$15 Minimum Wage by 2021!

[DazzleT]

I work for a non profit and we make money, we just put it all back into the company. And they believe employees are family and treat us well. (They like to talk about how during the Great Depression they didn’t let go a single employee- the drs all took pay cuts to ensure that everyone had enough). Our ceo doesn’t make as much as he would in other places, but we manage to stay at the top in terms of tech as well as we have some major expansions going in all of our locations. Profits aren’t the only measure of success- it is what you do with your revenue.

Something else to keep in mind, a third of Americans have no savings, over half of Americans have less than a thousand dollars. If you are going to disneyworld regularly, you probably aren’t the average american. You are better off than most. That isn't to say you should feel guilt lay or not enjoy trips or anything but you should realize that the resources available to you are not the same resources available to half of America.

 

[KaptKaveman]

"The CEO-worker retirement benefit gap is even larger than the wage gap. As of the end of 2015, just 100 CEOs had company retirement funds worth $4.7 billion — a sum equal to the entire retirement savings of the 41 percent of U.S. families with the smallest nest eggs. Workers lucky enough to have a 401(k) plan through their employer had a median balance of just $18,433."

Still discounting statistics?

Luck really doesn't have anything to do with it. In an interview process a prospective employee can ask questions like "Do you have a 401K plan", and "When will I have access" and "Does the company match".

"There are lies, damned lies and statistics" The charts you referenced seem to be a stellar example of why this quote is so ...... accurate.

But we seem to be getting off point here. Disney is implementing a 15$ starting salary. The fact that they are doing this without any mandate from local, state or federal govt is a good thing, which should lead to higher levels of customer service. I have no issue paying a little more for a vacation if I can expect a higher level of service.

 

[dlavender]

Luck really doesn't have anything to do with it. In an interview process a prospective employee can ask questions like "Do you have a 401K plan", and "When will I have access" and "Does the company match".

"There are lies, damned lies and statistics" The charts you referenced seem to be a stellar example of why this quote is so ...... accurate.

But we seem to be getting off point here. Disney is implementing a 15$ starting salary. The fact that they are doing this without any mandate from local, state or federal govt is a good thing, which should lead to higher levels of customer service. I have no issue paying a little more for a vacation if I can expect a higher level of service.

I wish I could so easily dismiss statistics......You picked out one word out of that entire chart? Bravo....(let's dismiss that 100 people hold more stock market value than 41% of others)

"You can lead a horse to water" - stellar example here....

You are right, we are getting into "uncomfortable" territory having to face this growing discontent. I'm glad Disney is getting ahead of it, somewhat.

I have no issue paying a little more, either. Been paying a great deal more over the last 10 years, so at least this time it's benefiting the more deserving, IMO....

 

[DisFanDad]

Profits certainly help with staying open and drawing investors. Again few people start a business or invest in a business with the sole purpose of "breaking even". They would be better off putting money in a savings account.



Profits are not a negative thing, and should be the goal of every company. If I am looking into a company to invest in and Company A has the mindset that profits are negative and we are not interested in making a profit and Company B has the mindset that profits are a good thing for employees and investors in Company B..... guess which company I will invest in?

You, again, miss the point. Disney doesn't care if you invest in them. They aren't issuing stock to try to invest / grow their business. To Disney, and many companies like disney, their stock value is inconsequential.

All they need to do is break even and they are a perfectly viable business. They don't need to care if you buy their shares or not.

 

[DazzleT]

You are assuming that someone has the freedom to say no to a job. I am primary breadwinner in my family. I stayed at a job that was horrible in every way for over two years, because it was the best out there. They had 2 near competitors who hired same skill set, both of which had major layoffs so it was like ok, where are you going to go. I searched for jobs, applied like crazy and managed to get my dream job, but it took 2 years. Part of the problem is also near monopolies- the joke at my old company was that you might as well just work for them because if another company is any good, my company is going to buy them and if it isn’t good, it will go under. We had a lot of talk about the good old days before my company bought out little company. I think for many, you take the job you can get and hope someday you luck out and get better. For me, I look at having this job as luck because I know people who have been searching for jobs just as hard as me, are just as skilled as me that I would hire in a second if possible, and yet I got this job, not them. So, yeah, it is nice to say get a job with a 401k, but I imagine for most people, that isn’t the choice- the choice is work at crap job that sucks up all your time and energy or starve. And when that is your choice, you really don’t have a choice.

 

[dlavender]

You, again, miss the point. Disney doesn't care if you invest in them. They aren't issuing stock to try to invest / grow their business. To Disney, and many companies like disney, their stock value is inconsequential.

All they need to do is break even and they are a perfectly viable business. They don't need to care if you buy their shares or not.

What about the Yacht builders @DisFanDad ?! You monster!

 

[dlavender]

I'll put this out there, since I have a feeling I may not have another opportunity....

The way I see it, as a whole, we have 2 options facing us. We can let the current situation keep brewing with economic inequality at an all time high (yes, higher than before the Great Depression) and keep telling people to "do better" and risk revolt, or (hear me out), we can be proactive and start taking corporations off welfare. Make them funnel to more places than just to the top 10% of people. We will be better off for it.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

I'll put this out there, since I have a feeling I may not have another opportunity....

The way I see it, as a whole, we have 2 options facing us. We can let the current situation keep brewing with economic inequality at an all time high (yes, higher than before the Great Depression) and keep telling people to "do better" and risk revolt, or (hear me out), we can be proactive and start taking corporations off welfare. Make them funnel to more places than just to the top 10% of people. We will be better off for it.

but how do we "make" them do it? Pass laws limiting what CEOs can make? Double/triple minimum wage? just pass more and more laws where government controls more and more things?

Or as a society do we reward companies that we think do things the right way and support them and boycott companies that we don't feel are doing things the right way?

 

[DisFanDad]

but how do we "make" them do it? Pass laws limiting what CEOs can make? Double/triple minimum wage? just pass more and more laws where government controls more and more things?

Or as a society do we reward companies that we think do things the right way and support them and boycott companies that we don't feel are doing things the right way?

Its a fair question, but seeing how we have failed to do that as a society, maybe its time to try something else. A maximum wage doesn't sound like a bad idea, or much higher tax brackets than exist now (and used to exist when the economy was experiencing its height of growth).

One problem is of course these companies work to prevent us from boycotting them. Companies that pay workers extremely low wages, outsource production globally, then offer cheaper products. But if you are one of those hard working, low wage, no benefit workers these companies bank on to keep costs low, you have no choice but to purchase from those companies.

And the people who CAN choose to boycott them, and speak with their wallets, well, far too many of those people don't see a problem with it, and think that the workers there should just work hard, get a better job, move, etc. You know, because we all have equal opportunity and everything, and if you don't like your minimum wage no benefits job, you can just get another one, its as simple as that.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

Its a fair question, but seeing how we have failed to do that as a society, maybe its time to try something else. A maximum wage doesn't sound like a bad idea, or much higher tax brackets than exist now (and used to exist when the economy was experiencing its height of growth).

One problem is of course these companies work to prevent us from boycotting them. Companies that pay workers extremely low wages, outsource production globally, then offer cheaper products. But if you are one of those hard working, low wage, no benefit workers these companies bank on to keep costs low, you have no choice but to purchase from those companies.

And the people who CAN choose to boycott them, and speak with their wallets, well, far too many of those people don't see a problem with it, and think that the workers there should just work hard, get a better job, move, etc. You know, because we all have equal opportunity and everything, and if you don't like your minimum wage no benefits job, you can just get another one, its as simple as that.

I guess I just don't know what the alternative is to do - if we make it too punitive on companies then they will shift even more work overseas, increase automation, etc.

and I do think as a society there is a desire to support companies we think are doing things the right way and not support companies that over-pay CEOs, etc. - sometimes we are limited in what we can do though (If our company only has one option for health care sort of suck if we don't like that insurance company's practice) and when it is part of the supply chain you don't always know three layers down how things are done, etc.

One thing I do like is supporting people who want to get the skills for jobs that are there, that we need more resources for - but that can only go so far

 

[KaptKaveman]

wish I could so easily dismiss statistics......You picked out one word out of that entire chart? Bravo....(let's dismiss that 100 people hold more stock market value than 41% of others)

Its easy to dismiss a chart like this when it was clearly designed to gin up a feeling of "economic inequality".

We can let the current situation keep brewing with economic inequality at an all time high (yes, higher than before the Great Depression) and keep telling people to "do better" and risk revolt, or (hear me out), we can be proactive and start taking corporations off welfare. Make them funnel to more places than just to the top 10% of people. We will be better off for it.

How exactly are you going to enforce economic equality? Who is going to "Make them" and what lengths are they going to go to in order to achieve economic equality.... whatever that is. Economic Equality seems to be another idealistic buzz phrase that is difficult to define.

but how do we "make" them do it? Pass laws limiting what CEOs can make? Double/triple minimum wage? just pass more and more laws where government controls more and more things?

Or as a society do we reward companies that we think do things the right way and support them and boycott companies that we don't feel are doing things the right way?

I vote on option #2 let consumers make the choice on which companies to patronize based on their own opinions of how they operate. Seems to work for everyone. Also if employees feel they are mistreated by a company they can seek employment elsewhere. Sooner or later with no customers and no employees a company will start to lose money.

 

[KaptKaveman]

ts a fair question, but seeing how we have failed to do that as a society, maybe its time to try something else. A maximum wage doesn't sound like a bad idea, or much higher tax brackets than exist now (and used to exist when the economy was experiencing its height of growth).

No it sounds like a terrible idea.

One problem is of course these companies work to prevent us from boycotting them. Companies that pay workers extremely low wages, outsource production globally, then offer cheaper products. But if you are one of those hard working, low wage, no benefit workers these companies bank on to keep costs low, you have no choice but to purchase from those companies.

What product are we talking about where there is absolutely no alternative other that purchases form evil company X? I've never heard of a company forcing people not to boycott by forcing them to buy lower priced products......

And the people who CAN choose to boycott them, and speak with their wallets, well, far too many of those people don't see a problem with it, and think that the workers there should just work hard, get a better job, move, etc. You know, because we all have equal opportunity and everything, and if you don't like your minimum wage no benefits job, you can just get another one, its as simple as that.

It really is that simple.

 

[dlavender]

but how do we "make" them do it? Pass laws limiting what CEOs can make? Double/triple minimum wage? just pass more and more laws where government controls more and more things?

Or as a society do we reward companies that we think do things the right way and support them and boycott companies that we don't feel are doing things the right way?

That is a fair question.

I don't think we can limit what CEOs can make. They will find a way around that law anyway.

We all dislike taxes, but once a company hits a threshold, we send them the bill for food stamps? 1 billion in profits? You have 1000 employees we gave x dollars a month to in subsidies, so here's your bill......

It's a very complex issue, but the crux of my case is the fact that I do not understand how we can applaud a system where the taxpayer fills in the gap for the low wages while the company is funneling billions of dollars to a small percentage of people. It's mind boggling to me. We have to start somewhere. Perhaps having the company foot the bill for how much we pay in their food stamps and other benefits would be a start?

 

[Douglas Dubh]

Or they could just fire any employees that get food stamps. After all, the true minimum wage is zero.

 

[dlavender]

Or they could just fire any employees that get food stamps. After all, the true minimum wage is zero.

Great, then they are on the hook for unemployment.

Not sure how that benefits the company to pay for a worker that isn't working for them.....

 

[Douglas Dubh]

That’s not how unemployment works.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

That is a fair question.

I don't think we can limit what CEOs can make. They will find a way around that law anyway.

We all dislike taxes, but once a company hits a threshold, we send them the bill for food stamps? 1 billion in profits? You have 1000 employees we gave x dollars a month to in subsidies, so here's your bill......

It's a very complex issue, but the crux of my case is the fact that I do not understand how we can applaud a system where the taxpayer fills in the gap for the low wages while the company is funneling billions of dollars to a small percentage of people. It's mind boggling to me. We have to start somewhere. Perhaps having the company foot the bill for how much we pay in their food stamps and other benefits would be a start?

just not sure how you get them to "foot the bill" other than increasing their corporate taxes - which until the recent tax cuts were rather high compared to the rest of the world (now, there were lots of ways companies got around paying what their rate should have been, but that is another issue)

I just am more a fan of the "carrot" vs the "stick" and how do we encourage companies to want to do pay their employees more, provide better benefits, etc. rather than "forcing" them to as then they just look for ways around it and they have more $ than we do to lobby the government

Beyond social pressures and spending our money where it has an impact, I am not sure the best way to do that

 

[0FF TO NEVERLAND]

That is a fair question.

I don't think we can limit what CEOs can make. They will find a way around that law anyway.

We all dislike taxes, but once a company hits a threshold, we send them the bill for food stamps? 1 billion in profits? You have 1000 employees we gave x dollars a month to in subsidies, so here's your bill......

It's a very complex issue, but the crux of my case is the fact that I do not understand how we can applaud a system where the taxpayer fills in the gap for the low wages while the company is funneling billions of dollars to a small percentage of people. It's mind boggling to me. We have to start somewhere. Perhaps having the company foot the bill for how much we pay in their food stamps and other benefits would be a start?

Maybe I am weird but I think people who make alot of money work very hard to do that. A CEO became a CEO by hard work. So the reward for being successful in the country is that we tax them more etc etc? Why should they be responsible for us? These CEO's offer many of the jobs in the country.

I just am not a fan of it. I think we live in a culture where successful people are " bad " and the ones who aren't are " good "

Millionaires and Billionaires are " bad " people. No I think they are smart people that deserve to get what they get because they earned it. I wish I was one of them

Its just a weird culture now a days...

Everyone just has to do whatever they can to get ahead in life. Easier said than done though

 

[TwoMisfits]

Honestly, the way to force companies to improve wages without "forcing" them is to probably use the strategy Trump is using...
1. Limit the employee pool - enforcing the border, decreasing visas, etc all have gone into this one...
2. Make it advantageous to use the American pool - redoing NAFTA, some of the tariff threats, reducing the regulations that burden companies for having employees, etc
3. Increase the competition among companies for the limited pool - removing regs to even the big/little playing field, encouraging new businesses, etc

What hasn't been done to help under pt 3 is breaking up the oligopolies...but threats are starting to get filtered through the media...and sometimes a little pressure from the top (the govt) can help as much as actually doing something (and can help as much as pressure from the bottom (the consumer)) - probably shouldn't need that government pressure in a fully functioning capitalist society, but part of the reason we got oligopolies was due to uneven governmental policies, so I guess it evens out...

Wages were up the most in a decade last month...and were up enormously in the rural areas (which have really lagged the pay increases over the decades)...things are happening if we have patience...

Last year, businesses used bonuses to try to keep employees and are now finding out they need to do actual wage increases...this is a good...we are moving in the right direction if we just keep following the path...

 

[dlavender]

just not sure how you get them to "foot the bill" other than increasing their corporate taxes - which until the recent tax cuts were rather high compared to the rest of the world (now, there were lots of ways companies got around paying what their rate should have been, but that is another issue)

I just am more a fan of the "carrot" vs the "stick" and how do we encourage companies to want to do pay their employees more, provide better benefits, etc. rather than "forcing" them to as then they just look for ways around it and they have more $ than we do to lobby the government

Beyond social pressures and spending our money where it has an impact, I am not sure the best way to do that

I'm not sure either.

I do mean a literal bill though, not necessarily a tax hike. We should have the info. You had 500 employees that we had to pay $x towards their food costs, and they work for you, so here's your bill....So even if it's cheaper to the company to pay the food stamp bill, at least we get some relief, and new funds to go elsewhere.

Now there are lots of intricacies. At what point would a company be responsible? Is it by profit margin? Revenue? Total Profit? EPS? That is where it would get tricky, for sure. But thanks to IFRS and GAAP, there isn't much legal shifting they could do. They also are all required to comply with SOX as they are publicly traded. Would a company purposefully not take a larger profit to get out of paying that bill? Maybe, but then stock price would suffer, and that 10% would get rowdy......