Eye opening article about Orlando wages.

[Mary2e]

I have a friend who was in the college program. He did so well, they asked him to stay on longer. After the program was finished and he graduated, he was the only person in his college program "class" who was offered a full time job. I saw him in action, he was the ideal Disney employee. He worked in several different areas, but ended up full time in guest services (which is a huge department and covers many locations). He was always customer facing because he was so good at what he was doing.

Guess what? Even sharing an apartment in Kissimmee with a friend who took a job outside of Disney, he simply couldn't make ends meet. He got tired of being poor all the time and having to watch every single penny. So he quit, came back to the NY area, and how has a good paying job.

It was such a shame because Disney should want to keep people like him, yet they simply are not paying them enough to be able to live and save a few dollars.

 

[tvguy]

There are many cashiers at the grocery store where I shop who have been there for years. Not all will move into other hours or job positions. There are many who love being a cashier, or baker, or customer service rep. Some will work during the time their children are in school so they can be there when they get out of school. Other adults who start a new job, will start out at entry level pay until they prove they can pull their weight and do the job for which they were hired.

Grocery store cashiers here are union. They earn a lot more than a living wage, plus benefits and retirement. So I guess it depends where you live.

 

[marcyleecorgan]

So many opinions. So many answers. So many problems. So many questions.
There is no "one size fits all" solution. The magic answer to resolve the poverty issue in Orlando is not the same answer as for West Virginia.
What I do know is that raising prices on everything from electricity to food to water while ignoring that the "trickle-down" effect is no longer happening, is only going to make things much worse.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Grocery store cashiers here are union. They earn a lot more than a living wage, plus benefits and retirement. So I guess it depends where you live.

Not every state is California. The article citing Central Florida isn't affected in any way by CAlaws, wages, housing costs, etc.

 

[tvguy]

Not every state is California. The article citing Central Florida isn't affected in any way by CAlaws, wages, housing costs, etc.

California laws have no impact if there is a union contract, no matter what state it is in.

 

[crazelion]

3. What happens when you work hard, show up on time, stay off your cellphone, and then your temp contract is up and you get replaced with a brand new round of temps because they will work for the starting rate and if you stayed they would have to give you a raise plus benefits?

Finally someone gets it. I have been situation myself. They give the person that half show up work on time or don't at all. Here I working my but off barely getting 10 hours a week. They get 40 hours. I have college degree and went on get more training. I have good job now. Drive a 52 passenger motor coach. The job sent to school get my cdls .
Been there done that write the story myself.

 

[bluehen]

For me the bottom line is that a business should not exist that has to pay a salary so low that a 40 hr a week employee has to have subsidized housing and food stamps to live. If prices have to go up so be it. I am paying for it anyway through my taxes and government programs. Someone has to do these jobs. They will always be there so why not let the people that have them have some dignity.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

For me the bottom line is that a business should not exist that has to pay a salary so low that a 40 hr a week employee has to have subsidized housing and food stamps to live. If prices have to go up so be it. I am paying for it anyway through my taxes and government programs. Someone has to do these jobs. They will always be there so why not let the people that have them have some dignity.

I don't think anyone wants anyone to actually be on food stamps but it's never as simple as "just pay them so they don't have to." nor is it as simple as just raise the prices on stuff. Besides just raising prices on things hurts the very people you're championing for.

 

[bluehen]

I don't think anyone wants anyone to actually be on food stamps but it's never as simple as "just pay them so they don't have to." nor is it as simple as just raise the prices on stuff. Besides just raising prices on things hurts the very people you're championing for.

Well since wages is only part of the price of a product I disagree. And yes it is just that simple.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Well since wages is only part of the price of a product I disagree. And yes it is just that simple.

Your comment was "If prices have to go up so be it" If you raise the price of all your products you just have people paying more money for goods but no guarantee they are making enough money to buy said product.

Totally disagree it's that simple but whatevs we all have our own opinions.

Increase wages--but you increase prices of goods, you increase rent/housing, and all sorts of things except that's the very problem people are facing in so that their wages aren't enough already to compensate for their pay. What does raising both the wages and the products do but to make people be the same situation. In order to create a pocket where people have enough money to actually spend on your goods you have to be careful not to continue to price them out.

And this is beyond just a theme park.

 

[dclpluto]

Combined they make 45k a year. She makes 14 an hour so she’s making 30k a year without overtime. So her husband who works at a auto body place is only making 15 k a year. I don’t buy the story.
So she’s making more than her husband but they want to shame Disney.

 

[bluehen]

I don't think anyone wants anyone to actually be on food stamps but it's never as simple as "just pay them so they don't have to." nor is it as simple as just raise the prices on stuff. Besides just raising prices on things hurts the very people you're championing for.

Well since wages is only part of the price of a product I disagree. And yes it is just that simple.

Your comment was "If prices have to go up so be it" If you raise the price of all your products you just have people paying more money for goods but no guarantee they are making enough money to buy said product.

Totally disagree it's that simple but whatevs we all have our own opinions.

Increase wages--but you increase prices of goods, you increase rent/housing, and all sorts of things except that's the very problem people are facing in so that their wages aren't enough already to compensate for their pay. What does raising both the wages and the products do but to make people be the same situation. In order to create a pocket where people have enough money to actually spend on your goods you have to be careful not to continue to price them out.

And this is beyond just a theme park.

Your premise would be correct if the only thing determining prices is wages. If all wages went up 10% prices would not go up 10%. And we are only talking low wage jobs. My guess is Eiger's wages have a bigger effect on prices than raising the lowest wage a few dollars. The entire economy is 21 trillion dollars. Raising the minimum wage would have a very minimal effect on that huge dollar amount.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Well since wages is only part of the price of a product I disagree. And yes it is just that simple.


Your premise would be correct if the only thing determining prices is wages. If all wages went up 10% prices would not go up 10%. And we are only talking low wage jobs. My guess is Eiger's wages have a bigger effect on prices than raising the lowest wage a few dollars. The entire economy is 21 trillion dollars. Raising the minimum wage would have a very minimal effect on that huge dollar amount.

Yeah I guess you're not really getting what I'm saying. Raising anything isn't the issue. It's raising it to the point where people aren't still just scrapping by. You'd have to raise it accordingly in each area for each person for each of their circumstances. Many corporations will choose to raise the prices of their goods but you cannot guarantee that any small raise in wages won't be eaten up by whatever the raise in the cost of the goods. A simple thing like milk. I just bought 1 gallon of 1% GV brand for $1.19. That's an amazing price. But when the price was $3-4+ it can really make a dent in your expenditures especially for those in the lower income bracket. Now milk is one of those products that is beholden in part to ups and downs but I'm just using that as an example.

I think you're saying one thing not realizing that I'm not saying that. I already mentioned in a previous comment that I can't understand how the leader of a hotel company would think they would need to raise the price of their hotels by double the cost per night of their rooms to accommodate an increase in wages (and one that is measureable) because surely there's other ways to come up with the funds to spread out the cost. But we all know that's not quite how it works. One would like to think that the price of a product is only in part due to wages but that's often the first place companies go to with respects to overhead and profits (Disney likes to raise pricing AND reduce entertainment, lay off workers, shorten hours and other things but they are a theme park). That's why I'm talking about raising wages and at the same time raising the price of products.

Clearly we're not on the same page so agree to disagree and move on

 

[RamblingMad]

Your comment was "If prices have to go up so be it" If you raise the price of all your products you just have people paying more money for goods but no guarantee they are making enough money to buy said product.

Totally disagree it's that simple but whatevs we all have our own opinions.

Increase wages--but you increase prices of goods, you increase rent/housing, and all sorts of things except that's the very problem people are facing in so that their wages aren't enough already to compensate for their pay. What does raising both the wages and the products do but to make people be the same situation. In order to create a pocket where people have enough money to actually spend on your goods you have to be careful not to continue to price them out.

And this is beyond just a theme park.

This is what essentially happened in the 70s. The solution: kill off the unions starting with the air traffic controllers.

Of course, I can buy stocks that grow their dividends at 20% annually. But employees aren’t seeing it.

When the money rises to the top and they don’t spend it, you don’t experience inflation, but you don’t really get anywhere either.

Stagnant wages combat inflation. Debt overrides it to a point. Then folks start to file for BK. And the cycle starts all over again.

 

[Dakota731]

But I think most reasonable people can open their eyes and see that the cost of living has dramatically outpaced wages.

I think what people think is necessary to live has changed to over the past generation. When I think of the cellphone and cable bills, eating out, designer clothes & bags, massages, manicures, daily Starbucks stops, electronics etc that some seem to think are necessities and go in debt to have them, then I understand why people can't get ahead. I think of how frugal my husband and I were when we started out - if we couldn't afford it then it waited until we could. We didn't charge everything we wanted then complain that we weren't getting paid enough to sustain our livestyle.

 

[RamblingMad]

I think what people think is necessary to live has changed to over the past generation. When I think of the cellphone and cable bills, eating out, designer clothes & bags, massages, manicures, daily Starbucks stops, electronics etc that some seem to think are necessities and go in debt to have them, then I understand why people can't get ahead. I think of how frugal my husband and I were when we started out - if we couldn't afford it then it waited until we could. We didn't charge everything we wanted then complain that we weren't getting paid enough to sustain our livestyle.

I see folks making $300k living paycheck to paycheck. Don’t be fooled that only low income people pile on the debt. But fear the commies.

 

[Dakota731]

Its interesting reading all the views and opinions from people who are not or have never been in a low income situation in the last 10 years and who are not under 30.

The world has changed a huge amount in the last 10 years, what was possible in the 1990's, 1980's 1970's etc etc is not possible in 2019.

I have three kids under 30 who all managed to succeed so it is possible. They all chose low tuition colleges, worked while in school, got scholarships and graduated with very little student debt. And most importantly all three chose degrees where there was a strong job market for so were hired right out of college. They didn't do drugs, waited till they were married to have children (two of the leading causes of poverty in the US) and now two of them have homes and the third who lives in a very expensive part of the country is saving for a house now.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I think what people think is necessary to live has changed to over the past generation. When I think of the cellphone and cable bills, eating out, designer clothes & bags, massages, manicures, daily Starbucks stops, electronics etc that some seem to think are necessities and go in debt to have them, then I understand why people can't get ahead. I think of how frugal my husband and I were when we started out - if we couldn't afford it then it waited until we could. We didn't charge everything we wanted then complain that we weren't getting paid enough to sustain our livestyle.

Even though I didn't get a cell phone til I was over 18 I can't imagine not having one now. I do actually think that's become a necessity of which my opinion has changed a bit over time. I do however still think age limits should be applied but I think we're more talking about people who are technically responsible for themselves. What I don't think is a necessity is the latest and greatest $1,000+ cell phone. On the other side of the coin unfortunately for many without the option of a 2 year contract that severely reduced the price of the cell phone they are a hefty investment.

To your point I'm pretty sure each generation for a while now has had their own subset of people who live in excess and indulgence. What you point to as something that has happened in the past generation is probably something different but the same main point of a previous generation and that generation before them. It's just easy to recall presently what you consider an indulgence vs previous generations. Now that doesn't mean that maybe because the ease of getting products has allowed for a more variety of things you can get hasn't made it seem more prevalent though of course it is possible it's more prevalent than in previous generations.

 

[Searc]

I see folks making $300k living paycheck to paycheck. Don’t be fooled that only low income people pile on the debt. But fear the commies.

Making that kind of money and living paycheck to paycheck is insane. If you're having trouble making ends meet with that income, you are spending WAY too much money.

 

[RamblingMad]

Making that kind of money and living paycheck to paycheck is insane. If you're having trouble making ends meet with that income, you are spending WAY too much money.

It’s the same problem across all income buckets. Folks are living beyond their means via debt. And with interest rates super low, folks are using debt like crazy.