Bloomberg - No Disney Fun for Orlando Workers as Poverty Nears 20%

[Gomer]

I am a capitalist at heart. But all system’s require some balance to keep away abuse. And all systems are equally susceptible to the abuses of the greedy and power hungry. Communism as a pure governmental philosophy is based in equality. It’s a nice ideal that doesn’t work in reality. In the real world it is corrupted by those who crave money and power and turned into the historical governments that people hate so much. But I don’t blame communism for Stalin or Castro any more than I blame capitalism for slavery. Both systems created the environment for horrific abuses to occur, but in the end it was those power hungry and greedy people who corrupted the systems and it is those people that should be vilified.

To bring it somewhat back on topic. Big Companies are inherently greedy. That is how they became big in the first place. Left unhindered a truly free market, they will abuse and exploit their workers as we saw in our own country back in the days of monopolies and robber barons. Socialist programs like social security, medicare, educational funding, and minimum wage help keep those companies in check. Without that balance they have too much power over the system and that power ends up disenfranchising and keeping down the lowest economic rungs of the society.

I respect that you use your personal observations to determine the efficacy of our economic system. No one should allow others to tell them how to think. But the inherent problem in using only your own observations is that they are both subjective and localized. My direct observations contradict your direct observations as to the ability for anyone to work their way up. I have seen the direct opposite in fact. I have seen a system that favors those who already have money and inhibits those who don’t. Does that make either one of our experiences wrong? No. But it does mean that neither of us has the complete picture based on direct experience alone.

 

[BigTxEars]

I have to disagree with you here. It is small business that creates the jobs. Big business cuts jobs by using economy of scale. Yes that means Disney and Universal. It also explains why Walmart supported and supports the affordable care act. They even said if at their Stockholders meeting. They have the size to afford it and it will keep other companies from being able to grow and compete with them. In any case all of this is off topic. The topic is should CM's be paid more. My answer is anyone who deals with paying guests should be. The interaction with the CM's is what makes WDW special. As for the behind those who work behind the seens they should be paid fair wages based on the local labor market. While Disney could afford more no one should be paid more than fair market value. The CM's in the parks ard worth more and should be rewarded based on the service they provide and I can see starting and $10.00 an but quickly moving up to $15.00 if and only if they provide Disney quality customer service.

And I have to disagree with you, if you feel the CMs deserve more then feel free to give them more money out of your pocket while in the parks. Leave my wallet out of it is all I am saying.

Small business create tons of jobs, no debate there at all. My comments were aimed towards larger companies as it better fits the topic of this thread IMO. WDW is the largest employer in the Orlando area and Wal-Mart the largest in America which is why they are so often brought up.

Affordable health care administered by the US Govt is a horrible ideal. They could not even get the sign ups for it correct how on Earth are they going to manage something as complex as this? $600 hammers anyone? We had the best and most advanced health care system on Earth, who knows what it will turn into now....

What will you do regarding pay for those who are not in entry level jobs at WDW for example. If you raise starting pay then are you going to raise the pay of everyone else?

 

[Gomer]

Of course companies are greedy, and that is great thing. If they were not how many of us (including me) would not have a job? You would not be on this forum if not for greed, it's what drove the personal computer into homes as well as the spread of the internet. Heck it is why this forum is online, advertsiers wanting more business thus placing ads on here thus paying the cost of maintaining this forum. Greed is not a evil word.

And what is wrong with a system that favors and rewards success? Again there are more self made millionaires today than ever before, if the system is so inclusive to those who already have money how is that explained?

I'm dropping the communist argument because I don't think anyone here wants to see us go down that road. I'll just say that we agree on the impacts of communism, but not necessarily its ideals.

But as to your other comments. I never said greed was inherently evil. What I said was that if it is not kept in check it can lead to an intense widening of the gap between the richest and poorest. That gap is self-perpetuating and the more millionaires we get, the more cheap labor they need to keep their millions. The problem is that everyone wants to be a millionaire and no one is happy being just middle class. So, we make our economic policies with the delusion that someday we will all have millions and want to keep it. But not everyone can be a millionaire. For every rich person there has to be someone that they are using to make that money. And in order to keep that money, they need to pay as little as possible.

