“It also doesn't include the cost of McDonald's executives or administrative employees, as the article says. Further, it divides the company-owned store employees' salary figure across a portion of sales from the entire franchise system to arrive at the "68 cents" result. All of which is easily verified by looking at Yahoo Finance for about five minutes. He should get an "F" for the business assignment; maybe an "A" for his viral marketing efforts.”
“The article is incorrect. The student's calculation (which is wrong anyway) didn't include the CEO's salary, or other McDonald's corporate salaries - just those of workers at company-owned stores. Further, it divided the salary of those company-owned store employees by sales across the entire franchise system, rendering the "68 cents" result completely meaningless.”
The kid used the wrong numbers. The correct revenue and cost numbers from "Restaurant Operation" yields the correct labor percentage in company owned stores of 25.3%, not 17.1% as he incorrectly states.”
“So he's flat wrong (his calculation only includes salary/benefits for company-owned store employees, but that figure is divided over sales at company stores + franchise revenues), but you leave the headline as-is? It's only what a burger would cost if you did the math wrong and ignored all the additional implications.”
“Right. I happen to know a bit about chemistry and I know aluminum oxide is very strong and very heavy and pure aluminum can only exist under a layer of aluminum oxide. As iPhone are not extremely heavy and break we can conclude they are made of an alloy that contains very little aluminum.”
crayola 08c on Jun 10, 2013 at 15:59:20
“but it has a shiny gloss to it. aluminum doesn't have shiny gloss.”
“"Blunder"? Mourdock's comment seems anything but. It was a direct statement of a belief he holds strongly, as he has since reinforced. It is consistent with the views of fellow Republican candidates for the Senate and House, with his party's platform, and with his party's vice-presidential nominee. Calling his statement a "blunder" suggests the proper, "non-blunder" course of action would have been for him to hide this view, which presumably is important to many of his constituents.”
“Sorry, the premise here just strikes me as absurd. The author really expects us to believe that a meaningful proportion of the housing bubble and crash occurred as a result of buyers competing for homes in areas with good public schools, because "economizing and accepting mediocre schooling is a choice that could seemingly subject a parent to risk of child abuse accusations."
If that were true, we'd find unusual concentrations of underwater mortgages in places with great public schools, but not in places with mediocre schools. Is there any data to back this up? How are those L.A., Las Vegas, and Phoenix public schools?
The housing bubble and crash aren't all that hard to understand: cheap money, abrogation of risk assessment, and poorly educated consumers really kind of sums it up.”