Yes, you’re comparing COVID lows with today’s returns. That’s perfect. Not that I give a damn about franchise returns. I just don’t eat there.

I was not in so-much as saying that they are simply increasing due to COVID's stagnant for a few years. The increase in gross profit is a 9% rate of increase year-over-year for 10 years. The trend increase has been going on for nearly 15 years for McDonalds with a slight decline during 2008. Their increase trend from COVID as an example from 2021 to 2022 was 'only' 4.98% and after it picked up to 10.26% from 2022 to 2023.

Do you have any idea what “gross” means? You’re literally including the increase to wages in your argument.

Alright so let's talk about their net profit. Their net profit over the last 12 months is $8.6B compared to $5.1B in 2018, $7.5B in 2021.

Their net profit, like with their gross profit has a clear upward trend. Wages haven't hurt McDonalds growth and they certainly, once again, aren't close to struggling or in-fact at risk of not meeting investor's expectation of ROI growth.

Your argument is full of false assumptions when the empirical evidence is clear. You're basically saying "wage increases means McDonalds is making less money and therefore prices need to increase" without any regards to supplier pricing, sales volumes, organizational efficiency or in regards any other operational factors.

It is an ignorant and frankly terrible argument and is nothing more than a wild ass guess on your part.

Fast food was affordable because they paid sweat shop wages. That’s not the case anymore.

McDonalds gross profits are $14.68B over the last 12 months with over 9% year-over-year growth.

They aren't struggling and other than covid (which just held steady for a few years at $10B), the trend has been going up, not down, not stagnant for many years.

Remember that's gross profits. If wages were hitting them hard, then we'd see the trend at least level off, if not decrease but that isn't what happened or is happening.

I think what really kicked this off is that restaurants started putting surcharges on bills by directly passes specific legal requirement costs directly to the customers without increasing their menu prices. For example, now that servers get some health benefits in SF, they'll have a surcharge that says something like "SF Mandate" or "SF Health Surcharge".

This would also cover stuff like to go order surcharges where some places are charging more for takeout sort of like Doordash or Grubhub do, except of course, you're picking it up yourself.

I do wonder how/if places with some more traditional surcharges are going to comply now. For example pizza places charging delivery fees.

Places will still be able to get away with "X% gratuity added to bill for Y seats (though I've seen some places do it for any number of people, including 1)" because that's optional, even if they put it on your bill because you've always been able to make them remove it.

It is like on most people's cell phone bills in the US. You'll see stuff like "FCC surcharge" which is the company passing their FCC regulatory fees directly to the customer without changing their advertised prices for a plan, E911 fees for 911 services, various taxes levied on the company but not the consumer are also passed to the customer.

The purpose is to have restaurants take these fees/taxes/whatever and make them build those costs of doing business directly into their advertised pricing on their menus. Companies don't like this because they can advertise cheaper prices and psychologically the customer doesn't usually think or even know about the extra surcharges, companies can set those surprise charges to whatever they want (they aren't regulated) and they do not have to really compete with those prices wherever they advertise (menus, flyers, etc.) thus driving them down for the consumer.

I see some comments recommending wordpress but wordpress is a security problem, especially if you're using 3rd party plugins. It is such a bad problem that their are 'wordpress security' applications but even then wordpress sites get hacked all the time. If you are going to use it, it is best to let some other host handle it for you if you don't know a whole lot about what you're doing.

There are many, many other content management systems out there. Some are lighter than wordpress and some heavier. They are all about posting and managing content. Most of them have some sort of user and authoring system. Once you're webserver is set up, many are written in a mixture of php and python so setting them up is generally drag and drop with either minor configuration file edits or wizards. Many of them have sections that you can set up using a labeling/tagging system. Most of them allow you to have the 'stories' as private or draft where you have to actually click publish before people can view them. Some have user roles systems where you can limit viewing and even editing between different roles for sections.

Generally, once their setup is done, they are point and click to do everything.

Here's a nice list of FOSS CMS' (which includes Wordpress of course).

Just to be clear you 100% have copyright protection as soon as you put pen to paper.

Yeah except that he ruled based on a previous ruling that the CFPB was improperly funded by Congress because it wasn't constitutional. This time it was properly funded so that no longer applies (basically ruling the way that the CFPB is funded -- via the Federal Reserve (they used to do some of the stuff that the CFPB now does) per the Dodd-Frank Act that Congress instead of being part of the normal annual budget is unconstitutional).

Seems like an easy target for SCOTUS to kick the lawsuit back down to the circuit court and tell the court that it was erroneous in its ruling. But the SCOTUS isn't really predictable anymore, so who knows.

The restaurant owner arguments are all super weak as usual.

"Menu prices will rise!"

No shit, but everyone was already paying the prices but now you can't just surprise patrons with the increase.

"There will be pullback. People will lose jobs and hours!"

Doubtful but even if true, that means that they knew they were lying to customers and clawing extra charges that they wouldn't know about already.

"'They' are thinking restaurants will absorb the costs"

Not exactly but they will have to compete with pricing as it should be.

They're just trying to get away with playing the same game Telcos have gotten away with for far too many decades.

Google Cloud definitely backs up data. Specifically I said

after an account is deleted.

The surprise here being that those backups are gone (or unrecoverable) after the account is deleted.

Actually, it highlights the importance of a proper distributed backup strategy and disaster recovery plan.

Uh, yeah, that's why I said

it is good practice and frankly refreshing to hear that a company actually backed up away from their primary cloud infrastructure

The same can probably happen on AWS, Azure, any data center really

Sure, if you colocate in another datacenter and it isn't your own, they aren't backing your data up without some sort of other agreement and configuration. I'm not sure about AWS but Azure actually has offline geographically separate backup options.

And the crazy part is that it sounds like Google didn't have backups of this data after the account was deleted. The only reason they were able to restore the data was because UniSuper had a backup on another provider.

This should make anyone really think hard about the situation before using Google's cloud. Sure, it is good practice and frankly refreshing to hear that a company actually backed up away from their primary cloud infrastructure but I'm surprised Google themselves do not keep backups for awhile after an account is deleted.