Having more millionaires is meaningless to me if the gap between richest and poorest is also the widest it’s ever been. That just means more concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. Whether that few is 100 like in the 1800s or thousands like now, that means there are still millions upon whose backs that money was made. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. But with that money comes power. And that power allows them to fix the system however they see fit. It is the responsibility of government to make sure society can still function, and when the lower classes are disenfranchised and impoverished the society stops functioning at peak efficiency.

There is nothing wrong with a system that rewards success, as long as it does so universally and fairly. In my experience the system is anything but fair.

In my company, where as previously mentioned, we pay very low for 40-60 hour per week, degree required, salary positions, I often see how unfairly this plays out. The only people who can survive on those low wages without working multiple jobs are rich middle class kids who still live at home with mommy and daddy.

On the flip side, I have seen many motivated, intelligent people who have not excelled in my company because they are forced to work nights waiting tables to make ends meet. These are people that pay their own rent at 23, single parents, or people who have to support elderly or disabled family members. They exhaust themselves trying to get by, working multiple jobs and then either get fired or never get promoted because that fatigue makes their work suffer. These are people, that if paid better, would excel, get promoted, and someday run the company.

 

[s8film40]

I think raising the wages to around $15 an hour for WDW, Universal, Sea World etc. is a great idea, but not because it will make conditions better for existing employees but because it will increase the quality of the resorts. The reality is raising the wage will actually hurt many of the existing low wage employees. If you suddenly increase starting wages by 50% quality and hiring standards will skyrocket. They're not going to simply raise wages and expect everything to be business as usual. High wages is an amazing bargaining tool to ensure you have the absolute best people in each position. Hiring would become very competitive with WDW and other resorts being able to select only the best of candidates. It would become easy for existing quality standards to be increased significantly, while certainly many existing employees would be able to achieve this many of the "working poor" mentioned in the article would not and would soon find themselves being forced out of the job altogether. Additionally the prospect of moving up in a company that starts at $15 an hour would also be very appealing. All those manager and technical jobs are going to expect to still make more than the guy selling popcorn on Main Street. Obviously this would additionally increase the demand and competitiveness of getting hired with the hope and prospect to move up as well as make the promotion process far more competitive as well. The cost of course would definitely be passed on to the consumer. The company and the consumer in the end would be the big winner, the existing employees not so much.

 

[PrincessNelly_NJ]

If they lack the skills to earn more than minimum wage, then anything more IS a handout...such as the calls for a "living wage" or "$15 dollars an hour". If you haven't heard it before you need to understand cost benefit analysis, budgeting, and "wants verses needs" for starters.

Nothing is free besides air. If you want something that someone or a company produces/gathers you have to come to an agreement on a suitable exchange of goods or services to get it.

Your exhortations to exclude one source of media input fall on deaf ears, as all media has its own biases, target demographics, and advertisers (who by the way pay for everything that they publish).

Florida is a right to work state. Labor union membership is not required or prohibited unlike New Jersey.

Lack the skills to earn more than minimum wage? HUH?
At my current job, factory employees at minimum wage. We can barely keep factory employees because the work is hard. Even the supervisors agree that, their employees aren't paid enough for the work they do. But its not up to the supervisors to give the employee raises.
Those employees have the skills but our company just doesn't pay them well.

But like I said to the other poster... keep thinking that a "living wage" is unnecessary. Yes, common sense says that if you raise the wage for basic jobs then all other jobs must have their wages raised as well. But look at our economy. If people are living pay check to pay check and not spending... companies cant succeed either.

If people are poor, companies don't make profits. If companies don't don't make profits, they don't hire people. Both are dependent on each other.

And I should have been clearly. The poster I was speaking to said he was a proud right wing person who disliked "liberal media."
Many of his view points are that of Fox News.

He should very well, turn off Fox news and take a look at other stations.
I make sure to view all channels equally. Msnbc, CNN, BBC, FOX, and etc.
I also do my own personal research to ensure that whatever biased news reports I've watched, are matched or challenged by facts.

