Disney, Universal win insurance waivers.....

[AEfx]

Some people don't want the cast members running rides worried about financial difficulties. That's understandable. Offering better health care coverage is not going to prevent financial difficulties. People making minimum wage are going to have financial difficulties. I don't want one person being responsible for checking lap belts on Space Mountain instead of the 2 or so they have now. But that's exactly what will happen if Disney is forced to offer better health care coverage as directed by the law.

See, it doesn't have to work that way though.

That's the corporate excuse as to why it's not a good idea, but cuts can be made without being at the "front of the line" staffing. Like many companies, Disney is very heavy on middle-management, cuts could be made there. Or maybe Bob Iger doesn't need to have a 30m a year compensation package. It's not simply a Disney/Universal problem - it's systemic, but that doesn't make any of it any more right.

Next time you hear someone complain about the quality of CM that Disney is able to attract these days, just think about these things is all I ask. Twice I've been offered the chance to work at WDW, and I'd be a hell of a CM - but with the wages they pay, and the benefits issues, it's just not worth it. Many other quality people who would be great CM's are under the same predicament. We'd love to work for the company, but they just don't compensate well enough to make it worth while even if we love WDW.

This is why FOTL Disney CM's tend to fall into two categories - "College" Program ("college" in quotes because it has absolutely zero to do with any educational value and is just to keep a revolving pool of workers willing to sling fries and sweep up trash for sub-standard wages) and those who are retired and work at Disney as extra income (and these are usually the better CM's). Does everyone fall into those categories? No, but a large portion of them do. Yet, we wonder why we see a decline in quality of service, and some people absolutely refuse to see the connection between poor compensation and a poorer quality of worker. They can't retain the good ones, who can make much more elsewhere and even if they love Disney they can't stay when they could be making more elsewhere for a lot less hassle and stress.

 

[googilycub]

Some people don't want the cast members running rides worried about financial difficulties. That's understandable. Offering better health care coverage is not going to prevent financial difficulties. People making minimum wage are going to have financial difficulties.

Of course making more than minimum wage does not exclude one from having financial difficulties as well. Many of the people that I work with, that make A LOT of money a year, have financial difficulties. Some of them brought it on themselves, some have other hardships that have caused it.....Money does not solve everything....

 

[googilycub]

See, it doesn't have to work that way though.

That's the corporate excuse as to why it's not a good idea, but cuts can be made without being at the "front of the line" staffing. Like many companies, Disney is very heavy on middle-management, cuts could be made there. Or maybe Bob Iger doesn't need to have a 30m a year compensation package. It's not simply a Disney/Universal problem - it's systemic, but that doesn't make any of it any more right.

.\

Interesting, you say it is not right for the front line staff to get cut, but it ok for middle-management to get the ax?

 

[fosse76]

Interesting, you say it is not right for the front line staff to get cut, but it ok for middle-management to get the ax?

I think the implication is that, in general, middle management is often excessive and unecessary, so cuts there are more absorbable and won't significanlty increase the workload as others. Whereas cutting frontline staff often has a significant effect on other front-line staff.

 

[fosse76]

The market has already decided what each employee's contribution is 'worth' in terms of salary and benefits. If some external force inflates this value by increasing the costs of each employees benefits then salaries will go down. If this is not possible, employees will be fired and no new employees will be hired in order to compensate for the increased costs.

This is actually a fallacy. The market doesn't decide "worth" or "value," employers do. In order for the market to decide, there technically must be an equivalent number of jobs for an equivalent numer of workers in that industry (actually, there should be slighlty more jobs than workers). If I'm an employer, and I have one job opening and two candidates, I have to pay a lot of money for one of those two candidates, for neither one might take the job if I don't offer them the right amount of money. But when I have hundreds of candidates for the same job, someone will work for very cheap. The market is being skewed in favor of the employer, who can pretty much dictate what you make. Contrary to popular belief, most people in the service industry, making those low-paying jobs, are NOT teenagers or college kids or Seniors earning extra money. They are people who have very little options. Should they all be making $50,000 a year? Probably not. But they shouldn't need to struggle, because it was decided that somehow a CEO deserves tens of millions of dollars (and no, a CEO's job is not nearly as stressful as a frontline workers, keeping in mind CEOs have no real financial investment or reliability in the companies they run, unlike your run-of-the-mill small business owner).

