NYT op-ed video on DL living wage

An honest question, how do you define a living wage? What is the definition of this term?
Honest question asking for honest answers only.
What an answer to that question might look like is a list of things that one can utilize to live, such as rent, food, transportation, clothes. What would be on your (collectively, meaning all DIS'ers) list?
 
I certainly don't begrudge any one for wanting to make more money... but when i was younger and wanted/needed to make more money, i got another job or even a 2nd job... Oddly, getting a new job or even a 2nd job seems a million times easier than passing legislation through government but perhaps i am just lazy and or selfish like that. ;)
 
An honest question, how do you define a living wage? What is the definition of this term?
Honest question asking for honest answers only.
What an answer to that question might look like is a list of things that one can utilize to live, such as rent, food, transportation, clothes. What would be on your (collectively, meaning all DIS'ers) list?

In London, UK there is an optional Living Wage which is higher than then the national minimum wage. The Living wage is calculated on cost of living, for example, comparing the cost of like for like items in London compared to other parts of the country. Say for example a grocery shop of 10 most commonly bought items, bread, milk, etc costs £10 in London but might only cost £8 outside of London. https://www.livingwage.org.uk/calculation
  • The London Living Wage is currently £10.20 per hour. This covers all boroughs in Greater London.
  • The UK Living Wage for outside of London is currently £8.75 per hour.
  • The rates are calculated annually by the Resolution Foundation and overseen by the Living Wage Commission, based on the best available evidence about living standards in London and the UK.
  • The basket of goods draws on the Minimum Income Standard to identify everyday living costs through public consensus.
  • Before 2016 the London Living Wage was calculated by the Greater London Authority and the UK rate was calculated by the Centre for Research in Social Policy at Loughborough University.
 


An honest question, how do you define a living wage? What is the definition of this term?
Honest question asking for honest answers only.
What an answer to that question might look like is a list of things that one can utilize to live, such as rent, food, transportation, clothes. What would be on your (collectively, meaning all DIS'ers) list?

From an MIT analysis of living wage across the country:

"The living wage model is an alternative measure of basic needs. It is a market-based approach that draws upon geographically specific expenditure data related to a family’s likely minimum food, childcare, health insurance, housing, transportation, and other basic necessities (e.g. clothing, personal care items, etc.) costs. The living wage draws on these cost elements and the rough effects of income and payroll taxes to determine the minimum employment earnings necessary to meet a family’s basic needs while also maintaining self-sufficiency."
 
I certainly don't begrudge any one for wanting to make more money... but when i was younger and wanted/needed to make more money, i got another job or even a 2nd job... Oddly, getting a new job or even a 2nd job seems a million times easier than passing legislation through government but perhaps i am just lazy and or selfish like that. ;)

When I was younger I simply chose not to pursue a couple "dream" jobs because I knew I would not make enough money in those fields to scrape by, at least not until I'd been at it for several years, and I couldn't afford that.

My (now adult) daughter earnestly wanted to be in the college program and maybe be a cast member. But she looked at the cold, hard numbers and decided it was not a wise choice, financially.

That's all well-and-good for her, of course, but someone needs to work these jobs...
 
The thing about a living wage -- it is based on the economy.
If EVERYONE was forced to get a living wage .. then the prices of goods and services would go up .. (Landlords would charge more rent, knowing their renters have more money, the cost of food would go up because the workers who make it have to get paid more .. etc. etc. etc.) ... so after some time, their "living wage" .. wouldn't be enough again.

If you can't pay your rent, work hard to get promoted, find another job or move somewhere with less rent. In other words .. take action.

When people quit working for DL and DL doesn't have enough qualified workers, they will adjust their wages upward to attract more qualified applicants .. or their business will suffer from poor customer service. The market works if we let it.
 


I certainly don't begrudge any one for wanting to make more money... but when i was younger and wanted/needed to make more money, i got another job or even a 2nd job... Oddly, getting a new job or even a 2nd job seems a million times easier than passing legislation through government but perhaps i am just lazy and or selfish like that. ;)

you have to look at the bigger picture, there are many many Disney CM's mostly the park and hotel CM's who are basically stuck in Disney, working long hours in low paid positions. Im not talking about the 20 something who works at Disney for a season and then moves on. Im talking about the 30, 40, 50, 60 year olds who would struggle to find any other type of employment if they left Disney. Disney has a good health care program and other employee benefits which other low paying jobs would not have. Low paid CM's who have been with Disney for a number of years have also worked up vacation time, again if they left Disney they would not get the same vacation time.

Many of the park CM's probably dont have any other skills or experience other than what they have learnt on the job at Disney. In todays high tech social media computer led employment world they would not be able to compete.

So saying well why dont they just leave Disney is not really understanding what being a CM in the park is actually like.
 
The thing about a living wage -- it is based on the economy.
If EVERYONE was forced to get a living wage .. then the prices of goods and services would go up .. (Landlords would charge more rent, knowing their renters have more money, the cost of food would go up because the workers who make it have to get paid more .. etc. etc. etc.) ... so after some time, their "living wage" .. wouldn't be enough again.