And my distaste for FOX news comes from far more than political bias but more so a lack of good journalism & professionalism.

 

[PrincessNelly_NJ]

I never said "you have to share." I said I would.
I was simply pointing out that when a company agrees to pay more to their employees and make up for that cost by raising prices on goods/services... you actually have more of a choice than if they don't.
You could then choose to spend your money elsewhere if you thought the price was too high.
Where if people continue at the current rate... increasing numbers of people relying on government aid, then your tax dollars are being spent on it and you have no choice.

You're right, I have no idea what you do with your money. You could donate half your annual income to charities for all I know.

And I'm right about our safety net. I speak from personal experience. Yes we have programs like medical care, housing assistance, and food assistance. But those programs have strict requirements and aren't as easy to get as your think.
My father has been disabled since he was 38. He struggled for years to make ends meet on SS and eventually felt the need apply for food stamps. He did get approved for them... a whopping $15 a month. Some safety net. He declined and ended up moving in with friends to save money on rent.
After my grandmother passed away, my grandfather struggled to pay bills. The loss of one income was a big hit to his finances. He too had to apply for food stamps and was awarded $40 a month. It helped.. not much but it helped him for about 2 years before he felt comfortable without them. He also said it was much more of a hassle than it was worth. Constantly having to drive across town to the aid office and constantly having to reaffirm his income.

We have programs but they don't always work and you can't always count on them to be there when times get hard.


And remember those big businesses wouldn't exist with employees or consumers.

 

[ford91exploder]

I'm dropping the communist argument because I don't think anyone here wants to see us go down that road. I'll just say that we agree on the impacts of communism, but not necessarily its ideals.

But as to your other comments. I never said greed was inherently evil. What I said was that if it is not kept in check it can lead to an intense widening of the gap between the richest and poorest. That gap is self-perpetuating and the more millionaires we get, the more cheap labor they need to keep their millions. The problem is that everyone wants to be a millionaire and no one is happy being just middle class. So, we make our economic policies with the delusion that someday we will all have millions and want to keep it. But not everyone can be a millionaire. For every rich person there has to be someone that they are using to make that money. And in order to keep that money, they need to pay as little as possible.

Having more millionaires is meaningless to me if the gap between richest and poorest is also the widest it’s ever been. That just means more concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. Whether that few is 100 like in the 1800s or thousands like now, that means there are still millions upon whose backs that money was made. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. But with that money comes power. And that power allows them to fix the system however they see fit. It is the responsibility of government to make sure society can still function, and when the lower classes are disenfranchised and impoverished the society stops functioning at peak efficiency.

There is nothing wrong with a system that rewards success, as long as it does so universally and fairly. In my experience the system is anything but fair.

In my company, where as previously mentioned, we pay very low for 40-60 hour per week, degree required, salary positions, I often see how unfairly this plays out. The only people who can survive on those low wages without working multiple jobs are rich middle class kids who still live at home with mommy and daddy. They are usually mediocre at their jobs, and undriven in their work. They take their paycheck and use it for drinking, drugging, and partying until their late 20’s. They do just enough to get by until they have gained enough raises to live on their own and Mommy and Daddy either kick them out or they knock someone up/get knocked up and decide they have to get married.

On the flip side, I have seen many motivated, intelligent people who have not excelled in my company because they are forced to work nights waiting tables to make ends meet. These are people that pay their own rent at 23, single parents, or people who have to support elderly or disabled family members. They exhaust themselves trying to get by, working multiple jobs and then either get fired or never get promoted because that fatigue makes their work suffer. These are people, that if paid better, would excel, get promoted, and someday run the company far better that 23 year old d-bag frat boy who drives his daddy’s beamer to work ever will. These are the disenfranchised.

In my 20's I WAS one of those fatigued people taking care of a elderly relative. It really held back my career and ever since then I've always worked 3 times as hard as the next guy to catch up and get to where I am now.

 

[Disnee4Me]

@ParentsOf4 --- got you beat ... 40 years ago was making $2.10 at McDonalds and then 39 years ago got my first real job as a clerk-typist for Timex ... making a wopping $6.00/hr. I was not quite 19 yet and clearing $95/week and didn't know what I would do with ALL that $$$ ... LOL.

