Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

That when talking about a company like McD: public, multi-National...

Those functional business models are quite possibly/likely able to exist, or figure out how they exist per corporate policy, by opportunity costs other areas of the business, namely - American wages and/or American franchise terms.

I’m not sure if you’ve looked up an SEC Form 10K before, but that’s a good place to start to examine how this can look.

When McD EU, or similar, can function basically as its own corporate entity, this is even more possible.

When spanning national boundaries and regulatory space, you’re comparing an orange to an Apple by saying it works in EU, QED it should work in USA. Especially when it all flows through a choke point of SEC reporting and investor expectations/public listing in the US.

Really need to look at the financial statements to make that sort of claim, not just “it works there it can work here.”



Asserting that high minimum wage makes the fast food model untenable is a strong claim. Given that it is made in tha face of the apparant profitability of fast food in high wage minimum wage countries, then burden of proof falls on you.

So as far as I can tell, you are just trying to spread doubt without doing any work to justify that doubt.

IMHO fast food is a durable industry and while prices/locations/hours may change, it seems absolutely ridiculous to argue that there isn't a business model that will be profitable.


Yeesh… feels like a deliberately misreading of what I’m saying yet also you’re inadvertently agreeing with my point.

I have pointed out a couple known and realistic examples why wages in one country doesn’t imply they’ll work in another, under the umbrella of a single corporation.

As you say, making that implication as OP and you did is spreading a claim Without doing any work to justify that claim.

That work needed is financial statement analysis, starting with breaking open a 10K. It’s not my job to do that, as you’re the pair that made the implication in the first place.

I’m pointing out that by you not doing the work to justify the claim, there are numerous straight forward financial accounting reasons for why the claim could be wrong.

If you don’t know much FSA, that’s fine, but from that knowledge base you should know that you’re basically saying it could rain purple and it’s my job to use standard weather data to disprove why that’s not the likely answer.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: