LA Times: Is Disney Paying Its Fair Share In Anaheim

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I don't think anyone is unaware that these positions should be - in a functioning economy - supplemental and not the main source of income.

What seems to be happening in this thread is that people are talking past one another. On the one hand - people are right to point out that many (though not all) of these positions are "low skill" (not "low work"). On the other hand, people are also right to point out that people who work these jobs should not be living in poverty. These are not incompatible views, and pointing out the former does not address the latter.

What is really at issue is how we can address the macroeconomic problems that lead to working people living in or near poverty. Increases to the minimum wage (or equivalent) are one policy option. There may be others.

This is the rare enlightened opinion on economics/labor and the societal effects. Thank you.

 

[flynnibus]

For many people, these "entry level positions" are their only means of support. Can they get another job? Sure, if they can work around the full time hours required by the first "entry level position".

Can they find a different job with better pay? Sure, if the job exists. But there being a better-paying job for everyone who is currently in an "entry level position" pre-supposes that our economy works perfectly on a one-in-one-out method (e.g., one person retires making room for someone entering the workforce). But our economy doesn't work like that, and instead there are far too many "entry level positions", which, according to some lines of thought, aren't worth more than below a living wage.

Here is your problem... you are taking a side in your theory.

You want wages to always increase because you suggest they have a living wage... yet you assume business is constant. That in itself proves the initial postulate as impossible

If you take your constant business assumption first, you must accept that there is only a finite amount of labor that business can support. To increase labor costs means you keep squeezing the same pool of resources....

For the labor cost pool to keep increasing.. your business must keep increasing. Revenue comes from volume and prices... so figure out where that eventually ends up. And you have this feedback loop about prices and cost of living. Which is why simply 'pay more' is not the long term answer.

There are tons of jobs that are beyond entry level - the challenge is they take effort to obtain. That might mean moving, that might mean go down, before you go up, that might mean re-training. Far too many people are not willing to do what it takes to move beyond that entry level job and expect the comfortable life to just come to them.

 

[October82]

For the labor cost pool to keep increasing.. your business must keep increasing. Revenue comes from volume and prices... so figure out where that eventually ends up. And you have this feedback loop about prices and cost of living. Which is why simply 'pay more' is not the long term answer.

There are a few things that these sorts of arguments miss, including the effects of monetary policy and overall savings rates. As it turns out, for economies like ours, increasing wages does not directly increase prices. That doesn't mean that inflation isn't a concern, but we need to balance those concerns against concerns about poverty, and as others have pointed out, historical data on wages and prices largely supports the notion that wages, especially at the bottom, should be higher.

There are tons of jobs that are beyond entry level - the challenge is they take effort to obtain. That might mean moving, that might mean go down, before you go up, that might mean re-training. Far too many people are not willing to do what it takes to move beyond that entry level job and expect the comfortable life to just come to them.

Wages for most Americans are not increasing, and that is still true when you adjust for things like education. What we're dealing with are structural problems in the economy, not a lack of interest on the part of low income Americans in having better and higher paying jobs.

 

[flynnibus]

There are a few things that these sorts of arguments miss, including the effects of monetary policy and overall savings rates. As it turns out, for economies like ours, increasing wages does not directly increase prices. That doesn't mean that inflation isn't a concern, but we need to balance those concerns against concerns about poverty, and as others have pointed out, historical data on wages and prices largely supports the notion that wages, especially at the bottom, should be higher.

Of course balance is the answer... yet somehow the only thing that people bring up as needing fixing is raising wages The point of my post was the guy's argument about why people can't get better jobs is there isn't more jobs to get... which assumes a business is flat. You can't keep extracting more and more labor cost from a flat business.

Wages for most Americans are not increasing, and that is still true when you adjust for things like education. What we're dealing with are structural problems in the economy, not a lack of interest on the part of low income Americans in having better and higher paying jobs.

Yes, wages have stagnanted in recent times... but that topic is largely exaggerated by people focusing on "hey, look at those rich getting richer!" comparisons that are more emotional tugs. There has been HUGE wage growth... but it's often in different industries than traditionally people looked at.

