate market, including new construction. As long as people are getting hired at this frenetic pace, the Fed isn't going to lower interest rates. And that means all these cool housing developments we want to see happen aren't going to happen unless they get a bunch of subsidies...

 

JobGrowth in May came in at 272K, well above economists' expectations of about 180K. Over the first 5 months of 2024, job creation has averaged nearly 250K a month. This is in line with average monthly job gains in 2023 and signals the continuation of a very healthy labor market.

https://www.linkedin.com/news/story/payrolls-popped-by-272k-in-may-5986529/

 

The counter-pressures on the Fed are: 1) unemployment is up (but by not much), and 2) Europe and Canada lowered their interest rates (but not by much).  #2 is probably more important; it could strengthen the dollar making imports cheaper, putting more US workers on the street.

 

I'm more worried about some black swan knocking everybody off his perch.

Remember: It's the Year of the Snake

The counter to the personal debt story (below).... (my own anecdote is that my wife and I have zero credit card debt as of today for the first time in years)

 

 

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck

Wages are finally rising faster than prices too

 

 

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck

 

 

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck

On 6/7/2024 at 2:00 PM, TBideon said:

and AI are still decimating tech

 

Pretty soon people are going to have their wedding photos AI-generated, which will put the last bastion of professional photographers sitting on $10,000+ worth of useless gear. 

The article makes good points, but it's also, oddly, part of the problem. People are struggling, the middle class is suffering, and even the higher tier jobs have taken a huge hit with 18 months of significant tech and white collar layoffs. Healthcare coverage and costs are just abominable in the US, affordable, quality housing non-existent, and education has both gotten so much worse since COVID and more expensive. Those costs alone obliterate nominal increases in household wages.

 

So when you read articles about how good things really are, well, that can have a polarizing effect on all those people, voters, who have had difficult time for so long.

 

The data just doesn't match most people's economies, at least those whose net worth isn't tied into the markets, and unlike Germany and Italy, the US doesn't really provide adequate safety nets. 

 

I would say things are pretty bad regardless of GDP growth and lowered CPI/PPI.

@TBideon How is your personal economy?

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck

27 minutes ago, TBideon said:

The article makes good points, but it's also, oddly, part of the problem. People are struggling, the middle class is suffering, and even the higher tier jobs have taken a huge hit with 18 months of significant tech and white collar layoffs. Healthcare coverage and costs are just abominable in the US, affordable, quality housing non-existent, and education has both gotten so much worse since COVID and more expensive. Those costs alone obliterate nominal increases in household wages.

 

So when you read articles about how good things really are, well, that can have a polarizing effect on all those people, voters, who have had difficult time for so long.

 

The data just doesn't match most people's economies, at least those whose net worth isn't tied into the markets, and unlike Germany and Italy, the US doesn't really provide adequate safety nets. 

 

I would say things are pretty bad regardless of GDP growth and lowered CPI/PPI.

 

Part of me wonders how much our GDP growth is tied to the military industrial complex, which seems to be doing very well right now profiting off of wars abroad. I also wonder whether the hundreds of billions of dollars we give other countries - so they can have a social safety net, among other things - would be better spent here at home.

 

Edited by ASP1984

37 minutes ago, KJP said:

@TBideon How is your personal economy?

I'm okay, up 10% in the markets, stable income, a bit underwater with my mortgage but no specials this year, no significant bills to worry save for reasonable repairs i.e. HVAC and plumbing.

 

I'm very lucky.  A lot of people aren't. And if I had a spouse and/or chlldren, things would be much harder.

40 minutes ago, ASP1984 said:

 

Part of me wonders how much our GDP growth is tied to the military industrial complex, which seems to be doing very well right now profiting off of wars abroad. I also wonder whether the hundreds of billions of dollars we give other countries - so they can have a social safety net, among other things - would be better spent here at home.

 

$34 trillion dollar debt is a scary number.

 

The price for world peace has, for a long time, been contingent on the US subsidizing other countries' militaries. It made sense when we were a hegemon, but these days, it is frustrating that money isn't being used for subsidizations internally. But defense spending is what, 3 percent? 4? 

 

Spending several trillion on Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and ACA while abandoning working adults to fend for themselves with few labor protections for their employer-based care - that is not sustainable or even logical.

 

My unemployed friend, family of four, pays $2300/month in COBRA. How is that possible? 

 

 

 

Edited by TBideon

Like the article says, we're back to a 1940s-50s economy heavy on the unskilled labor and ultra-rich with little white-collar work to speak of especially away from the Coasts. Good for selling Chevrolets -- if Chevrolet still had a full line instead of just trucks. Kias and Hyundais instead. 

2 hours ago, TBideon said:

I'm okay, up 10% in the markets, stable income, a bit underwater with my mortgage but no specials this year, no significant bills to worry save for reasonable repairs i.e. HVAC and plumbing.

 

I'm very lucky.  A lot of people aren't. And if I had a spouse and/or chlldren, things would be much harder.

 

Actually having a wife makes things easier, financially (and she helps keep me centered on things I can control which is very calming and more productive).

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck

Some people don't register that there are things they can't control. It's very hard on them.

2 hours ago, KJP said:

 

Actually having a wife makes things easier, financially (and she helps keep me centered on things I can control which is very calming and more productive).

Oh sure, I'm not arguing against that. And obviously a second income would be very helpful, especially if there are children involved.

 

Everyone's situation is different.

If you want to get really depressed about real estate - guru Jonathan Litt on CNBC Tuesday gave Boston as an example.  Boston has a 20% office vacancy with 9 million square feet under construction and about to deliver.  He said 30 billion sq ft of leases nationwide will expire by 2030 and 15% (based on WFH effect) will not be renewed. He predicted that real estate will be 10 years working itself out of its hole.

 

The good news is that the banks are probably ok this time. They originate loans but don't hold them.

Remember: It's the Year of the Snake

And individuals don't lose out on home value except maybe in areas where condo value was tied somewhat to close proximity of vaporizing office jobs.

22 hours ago, TBideon said:

Spending several trillion on Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and ACA while abandoning working adults to fend for themselves with few labor protections for their employer-based care - that is not sustainable or even logical.

 

My unemployed friend, family of four, pays $2300/month in COBRA. How is that possible?

A friend of mine recently changed companies -- from one with a lot of older employees to one with a lot of younger employees.  Her personal health situation, deductible, and general level of coverage did not change, she didn't move and she still goes to the same doctor -- but her health insurance cost dropped 40%.  WTF, indeed.

 

We could look around the world and see how other countries spend their healthcare dollars, maybe there's a better way?  (cough, national health insurance, cough)

When I have taken my mother to 8 doctors' appointments this month and yet we don't allow younger people to see the doctor once or twice a year because it "would cripple the economy" I know those claims are BS.

Problem is conservatives would sooner go to civil war than support national healthcare or even a public option. Even at the expense of their health. 

 

Of course they openly welcome Medicare when they're 65, hypocrite bastards.

9 minutes ago, GCrites said:

When I have taken my mother to 8 doctors' appointments this month and yet we don't allow younger people to see the doctor once or twice a year because it "would cripple the economy" I know those claims are BS.

Got elderly parents myself. The amount of money, covered by insurance, secondaries, copays, deductibles, and remaining member share, for what is effectively end-of-life care is just astounding. Criminal. Not f'ing sustainable. 

 

It is a financial drain, probably the biggest national crisis, though obviously intersecting other serious problems. 

 

Edited by TBideon

They wonder why they can't find things like school bus drivers and why small businesses close. Those are the exact type of people that get pulled off of those things for 10+ years of elder care.

I am a bit confounded on the news of jobs/ the economy. I think it's a mixed bag really. While inflation is cooling down, the huge inflation from the prior 4 years has really added a ton on top. Something like groceries have gone up what 25% in price since 2020?

 

So if you have a family of four like me you spend something like $10-$12k in groceries per year, easily I Think. What was to make it easy 10k in 2020 is now 12.5k in 2024. That is after tax net income. If inflation on groceries hadn't hit so hard, that would be like $10,800 today, that's $1,750 out of pocket right there.

 

Then add on all the bills for families with small children, child birth, high cost of car ownership, home ownership, big increase in property tax rate, gas prices, school, phew... Sure doesn't seem like we are better off now than 5 or 10 years ago. Everything feels tight and I always feel like any service is a rip off. Maybe I am getting cynical.

 

The only thing I can think of to do at home is make a vegetable garden which we have done for the first time this year, that should save some. But it's hard to get ahead in this economy and both my wife and I are very fortunate with what we consider very good jobs.