 

[networkpro]

Lack the skills to earn more than minimum wage? HUH?
At my current job, factory employees at minimum wage. We can barely keep factory employees because the work is hard. Even the supervisors agree that, their employees aren't paid enough for the work they do. But its not up to the supervisors to give the employee raises.
Those employees have the skills but our company just doesn't pay them well.

There's a market rate for each skill set in each locality, if you're above that rate then you attract more applicants, if you are below you attract less it doesn't matter what the company is, or the position if there is no barrier to entry (such as a union shop, criminal record prohibition etc) people will move according to their own needs and desires. If an person limits themselves by choice to only work in a particular industry, in proximity to a physical location, only certain times of the day or other such factor then that's no fault of the "Evil Big Business".

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

No where in there do I see a hint that anyone is promised equal outcome or actually achieving happiness.

 

[Gomer]

In my 20's I WAS one of those fatigued people taking care of a elderly relative. It really held back my career and ever since then I've always worked 3 times as hard as the next guy to catch up and get to where I am now.

I was going to like this, but it felt wrong to like a bad thing. So instead I'll just reply and say that I sympathize.

 

[The Mom]

Please remember that political discussions are not allowed - although I can't see how it can be helped considering the topic. If you can continue without insulting certain groups of people due to economic status, family situations, etc then it can continue. Otherwise, it will be locked. Thank you.

 

[PrincessNelly_NJ]

There's a market rate for each skill set in each locality, if you're above that rate then you attract more applicants, if you are below you attract less it doesn't matter what the company is, or the position if there is no barrier to entry (such as a union shop, criminal record prohibition etc) people will move according to their own needs and desires. If an person limits themselves by choice to only work in a particular industry, in proximity to a physical location, only certain times of the day or other such factor then that's no fault of the "Evil Big Business".

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

No where in there do I see a hint that anyone is promised equal outcome or actually achieving happiness.

No, this isn't just a big business problem... but it is something they can help fix, they play a major part in.

The thing is... many people are limited to physical location & time of day. Many people rely on public transportation and are limited to public transportation schedules/service areas.
It was said earlier... that many people who/produce products for a company that they cant afford themselves.
That's a little sad, imo... No ones fault but still sad.

Who decides what is an appropriate market rate for each skill set?
In my own experiences... many jobs are keeping payroll as low as possible on purpose. Many people are doing the work of 2 or 3 people because companies would rather add to ones workload & offer a measly raise, if any, than hire more employees.
Like I said, my current job knows they underpay employees but they also know these people need jobs. That jobs with steady hours are hard to come by here so they can get away with it.

The company I work for makes the life vest you would need if your flight ever crashed into the water, the dry suits that protect the coast guard during rescue missions, & personal life rafts for boaters in case their boats take on water... idk about you but I would want people, who making life saving equipment to be quality workers, not some joe/jane part time minimum wage high schooler.

I hear you... I really do... but I've seen the "market" fail people over and over. Our current market can't last like this. We can blame businesses, we can blame people for lacking skills, but that will never get us anywhere.

 

[ParentsOf4]

@ParentsOf4 --- got you beat ... 40 years ago was making $2.10 at McDonalds and then 39 years ago got my first real job as a clerk-typist for Timex ... making a wopping $6.00/hr. I was not quite 19 yet and clearing $95/week and didn't know what I would do with ALL that $$$ ... LOL.

Well, 40 years ago I was making $10 a week delivering newspapers.

Candy bars started off at 10 cents but by the time I stopped delivering, they were all the way up to 25 cents!

Those were the days. Running the stairs to drop a paper on the fourth floor was almost fun!

Of course, 40 years ago, I was dreaming of that "one day" that I'd finally get to see Walt Disney World.

 

[Jim Chandler]

If you raise every one under $10 to $10 what do you do for those making $10.50 up to let us say $13? Do you give them the same 25 to 30 percent raise? When you have a raise given to some hourly people for what the government thinks is an injustice and "to get some out of poverty" you have an affect on all hourly folks. I went through this with a company that did raise their minimum wage and then pro rated for others up to a specific dollar figure. The issue was then every one over where the prorated increase was stopped was unhappy.
Regardless any increase in wages will be followed by an increase in what that company produces.

 

[BigTxEars]

If you raise every one under $10 to $10 what do you do for those making $10.50 up to let us say $13? Do you give them the same 25 to 30 percent raise? When you have a raise given to some hourly people for what the government thinks is an injustice and "to get some out of poverty" you have an affect on all hourly folks. I went through this with a company that did raise their minimum wage and then pro rated for others up to a specific dollar figure. The issue was then every one over where the prorated increase was stopped was unhappy.
Regardless any increase in wages will be followed by an increase in what that company produces.

Some folks who have never administered payroll don't understand this. Well made point.

 

[BigTxEars]

Hello, First post, blah blah, etc... The main point here is being missed:

Disney is in business to make money. Period. They are not in business to employ you. They are not in business to give you a cool job (sorry monorail pilots). They are not in business to provide a place for you and your family to vacation. And they are certainly not an employee owned business. The terms of employment are clear, and working for Disney is a choice.

Exactly how I see it as well. I am sure someone will be along shortly to correct us

 

[ford91exploder]

If you raise every one under $10 to $10 what do you do for those making $10.50 up to let us say $13? Do you give them the same 25 to 30 percent raise? When you have a raise given to some hourly people for what the government thinks is an injustice and "to get some out of poverty" you have an affect on all hourly folks. I went through this with a company that did raise their minimum wage and then pro rated for others up to a specific dollar figure. The issue was then every one over where the prorated increase was stopped was unhappy.
Regardless any increase in wages will be followed by an increase in what that company produces.

Not to mention FDR tried this same stunt thinking that high wages would lift people out of poverty, Instead it led to massive unemployment as people could no longer afford the goods and services.

 

[TalkingHead]

Hello, First post, blah blah, etc... The main point here is being missed:

Disney is in business to make money. Period. They are not in business to employ you. They are not in business to give you a cool job (sorry monorail pilots). They are not in business to provide a place for you and your family to vacation. And they are certainly not an employee owned business. The terms of employment are clear, and working for Disney is a choice.

That's a really edifying first post. Thanks for sharing. I had no idea Disney is in business to make money. Period.

 

[ParentsOf4]

Disney is in business to make money. Period.

What are they in business for in your opinion?

In the 1970s, Disney's theme park division averaged a 19.5% gross margin.

In the 1980s, Disney's theme park division averaged a 22.8% gross margin.

In the 1990s, Disney's theme park division averaged a 22.5% gross margin.

In the 2000s, Disney's theme park division averaged a 16.8% gross margin.

In the 2010s, Disney's theme park division averaged a 14.7% gross margin.

If they are in business to make money, it sure looks like they are getting worse at it.

Maybe wages aren't WDW's problem.

Maybe bad theme park management is.

 

[BigTxEars]

In the 1970s, Disney's theme park division averaged a 19.5% gross margin.

In the 1980s, Disney's theme park division averaged a 22.8% gross margin.

In the 1990s, Disney's theme park division averaged a 22.5% gross margin.

In the 2000s, Disney's theme park division averaged a 16.8% gross margin.

In the 2010s, Disney's theme park division averaged a 14.7% gross margin.

If they are in business to make money, it sure looks like they are getting worse at it.

Maybe wages aren't WDW's problem.

Maybe bad theme park management is.

Wages are not their problems, and with record attendance I would say management is doing a pretty good job. Although I tend to be in the minority on here in that opinion.

Record profit from the parks reported correct?

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/theme-parks-help-disney-set-record-profit/27325820

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...140804_1_walt-disney-world-mymagic-magicbands

Margins are very important but they do not matter more than the bottom line. A thirty years period is a long time to measure gross margins for accuracy in my business, a very long time. I would guess the same thing is true of the theme park business. If a major business is running themselves in 2014 like they did in the 80s or 90s I would be surprised.

What are the net profit numbers from those time periods?