NYT op-ed video on DL living wage

[dlavender]

Google is your friend here. A living wage is defined as the amount an individual must make to support their family If they are the sole provider and work full time (40 hrs/week).

Take a look at this useful living wage calculator. Enter in a zip code to see what a living wage should be in any given area.

http://livingwage.mit.edu/

Umm...There is nothing in the Constitution about using a calculator or statistics....

Because the Constitution clearly lays out all economic policy...

Is it article 4 that lays out the supply/demand curve?

Wait, that's the one about bailing out corporations....

 

[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, sorry for those who don't believe in numbers) 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.

 

[tidefan]

That's not A LIVING expense. That's completely irrelevant.

Actually, it's completely relevant. Money doesn't just appear out of nowhere like it's some magical entity. If costs for employees go up, then the money to pay for that must come from somewhere. So, I am trying to use an equivalency. Disney would have to cover those extra employee expenses somehow. The most direct solution is that the cost of goods (tickets to parks and movies, concession prices, etc.) would need to go up to help cover those prices. Once that occurs, and inflation hits, now the "living wage" that you just came up with is no longer a "living wage" as things just got more expensive, so the cycle repeats.

Also, another thing to think about here is how that affect other employees already making over that wage. For instance, it was (and still is) much publicized about the company in Seattle that decide to pay all employees $70,000 minimum. I think that's great as the Government didn't have to get involved, the company did it on its own. However, one of the things they didn't realize is that while those that were making $35,000 yesterday were now making $70,000, those that were making $75,000 were still making $75,000. Some of those were top sales associates who were putting in 60-80 hour weeks. So, now, an administrative person was making the same, more or less, for working 35 hours. So, a number of their top employees left (ETA: The CEO admits this was shortsighted when he first did this, so now he's tried to rectify that), but it makes the point, a minimum wage will raise wages in just more than those jobs, which in turn, will tend to lead to inflation.

 

[tidefan]

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, sorry for those who don't believe in numbers) 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 corporate welfare is, in large part, created by government policy. Do we want to fix bad government policy with another bad government policy? We should really just fix the first bad government policy (and there, we may be in agreement!)

 

[tidefan]

Go back and read through, I've answered that question already.

Nevermind, I'll save you the trouble. Living wage is not having to look to the taxpayer to make up the gap. That means no food stamps, no section 8, etc..

Now, let's answer this one that I've asked countless times: Why do the taxpayers have to make up the deficit? Why can't the corporation?

For a large company like Disney or Amazon or Walmart, they could (and maybe should) do something there. However, where the rub usually comes in is in small businesses that are running on razor-thin margins...

 

[dlavender]

For a large company like Disney or Amazon or Walmart, they could (and maybe should) do something there. However, where the rub usually comes in is in small businesses that are running on razor-thin margins...

I think we mostly agree.

Small businesses are where it always gets the trickiest. It seems they are affected the most by policy changes, and 9/10 x's its a negative one. Thresholds for action are hard to calculate.

I honestly don't know if you could only require companies with revenues of x to be under any new policy. Or companies with a profit margin of x...Because as soon as those dip, you are back to square one.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

I think we mostly agree.

Small businesses are where it always gets the trickiest. It seems they are affected the most by policy changes, and 9/10 x's its a negative one. Thresholds for action are hard to calculate.

I honestly don't know if you could only require companies with revenues of x to be under any new policy. Or companies with a profit margin of x...Because as soon as those dip, you are back to square one.

well, there already are some policies that only apply to companies with more than a certain number of employees ... the challenge with that is in many cases companies then don't grow as much as they could as they would have to go above that level and then the "burden" that comes with that would cost more than any increase in revenue ... so it is tough

 

[YesterDark]

The other thought process is universal income that (with or without it being adjusted for earned income) will supplement a non living wage and the funding would come from corporate taxes and other avenues like taxes stock trades at less than a penny a transaction. You can always then adjust the tax percentage and at what level of corporate sales this tax starts on.

It basically does the same thing but from the opposite point of view.

 

[Remy is Up]

I never once mentioned corporations. My opinion is corporations do not deserve government subsidies either. Dont assume what I believe in order to try and trap me by insinuating I believe something I dont. Corporations AND individuals are responsible for their own affairs. Not the government. So demanding a "company" pay a specific wage is counter to everything the basis of the founding documents was set to. Same with corporate handouts. So again, Living wage? How do you define what it is because by your definition it is very open ended and depends on many factors. Why should it be a companies responsiblity to pay more than "market Value" for an employee when they live in an area where due to whatever political and economic situations exist, they pay higher taxes or higher rent, gas prices, etc? Maybe they shouldnt vote for policies which short term make them feel good but long term leaves a higher bill due and they have to pay it. Its pretty basic. To each individual AND corporation their own means and methods of reaching success. It isnt up to taxpayers to support either, and it isnt up to corporations to make sure they do it. Does it make sense for them to? Sure, but, it isnt their responsibility. Again, see what McDonalds did out west when they were told you have to pay 20/ an hour. They said sure. We will get rid of all counter personel, put in kiosks and pay the cooks 20/ hour. Be careful what you wish for and demand because every demand has repercussions. Economics in its basis is simple. Universal income is stealing from some to give to others so things are fair. Again, more messing with a system and that's no better than corporate tax loops and corporate welfare. Individual and corporate responsibility. That's what is needed and let things fall where they will.

 

[DLgal]

Umm...There is nothing in the Constitution about using a calculator or statistics....

Because the Constitution clearly lays out all economic policy...

Is it article 4 that lays out the supply/demand curve?

Wait, that's the one about bailing out corporations....

What are you talking about? What does the constitution have to do with any of this?

 

[dlavender]

What are you talking about? What does the constitution have to do with any of this?

Sorry, it was a mostly sarcastic take on another comment!

 

[fatmanatee]

Actually, it's completely relevant. Money doesn't just appear out of nowhere like it's some magical entity. If costs for employees go up, then the money to pay for that must come from somewhere. So, I am trying to use an equivalency. Disney would have to cover those extra employee expenses somehow. The most direct solution is that the cost of goods (tickets to parks and movies, concession prices, etc.) would need to go up to help cover those prices. Once that occurs, and inflation hits, now the "living wage" that you just came up with is no longer a "living wage" as things just got more expensive, so the cycle repeats.

You're not thinking hard enough on this one.

 

[dlavender]

I never once mentioned corporations. My opinion is corporations do not deserve government subsidies either. Dont assume what I believe in order to try and trap me by insinuating I believe something I dont. Corporations AND individuals are responsible for their own affairs. Not the government. So demanding a "company" pay a specific wage is counter to everything the basis of the founding documents was set to. Same with corporate handouts. So again, Living wage? How do you define what it is because by your definition it is very open ended and depends on many factors. Why should it be a companies responsiblity to pay more than "market Value" for an employee when they live in an area where due to whatever political and economic situations exist, they pay higher taxes or higher rent, gas prices, etc? Maybe they shouldnt vote for policies which short term make them feel good but long term leaves a higher bill due and they have to pay it. Its pretty basic. To each individual AND corporation their own means and methods of reaching success. It isnt up to taxpayers to support either, and it isnt up to corporations to make sure they do it. Does it make sense for them to? Sure, but, it isnt their responsibility. Again, see what McDonalds did out west when they were told you have to pay 20/ an hour. They said sure. We will get rid of all counter personel, put in kiosks and pay the cooks 20/ hour. Be careful what you wish for and demand because every demand has repercussions. Economics in its basis is simple. Universal income is stealing from some to give to others so things are fair. Again, more messing with a system and that's no better than corporate tax loops and corporate welfare. Individual and corporate responsibility. That's what is needed and let things fall where they will.

Question becomes, how do you break the cycle?

Is it a hard reset? Will companies flee without the subsidies? I'm not asking because I know the answer, because I don't.

I do not feel like the top 1% should have as much wealth as the bottom 80% combined. I do not think that's the way it was intended. I could be sorely mistaken, however. It goes against the theory that everyone can make it. If that were the case, I'd like to believe those stats would read a little differently.....

 

[Disneymom1126]

Here's a radical thought - what would it look like if people actually lived by what they need and not everything they desire? After years of work, furthering my education, advancing in my career, etc. I am much better off than I ever dreamed I would be and I'm not even 40 yet so I know that over the next few years I only stand to increase what I have. At the same time, I can't ever see myself buying a home bigger than what I need, buying a luxury car, etc. Perhaps it is because I lived for so many years scraping by, but so much just seems frivolous and unnecessary. I mean...our once a year trips to Disney seem frivolous and unnecessary to me, though I very much enjoy them. Honestly, people will spend $150 one way on a "Minnie Van" from the airport to their resort where they are spending $150-$600 a night (depending on where they stay) and an extra few bucks on your Disney ticket so someone who doesn't have that level of luxury can feed their family is unfair? Best case scenario those CEOs and upper management folks across the company will freeze their salary increases or even *gasp* cut their salaries or find other ways to offset the cost of raising their minimum wage without passing it along to the consumer, but even if they didn't the raise is the right thing to do. Kudos to Disney...I hope they keep up with the increases.

 

[dlavender]

Here's a radical thought - what would it look like if people actually lived by what they need and not everything they desire? After years of work, furthering my education, advancing in my career, etc. I am much better off than I ever dreamed I would be and I'm not even 40 yet so I know that over the next few years I only stand to increase what I have. At the same time, I can't ever see myself buying a home bigger than what I need, buying a luxury car, etc. Perhaps it is because I lived for so many years scraping by, but so much just seems frivolous and unnecessary. I mean...our once a year trips to Disney seem frivolous and unnecessary to me, though I very much enjoy them. Honestly, people will spend $150 one way on a "Minnie Van" from the airport to their resort where they are spending $150-$600 a night (depending on where they stay) and an extra few bucks on your Disney ticket so someone who doesn't have that level of luxury can feed their family is unfair? Best case scenario those CEOs and upper management folks across the company will freeze their salary increases or even *gasp* cut their salaries or find other ways to offset the cost of raising their minimum wage without passing it along to the consumer, but even if they didn't the raise is the right thing to do. Kudos to Disney...I hope they keep up with the increases.

The argument is no one would aspire to be a CFO is they could only make $10 million....

 

[Disneymom1126]

The argument is no one would aspire to be a CFO is they could only make $10 million....

Meanwhile I’m like what would I even do with $10 million let alone $10 million a year!

 

[fatmanatee]

The argument is no one would aspire to be a CFO is they could only make $10 million....

I'd do it for a fraction of that but I'm guessing the board wouldn't be thrilled with how I spread the wealth.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Another point to "CMs getting raises means tickets will be more expensive" crowd.

Ticket prices were going to go up anyway and have been increasing at a much faster rate than employee wages. Don't you feel a little better about paying high prices when it's going to mean better wages for cast members? Because I sure do.

How do you know that Disney does a tit for tat scenario here?

I don't think that Disney raises ticket prices and passes whatever profits they receive from it directly to CM's payroll. In fact I don't actually know for a fact whatever Disney uses to fund CM's payroll so it's hard to even say higher park ticket pricing, higher merchandise and food costs means the CM at the front gate, the cashier at the store and the cashier at the food place is actually benefiting from that.

 

[middlechild]

If you expect a 2% or 3% raise every year, year after year, I suggest you join a union shop. Because only by banding together as a single bargaining unit will that benefit be realized. Companies are NOT required to advance your wages, just because of longevity.
America is the land of opportunity, I believe and have experienced. One of my jobs allowed travel outside the US, and while different countries have different employment security rules, the security rules work against anyone moving up or out. Very difficult to hire on somewhere else, due to the security granted upon working there. We have opportunities all around us here in the US and it is easy to move from one position to another, in a relative way. It is a risk to look elsewhere, granted, and overcoming fear of rejection is a part of it. I have moved to some bad environments. But never forget, equal opportunities does not equate to equal outcomes.

 

[tidefan]

Question becomes, how do you break the cycle?

Is it a hard reset? Will companies flee without the subsidies? I'm not asking because I know the answer, because I don't.

I do not feel like the top 1% should have as much wealth as the bottom 80% combined. I do not think that's the way it was intended. I could be sorely mistaken, however. It goes against the theory that everyone can make it. If that were the case, I'd like to believe those stats would read a little differently.....

Just a point...

I always hear that the "Rich" should pay their "fair share" to which I ask, 1) Define "Rich", and 2) Define "Fair Share". I often see the statistics above mentioned, but, conversely, the top 1% of wage earners also pay 40% of Federal Income Tax. In fact, after tax credits, now, over half of the population pays no income tax at all. I think Margaret Thatcher summed it up best when she said that "eventually, you run out of other people's money"...