$15 Minimum Wage by 2021!

[Networth]

And yet, if everyone did this, there wouldn't be enough of those jobs to go around. Everyone who works a full week should be able to afford to live in dignity.

That is not how economics works at all... While I agree with you in principle; areas such as math and economics, have nothing to do with emotions (strictly speak). If a company wishes to spend more on wages, by reducing profit that is not sound economics. If they choose to do it for morale reasons without passing the cost onto the consumer, that’s entirely different.

That said I don’t feel like discussing all this in depth on the Disboards so I will just bow out, and say I hope the CM’s enjoy the pay bump as I stated in my first post.

 

[DazzleT]

Something has shifted in corporate mentality. Before, if you couldn’t find someone to fill the job, you would offer more money. Instead companies are digging in and refusing to increase wages, despite the fact that they are paying in overtime and lost quality for the shortages. I had a job where we were short staffed for a full year and we finally hired someone who was completely unqualified and didn’t last through training. I don’t know how long the next shortage lasted because I left. But basic economic supply and demand is not working right now. Disney can’t find enough cleaning staff, so they should be offering more but instead they hold their rates steady. If the companies aren’t following the supply/demand when it comes to employment, arguing that employees should doesn’t make sense. And this is true even with higher skill/education levels. I have a masters in science, working in clinical medicine, so getting a more useful or higher degree is not really a valid argument and yet at multiple companies we have worked at severe shortages where every person who left reported that they left due to low pay. Basic economics says companies should increase wages, but they aren’t. So, I am hesitant to go with the oh, simple economics means x when discussing wages because that is not the system America is using right now.

 

[jade1]

By 2021 Disney will have over 30 billion in net profit, shouldn't be an issue paying more in wages.

Bill

Be cool to see even 10% returned as a bonus. $15K ea or so if 200,000 employees.

 

[dlavender]

Be cool to see even 10% returned as a bonus. $15K ea or so if 200,000 employees.

We have our 3rd agreement on these boards in 2 years!

 

[disneynutz]

Be cool to see even 10% returned as a bonus. $15K ea or so if 200,000 employees.

Be cool to see even 10% returned as a bonus. $15K ea or so if 200,000 employees.

Disney withheld their one time bonus for union CM's until they agreed on the new contract. Great company.

Bill

 

[DazzleT]

There are also long term and short term goals. High turnover means lots of retraining costs, less innovation, bad word of mouth, lower quality overall- all of which can lower long term profitability. So yeah, the company might have a great short term return, but were are they in ten years? Having high employee engagement, which requires treating your employees with dignity and respect, can be a very good thing for a company if the company is looking at where they will be 20 years from now, not just the next quarter. If Disney cms are unhappy, are they going to provide the type of customer service Disney is looking for? And if they stop being known for customer service, why shouldn’t I just go to cedar point?

 

[lolomarie]

$31,600 for 2017-18 school year. They managed to get a decent raise this school year, but they had to basically shut down the schools to do it!
http://sde.ok.gov/sde/sites/ok.gov.sde/files/documents/files/17-18 State Minimum Salary Schedule_1.pdf

In Alberta a starting teacher with only a 4 year degree makes almost double that.

 

[lolomarie]

And exactly the reason I dont feel too awfully sorry when people complain about the amount they make. You stated it as succinctly as it can be stated. Everyone has choices and its up to them to determine what path they choose to walk.

The "choices" that people are capable of making are often made for them from birth. This sounds like an argument made from an elite position of power.

 

[lolomarie]

You realize the "market" assigning you worth isn't really a "market" right ? Its a relative few people who have undue influence on what the "market" says you are worth ... and that does sound an awful lot like those things you try to deny exist. Especially when your solution is, just do what the "market" tells you to do and you can be more prosperous. Of course, you fail to acknowledge the MILLIONs of people who have done exactly what you suggest, and still are not economically well off. You also ignore the fact that the "market" has created a situation where its not as simple as "go improve your skills, get and education, etc" for many people, for many reasons, those just aren't viable options. They aren't. And you can point to anecdotes of people overcoming obstacles / odds to do well, but again, you ignore the MILLIONS who tried, and couldn't / didn't, often because of the barriers that exist in the system. You also fail to recognize that for every "better paying" job, there are thousands of minimum wage (or near minimum). Which means its quite literally impossible for your advice to actually help most people, because for every single one that lifts themselves up, it requires thousands stay stuck in the lower end of the economy.

And lastly, you assume consumers "have" to pay for it, they don't. But the very fact that you (and many others) have been brainwashed to think like this is all the cover companies like disney require to indeed pass on such costs to consumers, and further vilify any worker demands, which by the way eventually becomes universally true, so we all want more, and we all want no one else to get anymore, thus we become our own oppressors. All a company needs to do is break even, that's it. Pay its operating costs, wages, salaries, upkeep, etc, and break even. Profits are nice, but for a company to remain viable, it needs to break even. Profits are good for investors, and owners certainly, but the company itself doesn't need them. There is no reason a company that makes billions in profit needs to pass on additional costs (wages) to consumers, it is a CHOICE to do so, one designed to benefit its owners/shareholders and often its upper management whose compensation is a reflection of stock value / profit increases. If everyone actually got more upset by this type of behavior, instead of justifying it because that's "just the way it is", we'd all be a lot better off, and we wouldn't see the massive gaps in wealth inequality we do today. After all, things are only "just the way they are" because we allow them to be.

Very well said, bravo!

 

[TwoMisfits]

You realize the "market" assigning you worth isn't really a "market" right ? Its a relative few people who have undue influence on what the "market" says you are worth ... and that does sound an awful lot like those things you try to deny exist. Especially when your solution is, just do what the "market" tells you to do and you can be more prosperous. Of course, you fail to acknowledge the MILLIONs of people who have done exactly what you suggest, and still are not economically well off. You also ignore the fact that the "market" has created a situation where its not as simple as "go improve your skills, get and education, etc" for many people, for many reasons, those just aren't viable options. They aren't. And you can point to anecdotes of people overcoming obstacles / odds to do well, but again, you ignore the MILLIONS who tried, and couldn't / didn't, often because of the barriers that exist in the system. You also fail to recognize that for every "better paying" job, there are thousands of minimum wage (or near minimum). Which means its quite literally impossible for your advice to actually help most people, because for every single one that lifts themselves up, it requires thousands stay stuck in the lower end of the economy.

And lastly, you assume consumers "have" to pay for it, they don't. But the very fact that you (and many others) have been brainwashed to think like this is all the cover companies like disney require to indeed pass on such costs to consumers, and further vilify any worker demands, which by the way eventually becomes universally true, so we all want more, and we all want no one else to get anymore, thus we become our own oppressors. All a company needs to do is break even, that's it. Pay its operating costs, wages, salaries, upkeep, etc, and break even. Profits are nice, but for a company to remain viable, it needs to break even. Profits are good for investors, and owners certainly, but the company itself doesn't need them. There is no reason a company that makes billions in profit needs to pass on additional costs (wages) to consumers, it is a CHOICE to do so, one designed to benefit its owners/shareholders and often its upper management whose compensation is a reflection of stock value / profit increases. If everyone actually got more upset by this type of behavior, instead of justifying it because that's "just the way it is", we'd all be a lot better off, and we wouldn't see the massive gaps in wealth inequality we do today. After all, things are only "just the way they are" because we allow them to be.

You have a point, but you take it a little too far. It's a balance between company profit and other costs/revenues. A company that continues to make zero will see little reason to continue to exist (shareholders who get no return on investment will remove their money and move elsewhere...or if private, owners who make nothing will wonder why they don't move the money to the next new things and sell/liquidate this one). We have forgotten the balance in favor of "all owner all the time", sometimes making a sop to customers and almost never making one to employees (the open borders and the large visa availability of the past decade or two combined with the weakening of unions and the general slowdown of the economy also meant most businesses could always choose against employees b/c they could just get more and more with no real penalty)...that's now changing across the board, so pressure is increasing to move off their previous "all for me" paradigm (the social pressure is also helping push this), which is good for everyone in a functioning mostly capitalist society...

 

[Viking7641]

Good. I doubt most "highly skilled" people who had the privilege of good schools and colleges could handle the verbal and often physical and sexual abuse the average service worker in the US takes..Then they go home and are told they deserve to live in some sort of poverty situation because their skillset isn't STEM based.

The cast members are basically the reason I go, as they are the best service employees I have ever encountered.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

Something has shifted in corporate mentality. Before, if you couldn’t find someone to fill the job, you would offer more money. Instead companies are digging in and refusing to increase wages, despite the fact that they are paying in overtime and lost quality for the shortages. I had a job where we were short staffed for a full year and we finally hired someone who was completely unqualified and didn’t last through training. I don’t know how long the next shortage lasted because I left. But basic economic supply and demand is not working right now. Disney can’t find enough cleaning staff, so they should be offering more but instead they hold their rates steady. If the companies aren’t following the supply/demand when it comes to employment, arguing that employees should doesn’t make sense. And this is true even with higher skill/education levels. I have a masters in science, working in clinical medicine, so getting a more useful or higher degree is not really a valid argument and yet at multiple companies we have worked at severe shortages where every person who left reported that they left due to low pay. Basic economics says companies should increase wages, but they aren’t. So, I am hesitant to go with the oh, simple economics means x when discussing wages because that is not the system America is using right now.

I think that is driven by the fact that they can’t really lower starting pay in the future should they need to/be able to so it is easier to want to keep salaries where they are and offer sign on bonuses when you need to and then just no longer offer them when you don’t .... it’s more of a short term view and trying to ride the cycle but when analysts and investors are most focused on the next quarter’s results it is an understandable tact to take

 

[tidefan]

All a company needs to do is break even, that's it. Pay its operating costs, wages, salaries, upkeep, etc, and break even. Profits are nice, but for a company to remain viable, it needs to break even. Profits are good for investors, and owners certainly, but the company itself doesn't need them.

Just a point here. I don't view profits as a bad thing at all. I, personally, enjoy riding the Monorails at Disney Parks. They are controlled by the famous "MAPO" system. What does that "MAPO" stand for? Mary Poppins. Why is the monorail safety operating system named after Mary Poppins? Why, it is the fact that Walt Disney used the profits from the movie Mary Poppins to install the system.

So, profits can be (and often are) used for reinvestment into companies. So, I don't view profits in an of themselves as bad at all. Now, where we can get into a discussion is how a company manages it's profits...

 

[KaptKaveman]

I don't understand. For the last 2 or 3 years there has been a vocal push for 15$ an hour. People want the govt. to institute a minimum wage forcing companies to pay 15$ an hour. Here is Disney stepping up and doing this without any govt. directive and you would think that is a bad thing by reading through this thread. I am as critical as the next guy when Disney deserves it(see the new parking fees) but it seems that in this case they are doing a good thing.

All a company needs to do is break even, that's it. Pay its operating costs, wages, salaries, upkeep, etc, and break even. Profits are nice, but for a company to remain viable, it needs to break even. Profits are good for investors, and owners certainly, but the company itself doesn't need them.

Uh what? That is not how investments work. If it were then you could simply decide to put money under a mattress because you would be guaranteed to break even. Investors take risks by putting up large sums of money in the hopes of making a return on that investment. If a company doesn't profit and investors don't make money, then investors won't inject more capital into the company. You don't put money into your 401K in hopes of just getting it back in 30 years, correct?

 

[ponyboy]

All a company needs to do is break even, that's it. Pay its operating costs, wages, salaries, upkeep, etc, and break even. Profits are nice, but for a company to remain viable, it needs to break even. Profits are good for investors, and owners certainly, but the company itself doesn't need them. There is no reason a company that makes billions in profit needs to pass on additional costs (wages) to consumers, it is a CHOICE to do so, one designed to benefit its owners/shareholders and often its upper management whose compensation is a reflection of stock value / profit increases. If everyone actually got more upset by this type of behavior, instead of justifying it because that's "just the way it is", we'd all be a lot better off, and we wouldn't see the massive gaps in wealth inequality we do today. After all, things are only "just the way they are" because we allow them to be.

Lol....things are "just the way they are" because that's what works.

Who is going to start a business or invest in a business to just break even? The answer is virtually nobody. There has probably never been a person say, "I think I'm going to start a giant business just so I can employ a bunch of people and not make any money", because businesses aren't created for the purpose of employing people. They're created for the purpose of creating profit and employees are simply a byproduct of successful businesses. Like it or not, direct labor sits on the expense side of an expense report and employees are not listed under assets.

You talk about Disney like it's some type of being all on it's own but it's not, it's a business owned by hundreds of thousands of different owners who all expect a return on their investment. Without profit or at least the expectation of future profit then a business can't grow or upgrade. It's not like the money that Disney makes simply disappears into some black hole never to be seen again, it's paid out to the shareholders (mostly normal everyday people) and to provide funds for growth and expansion of the company. When Disney makes money, the owners make money and then they turn around and spend that money on products and services that employ a whole lot of other people. While a particular Disney employee may not benefit from increased Disney profits there are employees somewhere that are benefiting indirectly.

Without business profits then the economy doesn't work. Businesses fail, the job market stagnates, unemployment rises, wages fall, the stock market tanks, money lending dries up, interest rates go crazy, along with a host of other problems. Eventually all of the huge profits that a company makes gets spent and all of that money trickles down to even the lowest paid workers that have no relationship to the company that originally created the profits.

Profits aren't just "nice", they're essential, not just to the business but for everybody.

 

[DisFanDad]

I don't understand. For the last 2 or 3 years there has been a vocal push for 15$ an hour. People want the govt. to institute a minimum wage forcing companies to pay 15$ an hour. Here is Disney stepping up and doing this without any govt. directive and you would think that is a bad thing by reading through this thread. I am as critical as the next guy when Disney deserves it(see the new parking fees) but it seems that in this case they are doing a good thing.



Uh what? That is not how investments work. If it were then you could simply decide to put money under a mattress because you would be guaranteed to break even. Investors take risks by putting up large sums of money in the hopes of making a return on that investment. If a company doesn't profit and investors don't make money, then investors won't inject more capital into the company. You don't put money into your 401K in hopes of just getting it back in 30 years, correct?

Who is talking about investments ? Disney doesn't need to (if they were structured and obliged to do so) to care about their investors. Investors do nothing for them. Their stock could be valued at $1 a share and it wouldn't effect the company's bottom line.

Did you not read the part where I said, profits are good for investors, but a company doesn't have to profit a dime to stay open and operating ? It just needs to break even.

 

[DisFanDad]

Lol....things are "just the way they are" because that's what works.

Who is going to start a business or invest in a business to just break even? The answer is virtually nobody. There has probably never been a person say, "I think I'm going to start a giant business just so I can employ a bunch of people and not make any money", because businesses aren't created for the purpose of employing people. They're created for the purpose of creating profit and employees are simply a byproduct of successful businesses. Like it or not, direct labor sits on the expense side of an expense report and employees are not listed under assets.

You talk about Disney like it's some type of being all on it's own but it's not, it's a business owned by hundreds of thousands of different owners who all expect a return on their investment. Without profit or at least the expectation of future profit then a business can't grow or upgrade. It's not like the money that Disney makes simply disappears into some black hole never to be seen again, it's paid out to the shareholders (mostly normal everyday people) and to provide funds for growth and expansion of the company. When Disney makes money, the owners make money and then they turn around and spend that money on products and services that employ a whole lot of other people. While a particular Disney employee may not benefit from increased Disney profits there are employees somewhere that are benefiting indirectly.

Without business profits then the economy doesn't work. Businesses fail, the job market stagnates, unemployment rises, wages fall, the stock market tanks, money lending dries up, interest rates go crazy, along with a host of other problems. Eventually all of the huge profits that a company makes gets spent and all of that money trickles down to even the lowest paid workers that have no relationship to the company that originally created the profits.

Profits aren't just "nice", they're essential, not just to the business but for everybody.

They actually aren't, and they certainly aren't to the extent that companies like Disney Profit. Why does Disney care about its investors ? They aren't issuing any further stock in order to generate investment money and build the company, they stock value is a moot point to Disney as a company. Of course, to it shareholder's / owners, that's a different story.

Maybe you are unaware, but most businesses, millions of them, don't make any profits. They pay their expense, pay their owner's/managers/workers a salary, and break even generally speaking.

It's ironic that your concern is that the money goes out to the shareholders so they can in turn spend it on things, and then you think it would be a terrible idea that the same money would go to the workers who produce those profits because that would spell the end of the economy, I mean, who would buy things and stimulate the economy ??? As if, if the money went directly to those workers they wouldn't spend the money and stimulate the economy themselves ?

Also, the owners aren't "mostly normal everyday people" around 10% of people own 85% of the stock market value. Sure, 15% is shared by the other 90%, and about half of Americans own none. The owners are, by FAR, VASTLY, Almost completely (use whatever accurate descriptor you want) The upper 10%, and upper 1% of the wealthiest in America and the world.

 

[Douglas Dubh]

Did you not read the part where I said, profits are good for investors, but a company doesn't have to profit a dime to stay open and operating ? It just needs to break even.

That's just not the case. If a company's doesn't return some profits to its investors then it's stock price falls and it gets taken over and management gets replaced.

 

[Nancyg56]

Any company that increases their budget for payroll has to figure out how to offset it or recoup the income flow somewhere. Dont comment like its just Disney. EVERY company passes it on in some way.

I think it depends on the size of the company. I run payroll for small businesses and have to pay attention to the minimum wage increases that are coming down the line. Some of my companies barely make payroll as it is, and have been very hard hit by the EMAC surcharges they are assessed. These small businesses have been absorbing some of these increases in wages and all the associated costs. They cannot pass all of them them on by increasing prices or they will close their doors. It's a balancing act that has been troubling for some.

And if anyone picked up a history book, or looked around the world to places wages / benefits / protections aren't regulated, they'd see you are absolutely correct.

True.

 

[fla4fun]

Who is going to start a business or invest in a business to just break even? The answer is virtually nobody. There has probably never been a person say, "I think I'm going to start a giant business just so I can employ a bunch of people and not make any money", because businesses aren't created for the purpose of employing people. They're created for the purpose of creating profit and employees are simply a byproduct of successful businesses.

I actually worked for a small company where the owner wasn't interested in making big profits. So long as the business was growing and the employees taken care of, he was OK. That was, hands down, the best place I ever worked. And they didn't go out of business - they sold their business for a huge price and retired, and although the business changed drastically under the new owners, it's still operating. We employees always felt like we were valued as people, not as commodities. I remember taking time out to just appreciate the situation at the time because I knew it wouldn't last forever, and I probably wouldn't find it again. And I haven't, unfortunately. We used to hate going on vacation because we might miss something great - now I can't wait for vacation and always have a countdown to the next one . . . I wish everyone could have that kind of employment experience at least once in their life.