I believe that Kroger is the largest supermarket chain in the world.I wouldn't call Kroger a small business. They shut down stores in cities that made the demand. Exited that market entirely.
I believe that Kroger is the largest supermarket chain in the world.I wouldn't call Kroger a small business. They shut down stores in cities that made the demand. Exited that market entirely.
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.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?
Milton Friedman ruined a whole generation of Americans by convincing them that greed is good.Do they still teach economics in school?
Economic systems that have no built in incentive for working lead to poverty.Milton Friedman ruined a whole generation of Americans by convincing them that greed is good.
Haven't you heard that Disney is one of the richest companies in the world?!?!Disney Stores are closing around the country and Canada. The economics aren’t there for large corporations.
Both points are pretty incorrect.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.
True, everyone lived in abject poverty prior to Friedman economics and income inequality no longer exists now!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.
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.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 guess the only thing we can all really agree on here is that employees with tattoos cost less than employees without tattoos, right?
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 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.
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.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.
Where is this math you speak of? You have yet to provide it.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.
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.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.
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.