I Am Not Sure Walt Would Disapprove

[Mousey0324]

there are many flaws in comparing mean/median income to the average price of a Disney vacation.

way too many variables.

the only thing that needs to be evaluated is adjusted numbers for inflation…after theadjustment just compare it to today’s prices. The current price is either over or under the adjusted inflation number.

if the price is over Disney has outpaced inflation.

The hamburger and hot dog costs were evaluated correctly a few posts above

 

[Liquidice]

there are many flaws in comparing mean/median income to the average price of a Disney vacation.

way too many variables.

the only thing that needs to be evaluated is adjusted numbers for inflation…after theadjustment just compare it to today’s prices. The current price is either over or under the adjusted inflation number.

if the price is over Disney has outpaced inflation.

The hamburger and hot dog costs were evaluated correctly a few posts above

I posted a graph on the first page comparing inflation (using the USA's Consumer Price Index) to the average ticket price at WDW each year. What it shows is that WDW ticket prices mostly kept up with inflation through 2005 and then has significantly outpaced inflation since that time up through 2019 (which is when the last major ticket price hike was).

I still think it is fair to compare with the average income because it tells the story of what the average American makes versus the % of their income would be spent on a WDW ticket. Sure there are other costs to going to WDW for vacation, but this relates back to the title of this thread which is - would Walt really be upset with the prices today?

 

[wdwobsessed]

I didn’t spend a lot of time checking your numbers; but I believe your 1955 income was per person, whereas your current income was per household.

Back then most households had ONE income. Women didn’t work for the most part. Especially married ones.

 

[Itsnotmykitchen]

Back then most households had ONE income. Women didn’t work for the most part. Especially married ones.

Forty percent of households in 1955 had more than one income. That’s not most but it’s also not zero.

Edited to add numbers from the 1955 census bureau: http://www2.census.gov/library/publications/1957/demographics/p60-24.pdf

The breakdown, on page 17, is roughly 43% two or more income households, 6% no income and 51% one income.

 

[KimMcGowan]

there are many flaws in comparing mean/median income to the average price of a Disney vacation.

way too many variables.

the only thing that needs to be evaluated is adjusted numbers for inflation…after theadjustment just compare it to today’s prices. The current price is either over or under the adjusted inflation number.

if the price is over Disney has outpaced inflation.

The hamburger and hot dog costs were evaluated correctly a few posts above

You may be right, but I still believe it is a valid comparison point. Percentage of yearly income vs, percentage of yearly income. It should show a simple comparison of how much a Disney vacation then versus now consumed of total yearly income. I am not saying it shows all variables, just a simple comparison. However, I am definitely not an economist so I could be seeing this totally incorrectly.

 

[Karin1984]

Sorry! I shouldn't post in my phone #wrongthread

 

[wdwobsessed]

Yes. A lot of wives sold Avon & Tupperware. Lol.

In all seriousness … it was not commonplace for Moms to work full time. It wasn’t like today where a large amount of women have full time career jobs.

 

[wdwobsessed]

Test

 

[Tigger's ally]

if the price is over Disney has outpaced inflation.

Several things that make the "inflation" argument not entirely the only thing that needs to be considered in this case though.

First, the more new rides that cost millions each (how much did GE, Pandora, and TSL cost with Guardians and Tron on the way )can only add to cost and are independent of inflation.

Second, the higher wage rate. Moving minimum wage up dramatically in and of itself has totally outpaced inflation. Signing bonuses in order to have enough cleaning staff at the hotels are something that isn't seen in the inflation rate either.

Third and most importantly, inflation doesn't consider supply and demand. There is seemingly an unlimited amount of demand and only so much supply. Companies (see Dooney and Bourke for a great example) know what the demand is and charge prices that equal that demand. If demand goes down, prices go down (discounts to facilitate more demand).

 

[New Mouse]

Several things that make the "inflation" argument not entirely the only thing that needs to be considered in this case though.

First, the more new rides that cost millions each (how much did GE, Pandora, and TSL cost with Guardians and Tron on the way )can only add to cost and are independent of inflation.

Second, the higher wage rate. Moving minimum wage up dramatically in and of itself has totally outpaced inflation. Signing bonuses in order to have enough cleaning staff at the hotels are something that isn't seen in the inflation rate either.

Third and most importantly, inflation doesn't consider supply and demand. There is seemingly an unlimited amount of demand and only so much supply. Companies (see Dooney and Bourke for a great example) know what the demand is and charge prices that equal that demand. If demand goes down, prices go down (discounts to facilitate more demand).

1.) All those lands were paid for with past years profits, or at least they should have been.

2.) Raising their wage was a drop in the bucket and should have had 0 impact on pricing if they were running a smart business.

3.) Disney basically has unlimited supply, they basically never sell out.

 

[Itsnotmykitchen]

Yes. A lot of wives sold Avon & Tupperware. Lol.

In all seriousness … it was not commonplace for Moms to work full time. It wasn’t like today where a large amount of women have full time career jobs.

The fact that mothers tended not work in 1955, doesn’t mean that household income and individual income were the same in 1955. They clearly were not. I don’t get your point and I wouldn’t belittle Tupperware or Avon or whatever. Women’s options were limited so I don’t get what’s funny about them doing what was socially acceptable to make some money,

 

[middlechild]

All this discussion about wages may be overlooking a slightly different aspect. The perceived value of a dollar. Whereas twenty years ago a trip to the movies or eating out was discretionary spending. Today with Internet and TV subscriptions, cell phone and highway toll passes taking money from my account each month then the check does not seem to go as far. The dollars collected today in salary seems to be leaking out each month, leaving less for a Disney trip. The price of admission may be comparable to years ago, the dollars don't go as far as so many other ways to spend them. Not sure this is Disney's fault.

 

[fla4fun]

I don’t necessarily disagree with the OP regarding increased prices. Roy would have been on top of the finances and advised Walt accordingly.

However, one thing Walt was known for was providing the best guest experience he could for that price. He was concerned that people get a premium experience at his parks. There is an anecdote about Walt riding the Jungle Cruise one day, only to find they were speeding up the boats, which allowed for more cycles, but made for a worse guest experience. He came down hard on them, and all the workers were retrained. He came back to ride it again a few days later, and they thought he would just ride through once and call it a day, but he rode with each skipper available that day in order to be sure the guest was getting the experience they should. That is just one example of his attention to detail when it came to the guest experience.

I think many of us are willing to pay a premium price to go to Disney IF we get a premium experience as a result, and that is where Disney has been dropping the ball the last few years. Now, they have a great excuse to devalue the Disney park experience even farther. I do think Walt would be concerned about a lot of these decisions and how they affect the overall guest experience.

 

[Liquidice]

I don’t necessarily disagree with the OP regarding increased prices. Roy would have been on top of the finances and advised Walt accordingly.

However, one thing Walt was known for was providing the best guest experience he could for that price. He was concerned that people get a premium experience at his parks. There is an anecdote about Walt riding the Jungle Cruise one day, only to find they were speeding up the boats, which allowed for more cycles, but made for a worse guest experience. He came down hard on them, and all the workers were retrained. He came back to ride it again a few days later, and they thought he would just ride through once and call it a day, but he rode with each skipper available that day in order to be sure the guest was getting the experience they should. That is just one example of his attention to detail when it came to the guest experience.

I think many of us are willing to pay a premium price to go to Disney IF we get a premium experience as a result, and that is where Disney has been dropping the ball the last few years. Now, they have a great excuse to devalue the Disney park experience even farther. I do think Walt would be concerned about a lot of these decisions and how they affect the overall guest experience.

Agree with you there, raising prices is nothing new - but raising prices, removing perks and lowering the quality of the parks is something that worries me. If this continues though - I think guests will start to see how Disney is no better than other theme parks and I wonder if they will be able to maintain their status as the best theme parks.

It doesn't seem like Disney management "gets it" - but over the long term I think they will see them erode their competitive advantage - especially over their neighboring theme parks run by Universal.

 

[wdwobsessed]

The fact that mothers tended not work in 1955, doesn’t mean that household income and individual income were the same in 1955. They clearly were not. I don’t get your point and I wouldn’t belittle Tupperware or Avon or whatever. Women’s options were limited so I don’t get what’s funny about them doing what was socially acceptable to make some money,

Geez. I’ve sold Tupperware so take a seat. Get a grip. It’s not funny I was saying they didn’t have in the workplace type jobs.
ROLL EYES

Don’t you have something more serious to get offended over!!

 

[wdwobsessed]

The fact that mothers tended not work in 1955, doesn’t mean that household income and individual income were the same in 1955. They clearly were not. I don’t get your point and I wouldn’t belittle Tupperware or Avon or whatever. Women’s options were limited so I don’t get what’s funny about them doing what was socially acceptable to make some money,

furthermore you kind of made my point for me that “women’s options were limited“… They were… So many of them had part-time gigs and not full-time work… Hence the second income being brought in wasn’t as high as the typical second income today.

 

[Itsnotmykitchen]

furthermore you kind of made my point for me that “women’s options were limited“… They were… So many of them had part-time gigs and not full-time work… Hence the second income being brought in wasn’t as high as the typical second income today.

Still makes it a second income! So the opposite of your point which was that there were very few second incomes so it’s totally fine to use one income as a reference point.

Also, second incomes did not necessarily mean just the married wife since teens/ young adults worked more often and contributed to household income.

 

[Itsnotmykitchen]

Geez. I’ve sold Tupperware so take a seat. Get a grip. It’s not funny I was saying they didn’t have in the workplace type jobs.
ROLL EYES

Don’t you have something more serious to get offended over!!

This an article from 2015 so it might not be completely up to date , but looks like the type of jobs women held in 1950 weren’t all selling Tupperware either. Think most of the top 5 would be considered “in a workplace”:

https://theweek.com/articles/467944/most-common-job-women-same-1950

 

[Toxic34]

I will start by saying that I am a Disney apologist. Our honeymoon was at WDW and we have returned often over the years. I realize that I view all things Disney in a positive light. However, I have been intrigued by the number of posts that say Walt is spinning in his grave over the prices seen today. I am not sure that is accurate. Yes, Walt wanted a family-friendly park. He wanted a magical place that inspired awe. (There is no question that the standards he had were much higher than those seen today.). However, the belief that Disneyland was priced for everyone is slightly out of touch. The entry fee was only $1 (slightly more than $10 today). Disneyland opened with 18 rides that each required a ticket to ride. A ticket book with 8 tickets cost $2.50 (almost $25.50 today). So, entry into the park and one ticket book (you would have almost certainly needed at least two) would have cost a total of $3.50. The average salary in 1955 was a princely $3,301. The $3.50 total to visit Disneyland represents 0.00106% of that yearly income. Fast forward to today when the lowest price ticket I could find to WDW is $109. We will add the $15 Genie+ fee to get a ticket that equals $124. That $124 figure represents 0.00155 of today's average yearly income of $79,900, a difference of only 0.0005% from the 1955 price.
Hotels do show a bigger change. The 1956 fee for the Disneyland Hotel of $15/night would account for a 0.046% of income. (I know, Wrather owned the hotel until 1988 - but Disney was certain the park would only thrive with the addition of a luxury hotel next door.). $15night represented a fee that was 2.5 times the average hotel cost of $6/night in 1956. Jumping to the current year we can use the Polynesian and the exorbitant rate of $900/night(The highest I see at the Poly). One night represents 1.126% of 2021's yearly income. The average U.S. hotel night in 2021 is $186. So, the Disney resort is 4.83 times more expensive, a much larger gap that the 1956 hotel shows. What if you don't use the most expensive night? I do think it has to be a deluxe hotel for comparisons sake since the Disneyland Hotel is considered deluxe. Using the Beach Club, with an average rate of $463/night in 2021, provides the closest comparison. That rate is 2.489 times the U.S. average. Five Deluxe resorts have higher averages than Beach Club, while three are lower.
Using these totals I think you can argue that Disney might have been appalled at the cost to sleep in one of his hotel rooms. Maybe. However, I do not think the park comparison would have phased him very much - the totals are fairly similar.
Maybe I am totally off base.

You're not the first. I wouldn't consider myself an apologist, but I definitely view a lot of what Disney does in a good light. Other than where the merchandise is made, penny-pinching and programming on Disney Channel, I'm quite on board with where the company is going.

I also think that in terms of where the parks and content are going, what Disney owns and produces, Walt would be quite proud to see where his company has gone as it approaches its centennial. Do I think there were missed opportunities aplenty? Naturally, but Disney has been shown to learn from its mistakes.

 

[stranger706]

Disney is not a bad deal. Any vacation is expensive now. A basic Hampton Inn hotel room on the beach is over $500/night with taxes. And we all get bored at the beach after 1 or 2 days. At Disney you easily have over a week of being completely entertained. I would still much rather go to Disney for a week. 4 theme parks, 2 waterparks, Disney springs, how many restaurants over 100? Although I do wish they would just add back all the perks and little conveniences you used to get. And just add that to the room or ticket prices so you pay all at once and not nickel & dime you to death.