Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27
  1. #21
    again, advertising has nothing to do with employee costs. if there is no advertising, then you will have no employees, rather than employees with no benefits.

    i don't think you know how much it costs to run a single add on a single national channel, the prices are ridiculous.

    and using peyton manning was a good move, he has now invested in over 20 PJ franchises, sound like PJ knows how to bit his endorsers or the endorsers know PJ is a good investment.

  2. #22
    Jay, I'm pretty sure that if pj's nixed the giveaway and spent that money elsewhere their advertitisng budget would still feed most African nations. Do you understand that?
    I'm not against success. I'm against people who give away $12million in a single ad campaign and then turn around and say the lower cost of health care is going to ruin them.
    I have an idea what advertising costs. I'm no expert, but you don't need to paint me as talking about something I know nothing about. Poor tactic, Jay.

  3. #23
    no tactic involved. you could take the advertisement costs for any major company and feed africa, but better yet, why not feed the elderly, disabled, and children in the US?

    perhaps your anger should be at the programers who charge such crazy prices, think about GM, bailed out, ut still spend crazy money on advertising, if they would have cut out there advertising, they would not have needed to be bailed out.

    a business has a budget for operations and advertising, and there is a reason for that. without the advertising you will not need an operation budget, because you won't be operating at all.

    the facts are the government should be the first to give things up, not the people. but they are pardoned from obamacare and spend whatever they want and give themselves raises, while others suffer.

    but they have blinded most to those facts by keeping us focused on the tax payers, rather than them.

    and i would be curious how much PJ pays in taxes for everything, including advertising, perhaps if these were cut he could afford benefits for all. we want to cut into his profits but the 100% profit the government makes in taxes are some how ok, you can't tell me ear marks and other frivilous spending by our government is acceptable but a tax payer making a profit is not. (well you can tell me that but i would not agree)

  4. #24
    Where it goes isn't the point. Don't know why you.would go there at all in this conversation, though I agree.
    As for the rest, I'm not angry. I think John is greedy and a whiner. He can afford to give all that pizza away, but not on health care? Is his real motive to make people unhealthy with his crappy pizza and this goes against that?
    Seriously. There is no reason he can't afford it.

  5. #25
    maybe he works for the secret society and makes people ill with his pizza and supplies no healthcare for his workers so they can kill off 50% of the population undetected

    perhaps he is greedy and could give them benefits but wants to keep the money

    perhaps he is greedy and could give benefits but refuses to because it is a government mandate he sees as unfair

    perhaps he realizes unskilled labor should be concentrating on getting skills to get a better job that offers insurance and enough pay to raise a family, rather than settling for a pizza job and expecting them to keep adding benefits while they add no skills

    perhaps this is obama's evil plan to divide us even more

  6. #26
    Yes, Jay, everything is Obama's fault.

    Perhaps if unskilled labour had health care they would be able to better themselves, as they wouldn't have to start all over whenever they got sick.

  7. #27
    Could Papa John's provide healthcare to their employees and still be profitable? Yes. They are a huge company with healthy profit margins, they could absorb the cost even with providing health insurance for 17,000 employees. Will this slow down growth? Probably. The additional overhead for new franchises will make it that much more difficult to start up.

    A bigger effect will probably be on the small companies that have the potential to be the next great Papa John's type success story. Less profits means less money to hire new people and expand. In the end, that will result in some jobs not ever getting created.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts