It's upthread. Let me know if my math is off.
Not so much the math - but really comparing unlike things and picking unrealistic target points.
1) Your math at the time already showed Disney was paying ABOVE the MIT living wage at the time for a solo person
The people arguing for a living wage wouldn't have agreed Disney was already paying more than that when they were paying $13/hr. So your base math already contradicts the pundits position.
And I don't know the date reference for your estimates, but we all know Disney agreed to move STARTING wages to $15 by this fall... so if someone wanted to use the frame of reference the $40mil came from, by both points, Disney was already paying and had an agreement to pay even more.
2) The 'generous' comparison point
In the next example you upped the stakes to being a family with one kid... but both working... which had the minimal increase of living wage estimate, leading to a under sized 0.52/hr wage increase... and then calculate your $40mil number from that. Vs using the more practical, but a lot more expensive family with 1 wage earner... because who can afford full time day care on entry level jobs? Plus, the number has to make assumptions on the payscale as your wage earner reference point ($13.xx) is not necessarily a prototypical reference point or necessarily a median.
3) Using the math to support a different meaning...
Besides the $40mil being undersized by the favorable selection of wages to compare... Your conclusion is being used to support a position that didn't even share the same definition of what a living wage was. You are both saying "living wage" -- but not with the same agreement of what it that number was. It's not really valid to use the $40m number in arguments besides one that would accept $13.52 as a good wage to target.
4) The number is meaningless today
The $40mil calculation is completely blown up by the current expectations of 'living wages'. Even using MIT's 2021 number (which again, most Pundits ask for more..) - Using your dual income, one kid number, if citing one working, is $28.88/hr. If comparing Disney's starting wage of $15 - that is a $13.88 wage difference... plus another 7.65% in payroll tax on the difference.. so another $1.06 in cost.. so $14.94 increase... times your 37k workers number = $1.149 billion...
Or another perspective... it would require nearly doubling their minimal labor costs.
(but again, all estimates are spitballs as we don't know the spread of minimum vs typical wages in the pool of 37k we are using)
Even if we take the more optimistic dual income one kid scenario (which I'd argue isn't really what people want in these debates) - that is $16.81 so $1.95/hr more in cost, 37k workers = $150 million. But I think that number is easily debunked when you hold the living wage supporters to say "Would $17/hr make you happy?" -- because they'd say no. So citing even using this $150mil to say "its not a big number" is disingenuous because it's based on different assumptions of what is an acceptable wage.
TLDR - the $40mil number was 'optimistic' at best, and pointless in today's discussion.