 

[UncleScrooge]

This is actually a fallacy. The market doesn't decide "worth" or "value," employers do. In order for the market to decide, there technically must be an equivalent number of jobs for an equivalent numer of workers in that industry (actually, there should be slighlty more jobs than workers). If I'm an employer, and I have one job opening and two candidates, I have to pay a lot of money for one of those two candidates, for neither one might take the job if I don't offer them the right amount of money. But when I have hundreds of candidates for the same job, someone will work for very cheap. The market is being skewed in favor of the employer, who can pretty much dictate what you make. Contrary to popular belief, most people in the service industry, making those low-paying jobs, are NOT teenagers or college kids or Seniors earning extra money. They are people who have very little options. Should they all be making $50,000 a year? Probably not. But they shouldn't need to struggle, because it was decided that somehow a CEO deserves tens of millions of dollars (and no, a CEO's job is not nearly as stressful as a frontline workers, keeping in mind CEOs have no real financial investment or reliability in the companies they run, unlike your run-of-the-mill small business owner).

I am a physician, and I love the fact that people believe that just because you use your mind and don’t work with your hands, somehow it is not real ”work”, and does not deserve high financial reward. While “white collar” jobs may not be physically demanding, they are (usually) very mentally demanding; but people don’t value that and think it is unfair to have to pay for your expertise or education. Most people think that “all I do” is simply sit at my desk and either “just talk” or “write a prescription”. The average person fails to recognize all of the hard work and training involved in order to be able to perform a “white collar” job. Thanks to my 12+ years of additional education I am able to determine the correct diagnosis, and figure out what medication will work, but will not interact with other medications and potentially kill you. Again, people want/need your expertise, but then complain with they have to compensate you for it/ or think it is unfair that you make so much money.
Whether we are talking about Disney or anywhere else; the amount of education/training you have determines how replaceable you are, and therefore your earning potential/benefits you can demand. If you are a janitor and quit, I can literally pull the next person I see off the street and they will be able to mop a floor. Try pulling some random person off the street and asked them to remove your kidney. You are paying for skill, and those who work hard to acquire those skills deserve compensation; and the more uncommon that skill is (like running a multi-million dollar a year company), the higher the price is going to be. Also, linked to education/training is supply and demand (numbers of “quality” workers compared to the need for them). Companies who want to make a profit are going to try to get the best quality of work that they can for the cheapest price possible. At the same time, if you pay peanuts, then you wind up hiring monkeys! If Disney’s wages or benefits are too meager to the point that quality workers will go elsewhere and all the company is able to hire is a bunch of knuckle-draggers, then the quality of their service will begin suffer, which in turn will result in loss of customers/money; and will ultimately force them to pay their employees better. This is all dictated by the natural forces of the free market, or at least it should be. It is precisely the encroachment on the free market/free choice which has fueled the reaction of many to the healthcare law, as well as the lively discussion in this thread.

 

[devoy1701]

