Club 33 Woes

cmwade77

Well-Known Member
Oh. Now you tell me that you’re talking about Kroger. This whole time I thought we were talking about some charming corner bodega. They didn’t close the stores because they couldn’t afford them. They closed them because it made them more money to do so. No one actually believes those crooks… right? 😳
We are talking Krieger, Ralphs, Vons, Safeway, Food4Less, pretty much all the major grocery store brands closed at least some locations as a result of the mentioned Hero act.

And look at their profit reports for the stores they closed, you will find they truly couldn't afford it. Each location has to be taken on its own to see if there is profitability, again, they can't simply take fund from the parent company.

As for math, let's look at just Disney Parks at a total of about 110,000 cast members (pre COVID level since we will hopefully be back there). In order to reach what people on this thread are suggesting, Disney would need to raise each CM's wages by at least $5 an hour.

Since some are part time, we will use an average of 28 hours a week per CM to balance it out. 110,000*28 hours *$5= $15,400,000 extra per week. This is $800,800,000 per year in extra costs. That money has to come from some where, they have to still turn a profit and this is only looking at the theme parks division, not all of their other areas, which would add a lot more cast members into the mix. Also, due to contracts, there may be other related costs that increase as well. And this is assuming that everyone gets a flat $5 an hour increase, but in all likely good many would receive larger based on seniority.

It is estimated that in 2018 they had revenue of 20.2 billion dollars and costs of about 14 to 17 billion dollars. Keep in mind they then have to pay shareholders, show they are turning a profit and gave money leftover to reinvest in new attractions, shows, etc. that aren't counted in those operating expenses.
 

No Name

Well-Known Member
If you stop to do the math, you will find that this simply isn't true, they can't afford to increase all CMs pay without increasing prices. Also keep in mind every division like Disneyland, Disney World, cruise line, etc. Are essentially their own company and have to operate on the money they generate. It isn't like it all gets put into one gigantic pool of money to draw from.
Both points are pretty incorrect.

You already did the math and proved that there's room to increase wages. Disney doesn't want to upset their investors so they're reluctant to do it, but if they increased every employee's wages at every Disney park by $5, it might set them back a billion dollars a year. Parks and Resorts has been making like $4-5 billion in profit a year.

And second, it absolutely does get put into one gigantic pool of money. Hong Kong and Paris don't generate money, in fact they've lost more money than they've ever made, and that's not even accounting for the billions spent building and expanding them. Yet both are in the midst of billion-dollar investments right now, and that money comes from profits elsewhere like Disneyland.
 

DanielBB8

Well-Known Member
Disney bought Paris for pennies on the dollar when the stock was at it’s lowest point. Disney was already a minority shareholder that only needed a few more shares to bring it into the Disney Corporation. Previous deficits were never figured into Disney’s loss. Disney profited from royalty and management fees.

Hong Kong is still majority owned by the HK government. It always lost money, but again, Disney is shielded from losses.
 

Nirya

Well-Known Member
Economic systems that have no built in incentive for working lead to poverty.
True, everyone lived in abject poverty prior to Friedman economics and income inequality no longer exists now!

This is getting more off-topic, but suffice to say my belief is that his school of economic thought is nothing more than a sham meant to justify an extremely small subset of the population making as much money as possible at the expense of the much larger labor pool.
 

Tamandua

Well-Known Member
I guess the only thing we can all really agree on here is that employees with tattoos cost less than employees without tattoos, right? Because the argument I keep seeing is that if they wanted to maintain the old Disney look, they needed to pay more.
 

Tamandua

Well-Known Member
True, everyone lived in abject poverty prior to Friedman economics and income inequality no longer exists now!

This is getting more off-topic, but suffice to say my belief is that his school of economic thought is nothing more than a sham meant to justify an extremely small subset of the population making as much money as possible at the expense of the much larger labor pool.
ce3397a7f854d43ba22697051fc7cd4cada284f4nm7jg_display.jpg
 

Nirya

Well-Known Member
I guess the only thing we can all really agree on here is that employees with tattoos cost less than employees without tattoos, right? Because the argument I keep seeing is that if they wanted to maintain the old Disney look, they needed to pay more.
I don't think it is as black-and-white as it's being made out to be. Certainly, Disney on some level believes they can increase their talent pool by making these changes, which can allow them to keep wages at a lower level than what they should be, but I do think Disney is conscious of the changing look in all industries and is trying to keep a line open to the best workers possible regardless of physical appearance.

And yes, if Disney wanted to be more strict about the appearance of their employees, they should pay much more.
 

No Name

Well-Known Member
I have no tattoos and don't plan to get any, but I have no problem with people that do, and I don't think people should take issue with them being a part of Club 33. I'd rather they be in Club 33 then the snobs who want them out.

Disney bought Paris for pennies on the dollar when the stock was at it’s lowest point. Disney was already a minority shareholder that only needed a few more shares to bring it into the Disney Corporation. Previous deficits were never figured into Disney’s loss. Disney profited from royalty and management fees.

Hong Kong is still majority owned by the HK government. It always lost money, but again, Disney is shielded from losses.
It cost them close to $2 billion to buy out all of the shares. Now they plan to invest another $2 billion in new attractions. They don't profit from any royalty or management fees, that doesn't make a lick of sense. The resort has lost Disney many billions in its lifetime. I respect Disney's optimism that they can turn things around but right now it's a money pit.

Disney owns 47% of Hong Kong Disneyland, so they pay 47% of the costs and incur 47% of the losses.
 
Last edited:

cmwade77

Well-Known Member
Both points are pretty incorrect.

You already did the math and proved that there's room to increase wages. Disney doesn't want to upset their investors so they're reluctant to do it, but if they increased every employee's wages at every Disney park by $5, it might set them back a billion dollars a year. Parks and Resorts has been making like $4-5 billion in profit a year.

And second, it absolutely does get put into one gigantic pool of money. Hong Kong and Paris don't generate money, in fact they've lost more money than they've ever made, and that's not even accounting for the billions spent building and expanding them. Yet both are in the midst of billion-dollar investments right now, and that money comes from profits elsewhere like Disneyland.
Actually, the math proves it can't be done, because there are still a lot of other costs, such as expansion, etc that isn't factored in. And, no it isn't just one big pool of money, if money is used at a different spot, it is issued as a loan that has to be paid back. And speaking of, Disney actually has billions in debt at the moment, far more than they have cash on hand.
 

PiratesMansion

Well-Known Member
Actually, the math proves it can't be done, because there are still a lot of other costs, such as expansion, etc that isn't factored in. And, no it isn't just one big pool of money, if money is used at a different spot, it is issued as a loan that has to be paid back. And speaking of, Disney actually has billions in debt at the moment, far more than they have cash on hand.
Where is this math you speak of? You have yet to provide it.
 

DanielBB8

Well-Known Member
I have no tattoos and don't plan to get any, but I have no problem with people that do, and I don't think people should take issue with them being a part of Club 33. I'd rather they be in Club 33 then the snobs who want them out.


It cost them close to $2 billion to buy out all of the shares. Now they plan to invest another $2 billion in new attractions. They don't profit from any royalty or management fees, that doesn't make a lick of sense. The resort has lost Disney many billions in its lifetime. I respect Disney's optimism that they can turn things around but right now it's a money pit.

Disney owns 47% of Hong Kong Disneyland, so they pay 47% of the costs and incur 47% of the losses.
Absolutely incorrect. Disney made royalties and earned management fees when Disney was a minority shareholder and Paris was publicly traded. These royalties and fees were paid before any profits can be reported. This is also true of Hong Kong Disneyland so Disney was accused of double dipping.

Now that Disney owns Paris, they don’t need to claim royalties and management fees, but they can claim all expenses straight up. Surprise, Paris makes money especially after previous investments are deprecated.


Lawmakers became hostile to the spending plans due to a combination of the park’s losses last year and publicity about Walt Disney’s continuing to receive management fees despite the facility’s poor performance.

In March, Disney offered to equally split the cost of the expansion, despite being the minority owner. It also offered to waive variable management fees for two financial years. In return, the government’s ownership stake will fall from 53% to 52%, while Disney’s will increase from 47% to 48%.”
 

DanielBB8

Well-Known Member
“Shareholders say the French company would make money if U.S.-based Walt Disney wasn’t siphoning off so much of its cash.”


“Shareholders do not dispute there are difficulties, but point to another factor: U.S.-based Walt Disney Company, which owns 40 percent of Euro Disney, extracts tens of millions of euros annually from the European firm by charging it a host of fees and royalties for everything from operating a call centre to the use of intellectual property.”
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom