NYT op-ed video on DL living wage

[Hikergirl]

People assume this and like to say things like this, but I would love to see some actual scholarship to back it up.

I think the fact that we are having this conversation at a time when companies profits are at record high levels says it all.

 

[Hikergirl]

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

Why wouldn't they have the resources? There is help out there, especially for those who need it.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

Why wouldn't they have the resources? There is help out there, especially for those who need it.

not for everyone, many are put behind the eight ball due to their background, upbringing, health expenses, etc. For many that is an option and one that many should look into, but it isn't always the case

And I am not saying they should make a ton of money just because they show up - but at the same time, a lot of jobs need to get done - someone needs to serve you your burger, someone needs to clean your room, someone needs to sell balloons, etc. - and if people are working hard doing that, they also shouldn't be in poverty in my mind

 

[BadPinkTink]

its painfully obvious from the replies that people have no idea about living long term in a low paying job is actually like or what it is like to be a person who has no other work skills or education than manual labour jobs, or what it is like to live in a low income area.

it is painfully obvious that the people replying are not 40 years old trying to survive on minimum wage, only able to afford to live in a room in someone else house with a car that needs repairing who still eats ramon noodles for dinner as thats all they can afford.

 

[TwoMisfits]

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.

That does not have to be true. Many privately held corporations pay well to keep their employees without passing price increases onto customers. They tend to be some of the most highly thought of companies around. They have struck the "right" balance between the triangle of company/employee/customer.

Disney could be pressured on two fronts to push a living wage without pushing costs on to customers, if customers would not pay those increased costs and yet employees would not work under lower wages...the employment side is definitely pushing...we'll see if customers do their part, too...

 

[Hikergirl]

its painfully obvious from the replies that people have no idea about living long term in a low paying job is actually like or what it is like to be a person who has no other work skills or education than manual labour jobs, or what it is like to live in a low income area.

it is painfully obvious that the people replying are not 40 years old trying to survive on minimum wage, only able to afford to live in a room in someone else house with a car that needs repairing who still eats ramon noodles for dinner as thats all they can afford.

It is painfully obvious that you don't know anything about why posters feel the way they do and just make assumptions based on your feelings. You have no idea where I have been.

 

[Hikergirl]

That does not have to be true. Many privately held corporations pay well to keep their employees without passing price increases onto customers. They tend to be some of the most highly thought of companies around. They have struck the "right" balance between the triangle of company/employee/customer.

Disney could be pressured on two fronts to push a living wage without pushing costs on to customers, if customers would not pay those increased costs and yet employees would not work under lower wages...the employment side is definitely pushing...we'll see if customers do their part, too...

Maybe but you would need enough customers to be on the same page and be willing to "sacrifice" their vacations, and movies and buying products, etc.

 

[middlechild]

The question about what a "living wage" is a valid one.
When I moved from Southern NH to Chicago area, looking at the cost of living in the two Metropolitan Urban Areas was useful in comparing costs. There was little difference from Boston to Chicago in costs. Also note TWDC makes revenues from four major segments, and movies returns more profit on a numbers basis.
But the debate about "living wage" remains. Why at $15 an hour? Because it is a round number, easy to remember? Why not $20?
If you define a living wage as being able to spend on a modern auto, 2BR apartment, cell phone, netflix, groceries from Whole Foods, a Prius? Obviously this is an extreme, but the question remains... Also, apparently the amount needed is the same for Disneyland employees versus Disney World?

How do you define a living wage?

 

[Scifidiner]

When I was in high school my senior year I worked at a bank making minimum wage. I quickly learned that was not a lot of money and was one of the reasons I went to college. When I graduated HS I went through a 6 month Operating room Technician class (now it's a 2 yr AD degree) and started working 3-11 so I could go to college during the day. I started out making more than minimum wage and my wages increased as I became more experienced. I then choose a Major I was interested in. The very first thing I did was research job demand, starting salaries and long term salaries. When I graduated I already had a job making a decent salary.

 

[tlmadden73]

Disney will raise wages if they feel it is beneficial to do so. Maybe they want a higher caliber of worker with better customer service skills - they will pay more for that. Maybe they realize they've had a good year and their employees could use a raise and freely give it out. Maybe they want the good PR that comes from doing it. Being forced by the government to do it is not the answer.

And why is this the employers fault? Their existence is what employs a ton of people to begin with. What if the forced wage increase just made them decide to close up shop and just expand WDW instead (where they aren't force to pay a "living wage")? Then all those employees would be getting $0/hour.

Do we think it is a coincidence that a lot of McDonald's now has "self-serve" kiosks after all this "$15/hour" talk started? How many less employees per store does McDonald's hire now because of those?

Why is the cost of living greater in that area? Why is housing so much more expensive than in other parts of the country? Why is healthcare so expensive? Why is education (to help get a better job) so expensive?
Why isn't the government addressing those issues as opposed to just forcing employers to pay people more money?

Government probably CAUSES the cost of living to be higher with their intervention... government subsidies for healthcare or education does nothing but allow those businesses to charge even more because a large portion of their customers are getting "free" money to buy their monopolized product.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

The question about what a "living wage" is a valid one.
When I moved from Southern NH to Chicago area, looking at the cost of living in the two Metropolitan Urban Areas was useful in comparing costs. There was little difference from Boston to Chicago in costs. Also note TWDC makes revenues from four major segments, and movies returns more profit on a numbers basis.
But the debate about "living wage" remains. Why at $15 an hour? Because it is a round number, easy to remember? Why not $20?
If you define a living wage as being able to spend on a modern auto, 2BR apartment, cell phone, netflix, groceries from Whole Foods, a Prius? Obviously this is an extreme, but the question remains... Also, apparently the amount needed is the same for Disneyland employees versus Disney World?

How do you define a living wage?

Personally I think a "living wage" should be somewhere in between "the poverty line" and what you describe. I think all people that work hard and full time should be able to live in a safe and clean place - but that doesn't meant they *need*/get/whatever a new car and netflix and shop at whole foods, etc. - there is a happy medium

as for why $15/hour? I think it is a number that is a round number but also a reasonable target above what current pay is. Also, if you do $15 * 40 * 50 (assuming 2 week vacation) that comes to $30k which is also a nice round number

I think jumping right to $20 would seem crazy to many people and not even worth a discussion - plus many, many skilled/trained labor roles don't make that much (some don't make $15 but I think when you get much above that you are really starting to get to where skilled/trained labor gets to

 

[marcyleecorgan]

Unfortunately, the side effect of paying a higher minimum wage is always inflation. Economics 101. You start paying everyone $5 more an hour, then the "market can bear a higher price" so prices on consumer goods go up. Sooner rather than later, that $5/hour is actually worth less, and we're back where we started, with workers protesting that they can't afford anything.

 

[mco65]

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.

I don't think those of us who are on the 'get another job or a get second job' side of the fence say that on behalf of the big companies. How is that tearing people down? Its good advice, i got it and know countless others who have gotten the same advice and are better off because of it. IMO, telling someone to wait on the government to help raise your standard of living would be heartless...

I will say this, i think Disney should pay more, i think the company i work for should pay more.. i wish everyone made more $ and big companies were more employee oriented vs profit oriented but i don't think that will change anytime soon and waiting on the Government to force that change is fools gold.. JMO

 

[Douglas Dubh]

Disney could pay their workers more and pay less back to their investors, but then they might have trouble raising more money to build/expand their theme parks and make movies and shows and then they wouldn’t employ as many people and with less demand for labor, wages would fall.

The market isn’t magic. It follows simple rules and works when you let it. It doesn’t if you don’t.

 

[dlavender]

The question about what a "living wage" is a valid one.
When I moved from Southern NH to Chicago area, looking at the cost of living in the two Metropolitan Urban Areas was useful in comparing costs. There was little difference from Boston to Chicago in costs. Also note TWDC makes revenues from four major segments, and movies returns more profit on a numbers basis.
But the debate about "living wage" remains. Why at $15 an hour? Because it is a round number, easy to remember? Why not $20?
If you define a living wage as being able to spend on a modern auto, 2BR apartment, cell phone, netflix, groceries from Whole Foods, a Prius? Obviously this is an extreme, but the question remains... Also, apparently the amount needed is the same for Disneyland employees versus Disney World?

How do you define a living wage?

I define it as not having to use tax payer funded programs like SNAP, Section 8, etc.....

Why do we as a society want to bail out corporations all of the time? Why is it ok for us to burden the deficit of what they pay their workers and what their workers need to survive? Why do you want to foot the bill for Disney, WalMart, etc? I don't. Just pay your people so I don't have to. It's simpler than Econ 101....

 

[dlavender]

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?

We don't want to "force" companies to pay a living wage, but are completely happy with giving up our paycheck since the C suite doesn't want too....Why?

 

[dlavender]

Unfortunately, the side effect of paying a higher minimum wage is always inflation. Economics 101. You start paying everyone $5 more an hour, then the "market can bear a higher price" so prices on consumer goods go up. Sooner rather than later, that $5/hour is actually worth less, and we're back where we started, with workers protesting that they can't afford anything.

Relating specifically to Disney, they've raised ticket prices 100% or so in the last 10 years with a very minimal increase in wages. Kind of blows the theory out of the water, doesn't it?

 

[dlavender]

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.

As I've pointed out, they already raise their prices without paying higher wages. So, why not at least give a pay raise this time? And to what level do you let profits soar without passing the financial burden to society? When do you finally say, ok, time to stop making the tax payers foot the bill here. You guys have had your fun......When do the workers become as important as the investors?

 

[Mousewerks]

When do the workers become as important as the investors?

Quite honestly, never. Because the worker can be replaced MUCH more easily than the investor. That is simple reality and has nothing to do with the worth of a worker as a human being.

 

[fatmanatee]

Disney will raise wages if they feel it is beneficial to do so. Maybe they want a higher caliber of worker with better customer service skills - they will pay more for that. Maybe they realize they've had a good year and their employees could use a raise and freely give it out. Maybe they want the good PR that comes from doing it. Being forced by the government to do it is not the answer.

And why is this the employers fault? Their existence is what employs a ton of people to begin with. What if the forced wage increase just made them decide to close up shop and just expand WDW instead (where they aren't force to pay a "living wage")? Then all those employees would be getting $0/hour.

Do we think it is a coincidence that a lot of McDonald's now has "self-serve" kiosks after all this "$15/hour" talk started? How many less employees per store does McDonald's hire now because of those?

Why is the cost of living greater in that area? Why is housing so much more expensive than in other parts of the country? Why is healthcare so expensive? Why is education (to help get a better job) so expensive?
Why isn't the government addressing those issues as opposed to just forcing employers to pay people more money?

Government probably CAUSES the cost of living to be higher with their intervention... government subsidies for healthcare or education does nothing but allow those businesses to charge even more because a large portion of their customers are getting "free" money to buy their monopolized product.

McDonalds has been shifting to self-serve kiosks for years and it was going to do so whether the minimum was 15 dollars or 5 dollars. That sort of automation and shifting of labor has been happening all over the place. Think about the cost of one of those kiosks vs. the cost of a cashier. If the kiosk costs something like 2,000, it doesn't matter how much the cashier makes, there's no way they're going to match the cost of the kiosk, they're gone.

As far as the government's role in this, a lot of other countries manage to pay all of their employees well in part because they value all of their employees from top to bottom. They manage this better because they understand it as a moral issue. The US used to be better about this and since then things have shifted in favor of the investor class, and now we have this extremely odd situation where the top is absolutely loaded but for some reason is very uneasy about sharing that wealth with the workers at the ground level. This is an moral choice on their part and they have that right. At the same time, the workers have every right to wonder why the benefits of the current economy haven't "trickled down" as a certain political party has promised for the last 40 years.