I am a physician, and I love the fact that people believe that just because you use your mind and don’t work with your hands, somehow it is not real ”work”, and does not deserve high financial reward. While “white collar” jobs may not be physically demanding, they are (usually) very mentally demanding; but people don’t value that and think it is unfair to have to pay for your expertise or education. Most people think that “all I do” is simply sit at my desk and either “just talk” or “write a prescription”. The average person fails to recognize all of the hard work and training involved in order to be able to perform a “white collar” job. Thanks to my 12+ years of additional education I am able to determine the correct diagnosis, and figure out what medication will work, but will not interact with other medications and potentially kill you. Again, people want/need your expertise, but then complain with they have to compensate you for it/ or think it is unfair that you make so much money.
Whether we are talking about Disney or anywhere else; the amount of education/training you have determines how replaceable you are, and therefore your earning potential/benefits you can demand. If you are a janitor and quit, I can literally pull the next person I see off the street and they will be able to mop a floor. Try pulling some random person off the street and asked them to remove your kidney. You are paying for skill, and those who work hard to acquire those skills deserve compensation; and the more uncommon that skill is (like running a multi-million dollar a year company), the higher the price is going to be. Also, linked to education/training is supply and demand (numbers of “quality” workers compared to the need for them). Companies who want to make a profit are going to try to get the best quality of work that they can for the cheapest price possible. At the same time, if you pay peanuts, then you wind up hiring monkeys! If Disney’s wages or benefits are too meager to the point that quality workers will go elsewhere and all the company is able to hire is a bunch of knuckle-draggers, then the quality of their service will begin suffer, which in turn will result in loss of customers/money; and will ultimately force them to pay their employees better. This is all dictated by the natural forces of the free market, or at least it should be. It is precisely the encroachment on the free market/free choice which has fueled the reaction of many to the healthcare law, as well as the lively discussion in this thread.

very well put sir! Thank you!

This is actually a fallacy. The market doesn't decide "worth" or "value," employers do. In order for the market to decide, there technically must be an equivalent number of jobs for an equivalent numer of workers in that industry (actually, there should be slighlty more jobs than workers). If I'm an employer, and I have one job opening and two candidates, I have to pay a lot of money for one of those two candidates, for neither one might take the job if I don't offer them the right amount of money. But when I have hundreds of candidates for the same job, someone will work for very cheap. The market is being skewed in favor of the employer, who can pretty much dictate what you make. Contrary to popular belief, most people in the service industry, making those low-paying jobs, are NOT teenagers or college kids or Seniors earning extra money. They are people who have very little options. Should they all be making $50,000 a year? Probably not. But they shouldn't need to struggle, because it was decided that somehow a CEO deserves tens of millions of dollars (and no, a CEO's job is not nearly as stressful as a frontline workers, keeping in mind CEOs have no real financial investment or reliability in the companies they run, unlike your run-of-the-mill small business owner).

The position of CEO of a company I would assume is MUCH more stressful than that of a frontline worker. Saying the opposite would be like saying that the job of the President of the US is not a stressful job. CEOs are more or less responsible for everything the company does, and the decisions he makes can have lasting effects on thousands if not tens of thousands of people, not only those who work for the company, but even moreso those who consume the products put out by the company. And saying that a CEO has no finanical investment in their company is completely absurd as not only do 99% of all CEO packages include stock ownership, but a CEOs reputation is also on the line. Should he make a devistating mistake, or should something huge happen while he is at the reins, he might never get a decent job again.

Anyway...to bring my post closer to topic. I was involved in a seminar on health care reform and the stance that we had decided upon was not to put the cart before the horse. Healthcare reform needs to bring down the costs before we consider ways to insure everyone. These numbers are purely for the sake of simplifying, but why try to cover everyone at a cost of 40x right now (times 300,000,000 people = $12,000,000,000) (esp. when our gov't can't afford it) when we can implement several different kinds of industry reforms that can bring those costs down to 30x or 25x (times 300,000,000 people = $7,500,000,000). Lets focus on costs of service, prescriptions, health insurance, etc first, when we get that under control, lets then find a way to better help those in need at that time more people would be able to better afford coverage and there will be a smaller pool of those who need additional coverage. In theory anyway. This was a seminar so there were alot less variables to consider.

 

[mcjaco]

Bravo to SeaWorld and shame on Disney and Universal.

Not sure how it's kudos for SeaWorld.....do you know anything about the coverages they provide through their programs? It could be the same as the Disney and Universal programs, thus they felt no need to apply for a waiver.

Honestly, we're talking about part time employees. The fact that any of these companies are providing health care to them is pretty generous. I was never afforded health care when I was part time in many of my jobs.

But you know, tsk, tsk on Disney. Especially when you read it through a newspaper that's has a known bias against them. :hammer:

 

[Wilt Dasney]

The position of CEO of a company I would assume is MUCH more stressful than that of a frontline worker. Saying the opposite would be like saying that the job of the President of the US is not a stressful job.

Doesn't the President of the United States make an annual salary of $400,000? We would probably (mostly) agree that that job is more stressful than being CEO of Disney.

I can appreciate the arguments that you have to pay for specialized skill, training, education and experience, but I just can't shake the feeling that these arguments are too often used in a cynical way to shut down any nuanced discussion when the issue of executive pay comes up. People like to say "you have to pay for that" as a catch-all position to defend any level of pay.

So Bob Iger is a skilled and educated person. Fair enough. Would $10 million, or $5 million, or even (gasp) $1 million just be too paltry a sum to compensate him for all his skill and training? Could he fairly consider himself robbed or wronged if he woke up tomorrow to a board of directors and a majority of shareholders who see this issue the way I do? That seems to be what these posts imply.

 

[devoy1701]

Doesn't the President of the United States make an annual salary of $400,000? We would probably (mostly) agree that that job is more stressful than being CEO of Disney.

I can appreciate the arguments that you have to pay for specialized skill, training, education and experience, but I just can't shake the feeling that these arguments are too often used in a cynical way to shut down any nuanced discussion when the issue of executive pay comes up. People like to say "you have to pay for that" as a catch-all position to defend any level of pay.

So Bob Iger is a skilled and educated person. Fair enough. Would $10 million, or $5 million, or even (gasp) $1 million just be too paltry a sum to compensate him for all his skill and training? Could he fairly consider himself robbed or wronged if he woke up tomorrow to a board of directors and a majority of shareholders who see this issue the way I do? That seems to be what these posts imply.

I see your point, but also put in the factors that are involved with the position of CEO of Disney in relation to the CEO positions of other companies, including but not limited to to size of the company/amount of employees, recognition/worldwide reach, product lines/diversity, and revenue. If the board of Disney decides that they are only going to pay the CEO $1M a year with $1M in bonuses a year that's all fine and dandy and seems great on a morality perspective, but you can bet that Iger will be out of there in a heartbeat and that any other similarly talented people will steer clear.

Does Iger deserve $40M a year in salary and bonuses? Maybe not. But how do we (shareholders) decide what he is actually worth? Should the company go in the red or not turn a profit year over year, then his pay would definitely get cut. But if the company is earning money (and earning us money) then we need to reward him for it, and reward him in a way that will make him stay with the company, not take his talents somewhere else.

I really don't have a response to your president comment Wilt except that...yes it is a probably a very stressful job! But people also don't decide to become president in the hopes of achieving personal fortune. And when your paycheck is drawn from 300M taxpayers and only 40% approve of the job your doing (seems the pattern over the past 10 years)...I wouldn't be the one asking for the raise!

 

[UncleScrooge]

Doesn't the President of the United States make an annual salary of $400,000? We would probably (mostly) agree that that job is more stressful than being CEO of Disney.

I can appreciate the arguments that you have to pay for specialized skill, training, education and experience, but I just can't shake the feeling that these arguments are too often used in a cynical way to shut down any nuanced discussion when the issue of executive pay comes up. People like to say "you have to pay for that" as a catch-all position to defend any level of pay.

So Bob Iger is a skilled and educated person. Fair enough. Would $10 million, or $5 million, or even (gasp) $1 million just be too paltry a sum to compensate him for all his skill and training? Could he fairly consider himself robbed or wronged if he woke up tomorrow to a board of directors and a majority of shareholders who see this issue the way I do? That seems to be what these posts imply.

I guess that pointing out that one has to pay for specialized skill, training, education and experience, is just as much a cynical way to shut down any nuanced discussion, as “they just make too much money; nobody should be allowed to make that much”. I was trying to illustrate that this is a multifactiorial issue. Yes, skills and education are a part of the equation, as is supply and demand; emphasis being on demand. The fact of the matter is that the high salaries that CEO’s of large companies can command is simply a consequence of the fact that is what the (present) market will bare. If Disney or any other company could hire a competent CEO for minimum wage, they would do so in a heartbeat. Just as the stockholders want to pay the frontline worker as little as possible to secure their labor in order to maximize their profits, so to would they want to pay Iger or any other CEO as little as possible for the same purpose. The fact that companies are willing to pay such astronomical sums for a CEO, is because they feel that from a business standpoint it is a good investment. Nobody, shareholders of a company in relation to a CEO, a record company in relation to an artist, or a sports team owner in relation to an athlete, pays out such large sums of money if they were not making even more money of their respective employee’s labor. Bottom line, despite paying such an enormous salary, the companies are still profiting to a greater degree because off of his labor. CEOs know this at that is why that can command such pay, if not they will go to another company who will. This also comes to the larger philosophical question, who has the right to say to anther “you have too much money.” Who sets the parameters and at what level? Should citizens of third world countries correctly assert that, as a whole, all Americans have too much compared to others, and if so would they have a right to deny it to us if they had the power? Again, a free market can only function if it is truly free.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

Does Iger deserve $40M a year in salary and bonuses? Maybe not.

That's probably about as much of a concession as I can expect to get. I'll take it. :lol:

UncleScrooge, you mentioned that you're a doctor. Since we're on the topic, how much have your feelings on this issue been impacted by proposed changes in healthcare law...specifically by proposals to cut Medicare reimbursements to doctors? Not a trap question there, just genuinely interested in your take.

 

[GenerationX]

The only real defense of outrageous executive salaries (such as Iger's) is that they are a "cost" of maintaining a free market economy. Some folks will be overcompensated by any reasonable measure. However, the alternative, a regulated economy, has many many more far less desirable outcomes.

The healthcare waivers are an attempt to make a blatantly anti-free market law slightly less unpalatable.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

The only real defense of outrageous executive salaries (such as Iger's) is that they are a "cost" of maintaining a free market economy. Some folks will be overcompensated by any reasonable measure. However, the alternative, a regulated economy, has many many more far less desirable outcomes.

I like this post. Maybe "It stinks, but what's the alternative?" is the best answer to all my rabble-rousing in this thread. :lol:

 

[UncleScrooge]

Wilt Dasney, certainly the ramifications of the newly passed healthcare law in general play into my thoughts on the issue at hand; however the specific proposal to further cut Medicare reimbursements is not directly related. For me, it is more about the larger philosophical issue of what the sweeping health care law represents and signifies for individuals and businesses (both large and small), in addition to the specifics of how it will directly affect health care in this country (which in my opinion will be disastrous for patients, doctors, the healthcare system as a whole, as well as the economic stability of the country; but that is another discussion). Honestly, it is all fruit from the same poisoned tree. I think that GenerationX hit the nail on the head: the free market has its pitfalls, but “the alternative, a regulated economy, has many more far less desirable outcomes.” Most people implicitly understand that the government can’t even pave the roads within a budget (it inevitably winds up costing more they said it would due to waste), on time (the project is almost never completed by the originally intended deadline) or even to a proper quality standard (half the time the road has to be ripped up 6 months later because it was not installed properly the first time); but yet they are naïve enough to think that the same government will be able to effectively manage your healthcare, which is 1/6 of national economy. If you want to look at government regulate health care, we already have it- just look at Medicare and Medicaid- both unmitigated disasters which are inherently inefficient in terms of waste, rampant with fraud and corruption, and are, not surprisingly, hemorrhaging money to the point that they are “unsustainable” and are in need of a “fix”. Two words: Social Security- need I say more? Additionally, my beef stems from basic principle: the federal government is overstepping its bounds by trying to regulate healthcare (which is a free market commodity) at both the individual level (individual mandates) or at the level of private business by forcing businesses like Disney to provide health plans of an arbitrary governmentally dictated standard to nearly all employees. This directly interferes with how of businesses run (decisions concerning how business operates should be made by the owners of said business, not a government edicts) as well as the free market. So, when people start saying things like “this individual or this corporation earns too much money” I get scared, because that is not far from “spreading the wealth”, and we all know where that leads to comrades. It is exactly that mentality which causes 12 people on a jury to award millions of dollars to a moron who spilled hot coffee onto his own lap. People figure, “well McDonald’s has a lot of money, they can afford it.” or “It is not fair that they charge poor people $6.00 for a Big Mac, while their shareholders make billions.” However, that money has to come from somewhere, and that increased cost is inevitably passed on to the consumer in the form higher prices for everybody. Why do you think Disney spends so much time, effort, and cash on making things idiot proof (the green hand at the end of the haunted mansion, new doors installed on trams, ect); and then people wonder why the cost of everything at the parks goes up or new projects get scrapped. If Disney can legally obtain a waiver to defer the impact of this ill conceived, overreaching health care law because they have decided that that is what is best for their business, then more power to them.

 

[fosse76]

The position of CEO of a company I would assume is MUCH more stressful than that of a frontline worker.

And you'd be wrong. I know a lot of Fortune 500 CEOs (happens when you work at a corporate law firm). As we get to smaller companies and small businesses, then I'd agree. But if we're talking about the CEO of Disney, or Coca-Cola, then you're simply wrong.

Saying the opposite would be like saying that the job of the President of the US is not a stressful job.

That's a ludicrous comparison and not at all relevant.

CEOs are more or less responsible for everything the company does, and the decisions he makes can have lasting effects on thousands if not tens of thousands of people, not only those who work for the company, but even moreso those who consume the products put out by the company.

Trust me, it doesn't keep them up at night. Not to say that CEO's don't have stress, because that's NOT what I'm saying. But their job isn't nearly as stressful as you'd like to think it is. Yes those are their decisions. But the only stress they have is whether or not the stockholders and Board will agree with their decisions. They could care less if they have to lay off thousands of workers or aggravate consumers (well, most of them, not all).

And saying that a CEO has no finanical investment in their company is completely absurd as not only do 99% of all CEO packages include stock ownership, but a CEOs reputation is also on the line. Should he make a devistating mistake, or should something huge happen while he is at the reins, he might never get a decent job again.

Wrong. And when I said financial investment, I meant personal (i.e., if the company falls then they lose their house, car, clothes, etc). CEOs are guaranteed a certain payout for the stock they own. In other words, they get the greater of the two values for their stock: market price or the set price in their contract. And reputation is meaningless. Some of what the public would consider horrible CEOs have always been able to get other CEO work or Board positions. Not that it matters. CEOs have enough money when they are fired that they really never need to work again.

Anyway...to bring my post closer to topic. I was involved in a seminar on health care reform and the stance that we had decided upon was not to put the cart before the horse. Healthcare reform needs to bring down the costs before we consider ways to insure everyone. These numbers are purely for the sake of simplifying, but why try to cover everyone at a cost of 40x right now (times 300,000,000 people = $12,000,000,000) (esp. when our gov't can't afford it) when we can implement several different kinds of industry reforms that can bring those costs down to 30x or 25x (times 300,000,000 people = $7,500,000,000). Lets focus on costs of service, prescriptions, health insurance, etc first, when we get that under control, lets then find a way to better help those in need at that time more people would be able to better afford coverage and there will be a smaller pool of those who need additional coverage. In theory anyway. This was a seminar so there were alot less variables to consider.

Well, I can't respond to this as I didn't attend that seminar, but there has been so much misinformation about the healthcare law (ALL of which was fueled by Republicans) that it really is difficult to sort. But I agree costs are out of control. A friend of mine had to go to the ER, which was billed at $500. But that was just to be there in the ER. That didn't include the actual triage, medication, doctor examination, or stitches. So I'd like to know, exactly, what the $500 fee was for!! (well, we know what it's for: it's the surcharge we pay to cover the costs of medical care to the unemployed).

 

[devoy1701]

And you'd be wrong. I know a lot of Fortune 500 CEOs (happens when you work at a corporate law firm). As we get to smaller companies and small businesses, then I'd agree. But if we're talking about the CEO of Disney, or Coca-Cola, then you're simply wrong.


That's a ludicrous comparison and not at all relevant.


