News Disney World Earmarks 80 Acres for Affordable Housing

[WDWJoeG]

.

You're being quite ridiculous. This chart shows you an estimation of how much you would have to earn in order to support yourself or your family's basic necessities. It's merely a reference point.

This is not a reference chart for an employers to evaluate a pay scale. No idea why your brain would go in that direction unless you were attempting to make a joke?

For example, if Walmart pays less that ~$15 an hour in Kansas then local state and federal taxes are most likely subsidizing medical, food, and housing costs of people who work there. Walmart gets cheap (and I would say exploitative) labor and the tax paying suckers have to help make up the rest to support them.

Walmart can (and has in certain places in the country) raised their minimum wage just because of competition in the marketplace but often does not pay a "living wage" in a lot of places. Often Walmart is the one of the largest employers in an area so people just can't "figure it out". That speaks of ignorance. If a poor person/family can barely make enough to put food on the table and gas in the car, they certainly don't have the resources to put gas in a car and uproot their life and find a better job 200 miles away or in another state.

Anything less than a "living wage" is basically create a class of serfs that will be stuck in a cycle of poverty for a long time if not for generations. When you say "someone" has to figure it out - you're speaking individually. Sure there are examples of people succeeding or pulling themselves out of poverty with luck or determination (or both). However when setting policy like a minimum wage you have to look at the millions of people that are affected by it, not just one person. Gotta see the forest through the trees so to speak.

Trying to understand what you are specifically proposing.

So for Orlando (since this is a WDW board), what exactly is the "living wage" that will allow people to achieve all you listed regardless of their personal choices (living situation, number of children, marital status, number of workers in the household, taking care of parents, student loan debt, credit card debt, medical issues, addiction, etc)?

What exactly is the wage that will achieve what you are proposing for every person and we can eliminate all public subsidies?

Since you are apparently saying employers should be forced to pay that wage (regardless of the employee's skills, initiative, work ethic, or output), what is it?

 

[Lilofan]

.

Trying to understand what you are specifically proposing.

So for Orlando (since this is a WDW board), what exactly is the "living wage" that will allow people to achieve all you listed regardless of their personal choices (living situation, number of children, marital status, number of workers in the household, taking care of parents, student loan debt, credit card debt, medical issues, addiction, etc)?

What exactly is the wage that will achieve what you are proposing for every person and we can eliminate all public subsidies?

Since you are apparently saying employers should be forced to pay that wage (regardless of the employee's skills, initiative, work ethic, or output), what is it?

If it is us voters that do the demanding ( ie living wage ) then it is us voters to do the paying. Question is are we ready to do that? My bet is no.

 

[JD80]

.

Trying to understand what you are specifically proposing.

So for Orlando (since this is a WDW board), what exactly is the "living wage" that will allow people to achieve all you listed regardless of their personal choices (living situation, number of children, marital status, number of workers in the household, taking care of parents, student loan debt, credit card debt, medical issues, addiction, etc)?

What exactly is the wage that will achieve what you are proposing for every person and we can eliminate all public subsidies?

Since you are apparently saying employers should be forced to pay that wage (regardless of the employee's skills, initiative, work ethic, or output), what is it?

I don't live in Florida so I don't really know, but a "Living Wage" in Orange county using the link I posted before is 16.88 for an adult to support himself with a roof and food.

However I have no idea if housing is available in Orlando that could support a minimum living wage which is not even taken in to account. For example, say $16.88 is enough to survive without government subsidies in a perfect world. Well in reality, if housing isn't available around WDW for someone who works back of the house in a restaurant, but it is 30-60m away. That morning commute is probably unaffordable to them with gas prices or lack of public transportation to get there. Or they can't afford to fix a run down car etc.

I mean you can wave your free market wand around and proclaim the plight of poor business owners and corporations regarding labor costs all you want, I'm not buying it. Businesses are "forced" (nice phrasing there by the way) to pay a minimum wage so tax payers like me aren't forced to subsidize greedy corporations or a business's bottom line. I don't want to be responsible for paying for someone's food stamps because a small business is so inept that they can't afford to pay a person $16-18/hr.

A "living wage" is the bare minimum. You have an employee that shows good work ethic/output/initiative you should pay them MORE than the bare minimum rather than attempt to exploit them as much as possible.

We live in a society my guy.

 

[WDWJoeG]

I don't live in Florida so I don't really know, but a "Living Wage" in Orange county using the link I posted before is 16.88 for an adult to support himself with a roof and food.

However I have no idea if housing is available in Orlando that could support a minimum living wage which is not even taken in to account. For example, say $16.88 is enough to survive without government subsidies in a perfect world. Well in reality, if housing isn't available around WDW for someone who works back of the house in a restaurant, but it is 30-60m away. That morning commute is probably unaffordable to them with gas prices or lack of public transportation to get there. Or they can't afford to fix a run down car etc.

I mean you can wave your free market wand around and proclaim the plight of poor business owners and corporations regarding labor costs all you want, I'm not buying it. Businesses are "forced" (nice phrasing there by the way) to pay a minimum wage so tax payers like me aren't forced to subsidize greedy corporations or a business's bottom line. I don't want to be responsible for paying for someone's food stamps because a small business is so inept that they can't afford to pay a person $16-18/hr.

A "living wage" is the bare minimum. You have an employee that shows good work ethic/output/initiative you should pay them MORE than the bare minimum rather than attempt to exploit them as much as possible.

We live in a society my guy.

So you are saying employers should pay some mythical, magical wage to solve society's ills, but you can't define it (which has been my exact point from the beginning).

Even if the minimum wage was raised to $16.88 in Orlando tomorrow, there would still be people screaming about "living wages" because a father with a wife and three kids at home working for $16.88 wouldn't be able to sustain a fully functioning middle class life for him and his family.

Theory is fun, making broad feel good statements is great, but when you have a specific proposal of how this would work and what that specific wage would be that we can all actually respond to, please post it.

Until then, market forces prevail.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Until then, corporations and their greed and sleazy practices prevail.

FTFY

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

So you are saying employers should pay some mythical, magical wage to solve society's ills, but you can't define it

Nobody is saying that.

Here’s a thought by the way....
you keep saying how a popcorn popper on Main Street should never expect to be paid more than “entry-level” based on skill.

What if you had a pop-corn popper who had been at Main Street for 5+ years who increases the profit of that cart because he doesn’t waste product, knows the optimal times to pop more corn, knows how the best answer common guest questions, etc.

That popcorn popper is now much more valuable to the company than just pushing someone straight off the plane from a carribean island who will work for nothing.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Nobody is saying that.

Here’s a thought by the way....
you keep saying how a popcorn popper on Main Street should never expect to be paid more than “entry-level” based on skill.

What if you had a pop-corn popper who had been at Main Street for 5+ years who increases the profit of that cart because he doesn’t waste product, knows the optimal times to pop more corn, knows how the best answer common guest questions, etc.

That popcorn popper is now much more valuable to the company than just pushing someone straight off the plane from a carribean island who will work for nothing.

Not to mention that "entry level" typically means $35,000.

Or that "free markets" isn't really a thing when one side has the resources and ability to rig the game.

 

[Lilofan]

Nobody is saying that.

Here’s a thought by the way....
you keep saying how a popcorn popper on Main Street should never expect to be paid more than “entry-level” based on skill.

What if you had a pop-corn popper who had been at Main Street for 5+ years who increases the profit of that cart because he doesn’t waste product, knows the optimal times to pop more corn, knows how the best answer common guest questions, etc.

That popcorn popper is now much more valuable to the company than just pushing someone straight off the plane from a carribean island who will work for nothing.

In a unionized environment like WDW the popcorn popper who is exemplary in his role and a fellow cast member just going through the motions still make the same hourly rate ( ie if each is working 5 year doing the same role ). However if there is mgr potential in the first employee that is an A+ , perhaps grooming him or her for that is an option.

 

[cranbiz]

In a unionized environment like WDW the popcorn popper who is exemplary in his role and a fellow cast member just going through the motions still make the same hourly rate ( ie if each is working 5 year doing the same role ). However if there is mgr potential in the first employee that is an A+ , perhaps grooming him or her for that is an option.

It is an option and has been done in the past. I know of a bus driver who had that opportunity when I was a CM. As far as I know (I spoke to her just before covid), she still is a manager that has had increasing opportunities.

 

[WDWJoeG]

Nobody is saying that.

Here’s a thought by the way....
you keep saying how a popcorn popper on Main Street should never expect to be paid more than “entry-level” based on skill.

What if you had a pop-corn popper who had been at Main Street for 5+ years who increases the profit of that cart because he doesn’t waste product, knows the optimal times to pop more corn, knows how the best answer common guest questions, etc.

That popcorn popper is now much more valuable to the company than just pushing someone straight off the plane from a carribean island who will work for nothing.

I am all for paying for performance and value added, that is how the labor market works and I have always paid for talent.

However, that is the antithesis of the concepts of minimum wage and this apparently undefinable "living wage" nonsense.

But in your particular example, then that popcorn vendor shouldn't have taken a union job where the rockstar, amazing, high performance employee gets paid exactly the same as the absolute laziest, worst performer (if in same job classification/seniority).

And that person (through his union) voted and approved his pay scale so he has nothing to complain about as he bargained and accepted his wage.

And you're actually making my argument by noting that this "experienced" person can be instantly replaced by a person "straight off the plane" reinforcing that their job requires so little skill, training, and experience anybody could do it so paying for experience and retention has limited value. I agree with you on that point.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Everyone is easily replaceable, including Chapek. Not sure why that is some point you agree with?

 

[WDWJoeG]

Everyone is easily replaceable, including Chapek. Not sure why that is some point you agree with?

And what would Disney have to pay Chapek's replacement? Market price for that unique set of skills/experience.

I'm all for it, that's how the system works and should work at every position and role.

It is not the role of a business to fund your lifestyle and personal decisions. They need to hire skills for a specific role and will pay the price it takes to get that labor - higher talent or unique skills cost more, limited and interchangeable skills cost less.

You said your popcorn vendor could be replaced by somebody "straight off the plane" which is exactly why they will never make significantly more than the teenager who walks in on Day One and does their job.

If you want to make more in a capitalist society, learn more valuable skills.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

No, I was saying that someone who has worked the job for 5 years is more valuable than someone straight off the plane, or the “teenager” that gets hired by Disney. (Not sure how many teenagers actually work at wdw, I’m sure some but seems most are older).

 

[WDWJoeG]

No, I was saying that someone who has worked the job for 5 years is more valuable than someone straight off the plane, or the “teenager” that gets hired by Disney. (Not sure how many teenagers actually work at wdw, I’m sure some but seems most are older).

Well, I was hired as a teenager (19) at DL and within a day or two I was doing the exact same job (if not better because the new kids brought new energy) as the 20 year grizzly veterans.

And I also realized quickly that if I were to stay in that union job, I would never learn new, valuable skills and would never be paid for my talent as I would be limited to the set pay schedule so I left.

You can't have it both ways. You imply Disney (or "business") is greedy and only wants money. Fair enough, then they would be making all decisions based on what generates more money.

So, using your example, if the popcorn vendor who has been scooping a box of popcorn and handing it to a customer for five years is SO much more valuable and driving incremental sales then they would be falling over themselves to pay them more to reap that return.

If they thought paying them $25/hour vs $15/hour would generate $20 more in net margin for that hour, they would do it in a heartbeat because they are financially motivated.

They don't do it, because after managing theme parks for over 60 years, they have learned that "experience" of REALLY knowing how to put the popcorn in the cup and hand it to the guest vs how the teenager does it on his first day isn't really driving the business.

So if you believe they are greedy capitalists and care about money, then they are telling you that extra investment in employee pay doesn't generate financial return.

That's why the system works.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Well, I was hired as a teenager (19) at DL on the Jungle Cruise and within a day or two I was doing the exact same job (if not better because the new kids brought new energy) as the 20 year grizzly veterans.

And I also realized quickly that if I were to stay in that union job, I would never learn new, valuable skills and would never be paid for my talent as I would be limited to the set pay schedule so I left.

You can't have it both ways. You imply Disney (or "business") is greedy and only wants money. Fair enough, then they would be making all decisions based on what generates more money.

So, using your example, if the popcorn vendor who has been scooping a box of popcorn and handing it to a customer for five years is SO much more valuable and driving incremental sales then they would be falling over themselves to pay them more to reap that return.

If they thought paying them $25/hour vs $15/hour would generate $20 more in net margin for that hour, they would do it in a heartbeat because they are financially motivated.

They don't do it, because after managing theme parks for over 60 years, they have learned that "experience" of REALLY knowing how to put the popcorn in the cup and hand it to the guest vs how the teenager does it on his first day isn't really driving the business.

So if you believe they are greedy capitalists and care about money, then they are telling you that extra investment in employee pay doesn't generate financial return.

That's why the system works.

And yet you continuously ignore that the system is rigged.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

So, using your example, if the popcorn vendor who has been scooping a box of popcorn and handing it to a customer for five years is SO much more valuable and driving incremental sales then they would be falling over themselves to pay them more to reap that return.

If they thought paying them $25/hour vs $15/hour would generate $20 more in net margin for that hour, they would do it in a heartbeat because they are financially motivated.

So the fact that Disney doesn’t do it is proof that it’s the most financially sound decision?

Many decisions that Disney makes are very questionable business decisions! Including investing in “company housing” vs. expanding parks.

 

[WDWJoeG]

So the fact that Disney doesn’t do it is proof that it’s the most financially sound decision?

Many decisions that Disney makes are very questionable business decisions! Including investing in “company housing” vs. expanding parks.

I am telling you why they are doing it.

But let's go back again to the key point you keep evading. Let's call your hypothetical popcorn vendor with 5 years of experience Larry.

So Larry makes $15/hour after five years of learning the popcorn vendor trade. He believes his skills and experience are worth more and is under no restriction with Disney that prohibits him to pursue other employment opportunities.

Larry then goes out to all of the companies in the market who may have a need for his skills as a popcorn vendor (AMC, Cinemark, Universal, Orange County Fair, etc.) and walks into the manager's/recruiter's office at each of these, shows them his resume, let's them know of his five years of experience scooping/handing popcorn, and says he wants to work for their company.

If A) the company says "OMG, your experience is amazing and valuable to us, we'll pay you $25/hour" then Larry tells the Mouse to pound sand and takes the new job where his skills are valued more. Problem solved.

If B) after applying to all of these companies, his best offer is still $15/hour then Larry has confirmed his value in the marketplace for his skill is $15/hour and therefore he is properly compensated. Problem solved.

You can talk minimum wage, living wage, right/wrong, greedy/compassion, etc. all day long, but his value in the marketplace is easy to determine.

If Larry believes his experience is worth more, go get it.

If, as you propose, Disney is foolish and doesn't understand (after 60+ years) the economic value of an employee with 5 years of popcorn vendor experience, then the other companies will gladly scoop him up and get that return and Disney will see their popcorn sales decrease as all of their experienced vendors leave for the competition causing them to reevaluate their position. Yet again, Problem Solved.

Note: this is the same for a popcorn vendor, Executive Chef, IT tech, parks VP, HR manager, accountant, or CEO.

This literally happened every day in my businesses over the past decades with positions from entry level to senior executives.

People should simply spend more time understanding how the world works and preparing themselves to succeed in it rather than living in these utopian Fantasylands.

 

[JD80]

I am all for paying for performance and value added, that is how the labor market works and I have always paid for talent.

However, that is the antithesis of the concepts of minimum wage and this apparently undefinable "living wage" nonsense.

But in your particular example, then that popcorn vendor shouldn't have taken a union job where the rockstar, amazing, high performance employee gets paid exactly the same as the absolute laziest, worst performer (if in same job classification/seniority).

And that person (through his union) voted and approved his pay scale so he has nothing to complain about as he bargained and accepted his wage.

And you're actually making my argument by noting that this "experienced" person can be instantly replaced by a person "straight off the plane" reinforcing that their job requires so little skill, training, and experience anybody could do it so paying for experience and retention has limited value. I agree with you on that point.

Things like a minimum wage and child labor laws and the abolishment of slavery and OSHA and a myriad of other regulations businesses have to adhere to are in place to prevent EXPLOITATIVE practices of others.

I swear people that preach free market values don't understand history or how society functions. I'm a capitalist, but true free markets do not exist in whatever pure form you think they do or should.

 

[WDWJoeG]

Things like a minimum wage and child labor laws and the abolishment of slavery and OSHA and a myriad of other regulations businesses have to adhere to are in place to prevent EXPLOITATIVE practices of others.

I swear people that preach free market values don't understand history or how society functions. I'm a capitalist, but true free markets do not exist in whatever pure form you think they do or should.

Because we're discussing slavery and child labor - thanks for the insight.

 

[JD80]

Because we're discussing slavery and child labor - thanks for the insight.

Of course we are. You're discussing a free market that doesn't care about the well being of the labor force and market forces should dictate the cost of labor. So naturally if there is a lack of labor in a given region, why not allow children to work in places they are capable like holding signs or handing out balloons?

Why are we concerned about a proper minimum wage but not concerned about government forcing businesses to chose who they can and can not hire?