If you can't pay your rent, work hard to get promoted, find another job or move somewhere with less rent. In other words .. take action.

When people quit working for DL and DL doesn't have enough qualified workers, they will adjust their wages upward to attract more qualified applicants .. or their business will suffer from poor customer service. The market works if we let it.

Not picking a fight, but you seem to have a contradiction here. In your first graph you say not everyone can have a living wage. In your second graph you say (in a statement that presumably you are suggesting to anyone/everyone) if you're not making a living wage, take action to do so. But as you've stated, not everyone is going to make a living wage.

What your first graph is missing, some would say, is that wealth distribution has been distorted to the super, super rich (the Igers, et al) and some of that could be shared among the working class without the ripple effect you suggest of the increase in goods and services.
 
you have to look at the bigger picture, there are many many Disney CM's mostly the park and hotel CM's who are basically stuck in Disney, working long hours in low paid positions. Im not talking about the 20 something who works at Disney for a season and then moves on. Im talking about the 30, 40, 50, 60 year olds who would struggle to find any other type of employment if they left Disney. Disney has a good health care program and other employee benefits which other low paying jobs would not have. Low paid CM's who have been with Disney for a number of years have also worked up vacation time, again if they left Disney they would not get the same vacation time.

Many of the park CM's probably dont have any other skills or experience other than what they have learnt on the job at Disney. In todays high tech social media computer led employment world they would not be able to compete.

So saying well why dont they just leave Disney is not really understanding what being a CM in the park is actually like.
Aside from all of this (which I agree with completely), I'm guessing Disney workers are seeing the piles of money Disney is making and wondering why so little of it is going to them. It's the same story at Amazon warehouses, and I guess it's a question of who is more deserving of the profits from these companies: the investor class or the working class. Right now the investor class is doing extremely well.
 
Aside from all of this (which I agree with completely), I'm guessing Disney workers are seeing the piles of money Disney is making and wondering why so little of it is going to them. It's the same story at Amazon warehouses, and I guess it's a question of who is more deserving of the profits from these companies: the investor class or the working class. Right now the investor class is doing extremely well.

The part in bold is 100% spot on and in fact has been said to me by CM's. They see the huge ticket prices, the amount of money the food in the restaurants costs, how much hotel rooms are and yet wage increases dont reflect the money coming into the parks every day. Some low paid CM's have not had a wage increase in maybe 5 or 7 years, yet they have seen the park tickets entry price increase hugely from what it was when they first started working in the parks.
 
Companies are not going to pay "living wages" by dipping in to their profits, they will raise their prices and we will pay. Then that living wage just becomes nothing more than what the current minimum wage is now. That IS the big picture.
Anyone with a high school level understanding of economics should know that. You can put an emotional spin on it, but it is what it is.
 
you have to look at the bigger picture, there are many many Disney CM's mostly the park and hotel CM's who are basically stuck in Disney, working long hours in low paid positions. Im not talking about the 20 something who works at Disney for a season and then moves on. Im talking about the 30, 40, 50, 60 year olds who would struggle to find any other type of employment if they left Disney. Disney has a good health care program and other employee benefits which other low paying jobs would not have. Low paid CM's who have been with Disney for a number of years have also worked up vacation time, again if they left Disney they would not get the same vacation time.

Many of the park CM's probably dont have any other skills or experience other than what they have learnt on the job at Disney. In todays high tech social media computer led employment world they would not be able to compete.

So saying well why dont they just leave Disney is not really understanding what being a CM in the park is actually like.

No doubt i don't know what its like... I can empathize with those CMs in this situation. I am just saying that I would go out and find another job or even a 2nd job before i would not hold my breath waiting on legislation to pass before i got a decent raise.
 
Last edited:
Companies are not going to pay "living wages" by dipping in to their profits, they will raise their prices and we will pay. Then that living wage just becomes nothing more than what the current minimum wage is now. That IS the big picture.
Anyone with a high school level understanding of economics should know that. You can put an emotional spin on it, but it is what it is.
I was under the impression that those corporate tax cuts would trickle down to everyone but hey what do I know, gotta give it all to the investors.
 
An honest question, how do you define a living wage? What is the definition of this term?
Honest question asking for honest answers only.
What an answer to that question might look like is a list of things that one can utilize to live, such as rent, food, transportation, clothes. What would be on your (collectively, meaning all DIS'ers) list?

This isn't a direct answer to this, but I see a few sides / angles and situations.

First, I dont' think anyone who works 40 hours a week should live in poverty. The current federal minimum wage is $7.25 - if you work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year (no vacation) that would be a total of $15,080

The poverty line for the 48 continuous states is $12,140 - so not much below that

at $15/hour you would be at $31,200 a year.

Now, for someone starting out, that doesn't seem outlandish - I don't think it is crazy to say that when you have an entry level job you need roommates to have a decent place to live, etc. ... and I don't think too many people would argue that

The issue is for people that this is the best they can get, can this type of job provide for you and your family for the long term? And if not, should it be able to? Someone needs to do these types of jobs, and for some people (given their upbringing, skill level, etc.) this is what they are best at or best able to do. Or heck, maybe they really like it and this is what they want to do - is that wrong to want to be able to be a front line Cast Member "only" and still be able to live a decent life? ..... and I think that is where the arguments come in. Some people feel that someone should be able to support a family with ANY full time job - and others feel that it should be a step towards a "better" job that is required to support a family
 
Before I even clicked in to this thread, I knew what I would find.

* People saying things like "get an additional job/work 2 jobs"
* People saying these jobs aren't meant to be careers
* People saying "if you don't like the wage, just quit"

I just amazes me that people can be so heartless. These are good people, willing to do good work. And as a country, why would we want to disincentivize people like this, with regard to working and being a productive party of society? Many companies, Disney included, pay way too much to the C-level type employees and not nearly enough to the "lower level" employees. Then those people have to rely on food stamps/subsidised housing/etc. So, these companies get rich on the back of the tax-payers.

I know it may be hard, but try to remember that these are real people...good people that want to work and be productive and feel like they are a part of a team and a society that cares about them. Allowing large companies to take advantage of them shouldn't be happening, but it is. And then when people speak up about it, other folks shout them down and call them weak or uneducated or undereducated or lazy or worse.

It breaks my heart to see people tearing other people down on behalf of companies that could do better. Much better.
 
also there is the misconception that park and hotel CM's are transient workers, single people working at Disney for a few months and then moving on. The reality is quite the opposite, many park CM's are long term, working at Disney for 5 plus years, 30, 40 50 year olds still having to house share same as they did when in their 20's, still not able to upgrade their car or able to afford to fix their car, still buying cheap food and clothes
 
If EVERYONE was forced to get a living wage .. then the prices of goods and services would go up .. (Landlords would charge more rent, knowing their renters have more money, the cost of food would go up because the workers who make it have to get paid more .. etc. etc. etc.) ... so after some time, their "living wage" .. wouldn't be enough again.

Companies are not going to pay "living wages" by dipping in to their profits, they will raise their prices and we will pay.

People assume this and like to say things like this, but I would love to see some actual scholarship to back it up.
 
This isn't a direct answer to this, but I see a few sides / angles and situations.

First, I dont' think anyone who works 40 hours a week should live in poverty. The current federal minimum wage is $7.25 - if you work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year (no vacation) that would be a total of $15,080

The poverty line for the 48 continuous states is $12,140 - so not much below that

at $15/hour you would be at $31,200 a year.

Now, for someone starting out, that doesn't seem outlandish - I don't think it is crazy to say that when you have an entry level job you need roommates to have a decent place to live, etc. ... and I don't think too many people would argue that

The issue is for people that this is the best they can get, can this type of job provide for you and your family for the long term? And if not, should it be able to? Someone needs to do these types of jobs, and for some people (given their upbringing, skill level, etc.) this is what they are best at or best able to do. Or heck, maybe they really like it and this is what they want to do - is that wrong to want to be able to be a front line Cast Member "only" and still be able to live a decent life? ..... and I think that is where the arguments come in. Some people feel that someone should be able to support a family with ANY full time job - and others feel that it should be a step towards a "better" job that is required to support a family

I'm one of those people who feel that your pay should not be based on how many hours you work. What people are paid should be based on the skills and responsibilities required fpr the job, the education level needed for the job, and what the "market" decides the job is worth.
If a person works 40 hours at their job and can't afford to live on that, then they have a responsibility to themselves to find a different job that allows them to do that. I do not believe a company should be forced to pay anyone a living wage just because a person works 40 hours. I also believe that doing so will only create more part-time jobs where companies stop hiring full time employees, which benefits them in 2 ways since they will probably no longer offer benefits such as healthcare, paid time off, 401K matching (and pensions if they even exist anymore). Then what, is that better or worse?
 
I'm one of those people who feel that your pay should not be based on how many hours you work. What people are paid should be based on the skills and responsibilities required fpr the job, the education level needed for the job, and what the "market" decides the job is worth.
If a person works 40 hours at their job and can't afford to live on that, then they have a responsibility to themselves to find a different job that allows them to do that. I do not believe a company should be forced to pay anyone a living wage just because a person works 40 hours. I also believe that doing so will only create more part-time jobs where companies stop hiring full time employees, which benefits them in 2 ways since they will probably no longer offer benefits such as healthcare, paid time off, 401K matching (and pensions if they even exist anymore). Then what, is that better or worse?

but what if they can't get a different job? what if they don't have the resources to increase their skills? I think if someone is working full time (whatever that means) and working hard they shouldn't also be in poverty

I do agree with you about how companies will then work around it as there are other benefits that come with full time vs part time employment
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!





Top