 

Think about this. The USA provides massive subsidies to grow corn and to use corn in ethanol production. You save 10c/gallon at the pump but the inputs are way higher.

 

We send millions of bushels for sale to China which is subsidized. We need millions of pounds of fertilizer from Russia and Ukraine and other countries to make the corn. The fertilizers and pesticides poison our water supplies and probably are poisoning us too on top of that when we eat food.

 

Then, we import millions of pounds of fruits and vegetables from other countries causing the price to rise because all the land is being used for corn production.

 

Instead of subsidizing corn production for ethanol and China exports, why not stop subsidizing corn production that has no net benefit, incentivize for a 10 year period vegetable and fruit production in the USA to get it moving in the right direction with eqipment etc, and incentivize other nitrogen fixing vegetables and crops like beans to reduce fertilizer and pesticide loads and imports, reduce cost of vegetables and fruits in the USA, save our soil, save our water, improve the health of the whole country, create jobs and spend the money saved buying down our national debt or at least putting money back into the USA with things like rail infrastructure, etc.?

We did not receive any direct cash subsides at all for our 400 acres last year. We did get zero-premium insurance and price protection that wasn't activated because crop prices were too high. 

58 minutes ago, GCrites said:

We did not receive any direct cash subsides at all for our 400 acres last year. We did get zero-premium insurance and price protection that wasn't activated because crop prices were too high. 

I think my note was more of an over arcing comment on the way it works.

 

When I see us exporting massive amounts of corn, while importing massive amounts of veggies and fruits, it feels like the market is out of whack of what could be a better deal for Americans in general.

 

Also I think we should subsidize ways to get more vegetable production like reducing corn production to increase bean or pepper etc. production. Of course that would involve different equipment / techniques / learnings etc. that would be a long process.

Some of those crops are far more labor-intensive than corn so our current workforce may not be able to supply the type of labor needed.

1 hour ago, GCrites said:

Some of those crops are far more labor-intensive than corn so our current workforce may not be able to supply the type of labor needed.

It would definitely be a long term switch, something like guarantees on production of certain crops, etc. For example, taking a look at state level school foods, where is that food coming from and what are the pricing, and instead of say importing it from Mexico, incentivize to buy from within the state so farmers have a guaranteed income. That is something that could get the tide rolling and the other economics would start to sort themselves out.

 

No one works harder than farmers, I am a couple generations removed but always remember my grandpa and great uncle lamenting on big industry farming and how it changed everything for them.

23 minutes ago, IAGuy39 said:

It would definitely be a long term switch, something like guarantees on production of certain crops, etc. For example, taking a look at state level school foods, where is that food coming from and what are the pricing, and instead of say importing it from Mexico, incentivize to buy from within the state so farmers have a guaranteed income. That is something that could get the tide rolling and the other economics would start to sort themselves out.

 

No one works harder than farmers, I am a couple generations removed but always remember my grandpa and great uncle lamenting on big industry farming and how it changed everything for them.

I share your nostalgia for the days  of family-size farms and more FOOD production rather than sugars and alcohols.  Corn isn't even the best feedstock for that purpose, but there we are.  A larger number of smaller farms would be harder to oversee, and a few big corporate farms are easier to shake down for campaign contributions -- I'm cynical that we'll see any change soon.

Y'all are also forgetting that growing certain crops in the areas that have that massive farmland wouldn’t really work, can’t grow fruit and veggies in the wintertime. The only thing that will help grow produce close to where it is needed, is figuring out how to make vertical farming work in an inexpensive way. 

21 hours ago, VintageLife said:

Y'all are also forgetting that growing certain crops in the areas that have that massive farmland wouldn’t really work, can’t grow fruit and veggies in the wintertime. The only thing that will help grow produce close to where it is needed, is figuring out how to make vertical farming work in an inexpensive way. 

It actually looks like the State is incentivizing this:

 

https://www.brown.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/sherrod-brown-colleagues-bill-ohio-grown-fruits-vegetables-ohio-schools

  • 2 weeks later...

YTD:

 

Dow up 4.47%

S&P up 16.62%

Tech up 22.26% - Microsoft and Apple racing to $4 trillion. Nvidia will get there too.

 

Goodness...

 

 

We are due for a correction.

Create an account or sign in to comment

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.