Trust me, it doesn't keep them up at night. Not to say that CEO's don't have stress, because that's NOT what I'm saying. But their job isn't nearly as stressful as you'd like to think it is. Yes those are their decisions. But the only stress they have is whether or not the stockholders and Board will agree with their decisions. They could care less if they have to lay off thousands of workers or aggravate consumers (well, most of them, not all).


Wrong. And when I said financial investment, I meant personal (i.e., if the company falls then they lose their house, car, clothes, etc). CEOs are guaranteed a certain payout for the stock they own. In other words, they get the greater of the two values for their stock: market price or the set price in their contract. And reputation is meaningless. Some of what the public would consider horrible CEOs have always been able to get other CEO work or Board positions. Not that it matters. CEOs have enough money when they are fired that they really never need to work again.

You sir have a very biased opinion of what is involved with corporate leadership. Maybe you have dealt with or heard some stories that are not the norm of CEO behavior, but I definitely hope that you are never put in charge of a public company.

Beyond that, i'm not going to respond to anything you said because it's pointless.

 

[fosse76]

I am a physician, and I love the fact that people believe that just because you use your mind and don’t work with your hands, somehow it is not real ”work”, and does not deserve high financial reward.

I certainly don't recall saying that, nor have I read any posts tht said it. It's lovely when people put words in other people's mouths.

While “white collar” jobs may not be physically demanding, they are (usually) very mentally demanding; but people don’t value that and think it is unfair to have to pay for your expertise or education.

And no one in this post (that I recall, at any rate) has implied otherwise.

Whether we are talking about Disney or anywhere else; the amount of education/training you have determines how replaceable you are, and therefore your earning potential/benefits you can demand.

I know I certainly haven't contradicted that in any of my posts.

If you are a janitor and quit, I can literally pull the next person I see off the street and they will be able to mop a floor.

But that's the problem. Simply because anyone can do it doesn't necessarily mean that it is valueless work, or that it still isn't hard work.

Try pulling some random person off the street and asked them to remove your kidney. You are paying for skill, and those who work hard to acquire those skills deserve compensation; and the more uncommon that skill is (like running a multi-million dollar a year company), the higher the price is going to be.

There have been CEOs that have little to no education, who worked there way up in the company. So experience plays a role. You seem to be bringing up class warefare where this discussion wasn't even headed.

Also, linked to education/training is supply and demand (numbers of “quality” workers compared to the need for them). Companies who want to make a profit are going to try to get the best quality of work that they can for the cheapest price possible. At the same time, if you pay peanuts, then you wind up hiring monkeys! If Disney’s wages or benefits are too meager to the point that quality workers will go elsewhere and all the company is able to hire is a bunch of knuckle-draggers, then the quality of their service will begin suffer, which in turn will result in loss of customers/money;

And guess what? We're there already.

and will ultimately force them to pay their employees better. This is all dictated by the natural forces of the free market, or at least it should be.

Wrong. In a textbook world, yes. But in the real world, that's not how it works. Just look at Disney. In order to increase their profits, they've eliminated positions and raised prices, while demand was lessened. Then they discounted to get the numbers they needed to at leats look stagnant. In a true free market, they wouldn't have discounted, they would have lowered their prices.

It is precisely the encroachment on the free market/free choice which has fueled the reaction of many to the healthcare law, as well as the lively discussion in this thread.

Only by people who think it will hurt their profit margin. And I'm sorry, but healthcare shouldn't be about profits. If you became a physician for the money, then I certainly wouldn't want you treating me, because you're obviously thinking with your wallet in mind and not my health.

 

[UncleScrooge]

Simply because anyone can do it doesn't necessarily mean that it is valueless work, or that it still isn't hard work.

-I never said it is valueless work or isn't hard; It is simply rather easy to replace, which creates a high supply of such a worker, which decreases the compensation they can demand.

There have been CEOs that have little to no education, who worked their way up in the company. So experience plays a role.

- Of course experience plays a role; I thought that I alluded to that when I used the word "expertise." Experience is education, and although it may not be formal, it is often more valuable. Hence CEOs that have proven their abilities will be able to fetch a greater price than those who are untested.

And guess what? We're there already.

- I don't disagree.

Wrong. In a textbook world, yes. But in the real world, that's not how it works. Just look at Disney. In order to increase their profits, they've eliminated positions and raised prices, while demand was lessened. Then they discounted to get the numbers they needed to at leats look stagnant. In a true free market, they wouldn't have discounted, they would have lowered their prices.

-Well let's just agree to disagree. The free market has been working in the "real" world since ancient Mesopotamia, long before it was formally described in any textbook. In fact Socrates recorded a (theoretical) discussion between himself and a sandal maker who was angry that another sandal maker opened a shop not far from his. The moral of the story was that is was actually a blessing because the competition from the other sandal maker forced the first sandal maker to produce goods of high quality. Also just because businesses make foolish decisions like eliminating positions and raising prices in the face of decreasing demand, it doesn't mean the free market doesn’t exist, it simply means they are making a really bad decision. If I recall correctly in Ones Man's Dream, there is a quote from Walt about "quality always winning out", or words to that effect. Walt made a fortune by delivering a quality product. Now if those who now run the company want to increase short term profits and the expense of brand loyalty, thus jeopardizing long term profit, they do so at their peril. Those who make such foolish short-sighted decisions will eventually find themselves out of business (baring a government bailout). Now in regards to discounting as opposed to lowering prices- economically they are the same- whether I lower a price to a hundred dollars, or "discounting" a $200 item to $100, I am still only collecting $100 no matter how you slice it. "Discounting" is simply a marketing ploy to suggest to the consumer that they are getting "a good deal", and that they had better "act soon"; that is why it is used in practically every single infomercial.

Only by people who think it will hurt their profit margin. And I'm sorry, but healthcare shouldn't be about profits. If you became a physician for the money, then I certainly wouldn't want you treating me, because you're obviously thinking with your wallet in mind and not my health.

Healthcare isn't just about profits, but like every other job it is also about profit- this is the real world. I am sure that you don't go to work every day just for "fun" and would not still go if they stopped paying you. You have bills and responsibilities to your family, and so does everybody else. I did not go into medicine for the money, I did so because I genuinely enjoy helping others (and I don't appreciate that it was implied otherwise); but also I did not go through 12+ additional years of education, work 30+ hour shifts with overnight call as a resident, and incur a 6-figure debt in student loans in order to make minimum wage. Nobody would, as that would be foolish and irresponsible. However, if you want quality people to be drawn to a high demand field, you are going to have to compensate them for it, and if that compensation starts to erode so will the quality of those providing the service. Like I said in a previous post, if you pay peanuts, you wind up hiring monkeys.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

So, when people start saying things like “this individual or this corporation earns too much money” I get scared, because that is not far from “spreading the wealth”, and we all know where that leads to comrades. It is exactly that mentality which causes 12 people on a jury to award millions of dollars to a moron who spilled hot coffee onto his own lap. People figure, “well McDonald’s has a lot of money, they can afford it.” or “It is not fair that they charge poor people $6.00 for a Big Mac, while their shareholders make billions.”

I hope you'll forgive me for pulling out one small piece of a larger post here, but I think this quote might be an example of being a bit too deferential to business interests.

This case has been cited by plenty of people as an example of what's wrong with our legal system, and I don't think the facts warrant that conclusion. The woman in question suffered third degree burns in a matter of seconds and incurred thousands in medical bills for skin grafts. The injuries were so severe because McDonalds knowingly stored its coffee somewhere around 40-50 degrees above the point at which skin contact could cause serious burns. The woman initially asked them to pay just her medical bills, but they turned her down, so she took them to court and got that plus more.

At any rate, I know that the facts of this particular case aren't going to change your entire worldview, but it was a little more involved than McDonalds losing money because coffee is hot. Even if none of this changes your basic thoughts on the merits of the case, you can hopefully see how another reasonable person would reach a different conclusion.

PS: I really loved you in "Ducktales." :wave: :lol: