• kat_angstrom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    140
    ·
    3 months ago

    I don’t understand why they think he’s worth this much money and effort when by all accounts Chipotle is a shell of its former glory

      • Serinus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        46
        ·
        3 months ago

        It won’t last. It just takes awhile for consumers to figure out that your product is now shit.

        Most people aren’t visiting every day to notice the price increases or the quality decreases. And the first or second time it’s often written off as just an outlier.

        Of course there’s variance per customer, but it takes a couple years before you really earn the shitty reputation of something like Dominos circa 2014. In the meantime, line looks like this before it drops. And by that time you’re CEO of a different company.

          • kautau@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            3 months ago

            Yeah it’s like a big cult, the real market doesn’t matter to anyone, they just rotate CEOs when that hits. It’s always and forever about next quarter growth, nothing else matters.

        • slaacaa@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          3 months ago

          They don’t care about long-term, line must go up now. If he can do a similar stock price pump in the next few years to Starbucks by cost cutting and some bullshit projects, they will be rich and happy.

    • Vent@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      3 months ago

      Chipotle failed to unionize and I bet short term profits are up.

    • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      3 months ago

      He grew the value of chipotle considerable.

      https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/CMG/chipotle-mexican-grill/revenue

      Chipotle wasn’t expected to survive as a company and not only did it survive. He grew business.

      This isn’t the first time he revitalized a brand. He did it at Taco Bell as well.

      It sounds like his strategy at Starbucks is lowering prices, making the stores more inviting to hang out in and increase employee happiness.

        • Hackworth@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          It entirely depends on which Chipotle you walk into on what day at what time. Their ingredients are still good. There’s just no consistency. It was never cheap, but at least it’s still (usually) a lot of food.

        • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          The food quality is slightly down in my opinion but that’s because he went to a safer food model.

          I have a friend who works at Starbucks who’s excited about the changes. He’s a manager in Las Vegas. If he does the same at Starbucks, he pushes for internal promotions. The goal was 95% of promotions were internal.

          I don’t go to Starbucks often. The coffee is expensive. The stores are unwelcoming and I don’t like their coffee much.

          I avoided chipotle after the food safety issues but tried it after he said he fixed it. I go 1-2 a month now

    • Mr_Blott@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      This statement could also apply to the buffoons who frequent Starbucks to pay exorbitant prices for sugar with a dash of bitter coffee

  • Gork@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    3 months ago

    If he wants to commute, fine so long as he has to take a regular commercial jet like the rest of us.

    Get there two hours early, check in, go through airport security, wait at the gate, then board. Then do it again at the end of the day.

    We’ll see how long he could put up with that before thinking he should really not try to commute 1,000 miles away.

  • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    3 months ago

    If it’s the company jet do they get to write of its usage?

    If so, this isn’t a commute. You drive your own car at your own expense for a commute. I’m sure people wouldn’t mind as much if they had a company car and a driver for their commute.

  • Rooskie91@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    No, he faced backlash over wasting fuel, which is running out, and creating more carbon emissions, which are killing all of us, including this fucking dumb ass.

  • johny
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    3 months ago

    He’s a venti piece if sh*t.

    • QualifiedKitten@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Well, there’s no income tax in Washington, but I think technically you’re supposed to pay based on where you physically work. So, if he’s only working 3/5 days in Washington, that’s only 60% of his salary that falls under Washington’s rules.

      • Fermion@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        That’s not how it works. What matters is the state of your residency and the state that your paychecks come from. If you get paid in a state you don’t reside in, you have to file in both, unless there’s a reciprosity agreement. Many states will allow deductions for income tax paid in another state. So for example if the state your employer is in has a 4% rate, and the state you reside in has a 6% rate, then you’d end up paying 4% to state A and 2% to state B. It is possible to get double taxed depending on which states are involved.

        So the CEO will at the very least have to file in California.

        • QualifiedKitten@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          I’m pretty sure that you’re talking about applies when an employee lives in one state full time, but receives a paycheck from a company in a different state. They may live near the state line and commute across the border, or they may be fully remote, but either way, their work is consistently happening in the same location.

          In this case, he’s working part time in California, and part time in Washington. The exact laws vary by state… in some states, your tax liability begins on the day you start working there, while others have a certain threshold, but I’m pretty sure he’s crossing whatever threshold there might be. So for the days that he’s working in Washington for a company based in Washington, Washington income taxes apply, and for the days he works from California, California income taxes apply.

          Since Washington doesn’t have an income tax, and California does, he will still definitely have to file in California.

    • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      Both. He’d pay 3 days of Washington taxes which is zero. He’d pay two for California.

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    3 months ago

    He should feel shame, but you know he doesn’t. Only a sociopath would have bought-in to such a plan.