Iceland says goodbye to the Big Mac

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,688
126
Lyst was bound by McDonald's requirement that it import all the goods required for its restaurants -- from packaging to meat and cheeses -- from Germany.

Costs had doubled over the past year because of the fall in the krona currency and high import tariffs on imported goods, Ogmundsson said, making it impossible for the company to raise prices further and remain competitive with competitors that use locally sourced produce.

A Big Mac in Reykjavik already retails for 650 krona ($5.29). But the 20 percent increase needed to make a decent profit would have pushed that to 780 krona ($6.36), he said.

They pulled out because the exchange rates combined with their franchise agreement would have made the Bic Mac almost $7.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Their economy collapses and they put up tariffs. Must have the Obama econ team consulting them.
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,688
126
Originally posted by: JS80
Their economy collapses and they put up tariffs. Must have the Obama econ team consulting them.

It worked. All those food items that had been imported will now be sourced locally, and the 90 employees will keep their jobs. Win win.

Must have the Obama econ team consulting them.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Originally posted by: Ausm
Originally posted by: xj0hnx
Good for Iceland, best thing that ever happened to them.

Their economic collapse or Mcdonald's pulling out?

McDonalds going away, you know, what the thread is about.
 

MrEgo

Senior member
Jan 17, 2003
874
0
76
The fries? Seriously?

I'm not sure there's any potato in there.. I think it's just fried oil.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Originally posted by: JS80
Their economy collapses and they put up tariffs. Must have the Obama econ team consulting them.

It worked. All those food items that had been imported will now be sourced locally, and the 90 employees will keep their jobs. Win win.

Must have the Obama econ team consulting them.

Save 90 jobs that should be eliminated at the cost of 200.

Must have the Obama econ team consulting them.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: JS80
It worked. All those food items that had been imported will now be sourced locally, and the 90 employees will keep their jobs. Win win.

Must have the Obama econ team consulting them.

Save 90 jobs that should be eliminated at the cost of 200.

Must have the Obama econ team consulting them.


If the U.S. trade deficit averages about $500 billion/year, by reducing the deficit to zero or by just eliminating international trade, the U.S. might add $500 billion/year to its economy. $500 billion/year = 10 million $50,000/year jobs. We could open up even more jobs by deporting illegal aliens and by ending the H-1B and L-1 visa programs.

Of course, free market dogmatists will continue to try to convince Americans that they can compete with Chinamen who earn fifty cents per hour in the absence of environmental and labor regulations. But wait! Americans can move on to higher-value added jobs like biotechnology, nanotechnology, and computer programming and Next Big Thing technology. <ERRRT!> Those jobs too can be performed in other countries like India for less than what it would cost to employ Americans or they could be performed by imported labor willing to work in the U.S. for less money.

But...but...because of international trade the prices for goods and services are lower than what they would be if Americans produced the good and services!

In reality, it's difficult if not impossible to consume more than you produce. This notion that the foreigners are giving us free value is thus ridiculous. We are paying for all of this not by exchanging American labor in the form of goods and services, but rather by selling them capital assets (real estate, business ownership) and also by issuing government IOUs; we are impoverishing ourselves. Also, the issue is not merely price but overall purchasing power and standard of living. What good is it if shoes cost 25% less when your compensation has decreased by 30%? Also, fixating on the front-end prices completely ignores the very expensive back-end costs in the form of unemployment, an increased need for welfare, increased criminal justice costs, less tax revenue for state and local governments, and increases in other social problems.

Deregulated international trade has done a wonder for the U.S. economy and the American middle class -- it's exporting our prosperity and importing third world poverty one lost middle class job at a time.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Originally posted by: JS80
It worked. All those food items that had been imported will now be sourced locally, and the 90 employees will keep their jobs. Win win.

Must have the Obama econ team consulting them.

Save 90 jobs that should be eliminated at the cost of 200.

Must have the Obama econ team consulting them.


If the U.S. trade deficit averages about $500 billion/year, by reducing the deficit to zero or by just eliminating international trade, the U.S. might add $500 billion/year to its economy. $500 billion/year = 10 million $50,000/year jobs. We could open up even more jobs by deporting illegal aliens and by ending the H-1B and L-1 visa programs.

Of course, free market dogmatists will continue to try to convince Americans that they can compete with Chinamen who earn fifty cents per hour in the absence of environmental and labor regulations. But wait! Americans can move on to higher-value added jobs like biotechnology, nanotechnology, and computer programming and Next Big Thing technology. <ERRRT!> Those jobs too can be performed in other countries like India for less than what it would cost to employ Americans or they could be performed by imported labor willing to work in the U.S. for less money.

But...but...because of international trade the prices for goods and services are lower than what they would be if Americans produced the good and services!

In reality, it's difficult if not impossible to consume more than you produce. This notion that the foreigners are giving us free value is thus ridiculous. We are paying for all of this not by exchanging American labor in the form of goods and services, but rather by selling them capital assets (real estate, business ownership) and also by issuing government IOUs; we are impoverishing ourselves. Also, the issue is not merely price but overall purchasing power and standard of living. What good is it if shoes cost 25% less when your compensation has decreased by 30%? Also, fixating on the front-end prices completely ignores the very expensive back-end costs in the form of unemployment, an increased need for welfare, increased criminal justice costs, less tax revenue for state and local governments, and increases in other social problems.

Deregulated international trade has done a wonder for the U.S. economy and the American middle class -- it's exporting our prosperity and importing third world poverty one lost middle class job at a time.

Protectionists falsely believe that cutting off global/immigrant job equals increase in local job. It's not zero sum.

For your example of cutting off H-1B, it does not mean the H-1B worker is taking a US citizen job, we have that program because of the shortage of US talent.
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,688
126
Originally posted by: JS80
Protectionists falsely believe that cutting off global/immigrant job equals increase in local job. It's not zero sum.

For your example of cutting off H-1B, it does not mean the H-1B worker is taking a US citizen job, we have that program because of the shortage of US talent.

lol, do you know how many engineers can't find a job out of college? You mean a shortage of talent willing to work for low wages, and able to easily be discharged as soon as they are not needed anymore?
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Originally posted by: JS80
Protectionists falsely believe that cutting off global/immigrant job equals increase in local job. It's not zero sum.

For your example of cutting off H-1B, it does not mean the H-1B worker is taking a US citizen job, we have that program because of the shortage of US talent.

lol, do you know how many engineers can't find a job out of college? You mean a shortage of talent willing to work for low wages, and able to easily be discharged as soon as they are not needed anymore?

You obviously have never hired anyone. We interview everyone, including H-1B candidates. If we happen to hire an H-1B it means because they were more talented than the non H-1B. And it costs us ~$5k in legal fees to hire them. But we pay them market price (i.e. same as everyone) because we don't want them working for Microsoft.

Who gives a shit how many unemployed engineers there are. I said talent. Not some dumb kid with a 2.0 GPA.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
I think this is mostly a story about franchise systems and how they are impacted by the current economic problems - in this case those of Iceland.

Northern European countries have had heavey tarrifs on imported stuff for a very long time.

Franchises, all that I have worked with or otherwise seen, always make you purchase your inventory and supplies from the HQ. For one thing it's how you deliver consistent quality, for another it's part of the basic business model. The HQ can buy in bulk quantity thus getting cheaper per unit costs and it makes money on what it 'resales' to the individual franchisees. The latter part is normal profit model B-school 101 stuff.

The franchise model worked fine for Iceland when their currency had a high value, now that it doesn't they're killed by exchange rates.

I don't see any reasonable option for McDonalds or the franchisee other than closing that location.

Fern
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Its not like Iceland did something rational and banned McDonalds as prevayors of poisonous food, it was a matter that McDonalds made stupid merchandising agreements with third parties and as a result priced themselves out of the Iceland market. Not exactly smart on McDonalds part. Fair weather friends are no friends at all.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: bfdd
Sucks for them, McDonalds is fantastic when drunk.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bfdd must be so drunk as to confuse McDonalds for White Castles, the grease starved drunks #1 choice.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Its not like Iceland did something rational and banned McDonalds as prevayors of poisonous food, it was a matter that McDonalds made stupid merchandising agreements with third parties and as a result priced themselves out of the Iceland market. Not exactly smart on McDonalds part. Fair weather friends are no friends at all.

There are a sum total of 3 McDonalds in Iceland.

How is McDonalds supposed to operate under these conditions?

No matter what center the food and supplies come from, this problem wil remain because of Iceland's currency. I cannot see how 3 restaurants can justify a HQ fod processing center.

I doubt McDonalds is the only business having problems in Iceland. I bet any business selling goods from other countries is facing the same problem. Unless you can import from a country with an even greater currency crises you've got exchange rate problems.

Fern
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
The hate. McDonalds is a damned delight and that is a fact. Their fries are majestic (yes) and the bigmacs like a slice of heaven, more like a fat mouth ful of heaven, actually. I heart mcdonalds.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: Skoorb
The hate. McDonalds is a damned delight and that is a fact. Their fries are majestic (yes) and the bigmacs like a slice of heaven, more like a fat mouth ful of heaven, actually. I heart mcdonalds.

damn i thought i was the only one