Wage stagnantion really isn't part of the discussion when you are talking about people doing the same 'walk off the street' entry level job for 10+ years. If you don't want to be bottom of the barrel, what are you doing to change that?

Heck, my childhood friend just posted he's looking for concrete finishers... will hire you on the spot.. $20/hr plus 1.5x overtime rate. If I'm tired of making $9/hr at McDonalds.... I'd be asking 'how do I become a concrete finisher'. Instead... most just complain about how much McDonald's pays.

 

[October82]

Of course balance is the answer... yet somehow the only thing that people bring up as needing fixing is raising wages The point of my post was the guy's argument about why people can't get better jobs is there isn't more jobs to get... which assumes a business is flat. You can't keep extracting more and more labor cost from a flat business.

The reason for this is that the macroeconomic data strongly suggests that increasing wages is likely to be a viable and effective policy.

I am not the other poster, so I won't comment on his point in more detail than to say that for various reasons, we do see corporations grow without producing better jobs. That's a problem, and the solution to it is something that we should be talking about because reasonable people disagree on the causes.

Yes, wages have stagnanted in recent times... but that topic is largely exaggerated by people focusing on "hey, look at those rich getting richer!" comparisons that are more emotional tugs. There has been HUGE wage growth... but it's often in different industries than traditionally people looked at.

I don't disagree with the idea that the topic has been "emotionalized", but wage stagnation is real and applies to low, medium and high income earners. This is still true when you look at things like the number of people pursuing high skilled work, or moving from industries that are traditionally low paying to those that offer higher pay. It is a very serious problem for the long term health of the economy.

Heck, my childhood friend just posted he's looking for concrete finishers... will hire you on the spot.. $20/hr plus 1.5x overtime rate. If I'm tired of making $9/hr at McDonalds.... I'd be asking 'how do I become a concrete finisher'. Instead... most just complain about how much McDonald's pays.

I appreciate these stories, but they don't address the macroeconomic issues posed by things like wage stagnation. You're right to point out that there are "low skill" jobs that pay well - and people often (wrongly) do look down on concrete finishing rather than view it as a profession that can support one's livelihood. But that's the problem with wage stagnation - both the guy working at McDonalds and the concrete finisher are underpaid. Saying that someone should move from one underpaid job to a higher paying job that still doesn't pay what it should isn't a solution to issues about poverty.

This all very likely applies to both of us as well. But we mostly don't talk about that bigger picture because it is, I think, easier to think that these issues only impact those at the bottom or those in low skill jobs. They're part of the story, and providing incentives for people to get new skills is part of the solution, but it's important to stress repeatedly that these issues are bigger than McDonalds or Disneyland.

 

[flynnibus]

The reason for this is that the macroeconomic data strongly suggests that increasing wages is likely to be a viable and effective policy.

Then bring those studies and opinions to the table to be discussed. So far, all we have is 'woe is me' opinions on why a person should be paid more without anything suggesting why they stay in that job.

I am not the other poster, so I won't comment on his point in more detail than to say that for various reasons, we do see corporations grow without producing better jobs. That's a problem, and the solution to it is something that we should be talking about because reasonable people disagree on the causes.

Sure they can grow and not create more or better jobs... but the inverse is not perpetually true. You can't keep producing more and better paying jobs without the money to fund that. Growth doesn't mean better paying jobs by default... but ultimately individual companies are forced to ATTRACT talent. Less need to attract.. less pressure on compensation.

I appreciate these stories, but they don't address the macroeconomic issues posed by things like wage stagnation. You're right to point out that there are "low skill" jobs that pay well - and people often (wrongly) do look down on concrete finishing rather than view it as a profession that can support one's livelihood. But that's the problem with wage stagnation - both the guy working at McDonalds and the concrete finisher are underpaid. Saying that someone should move from one underpaid job to a higher paying job that still doesn't pay what it should isn't a solution to issues about poverty.

If you think $20/hr+overtime is underpaid for a role that is largely unskilled labor... I hate to think what you think people should be paid.. because it's no where near sustainable in today's dollars.

And the McDonald's job (and those like it) will always be cheap labor as long as that's what the market supplies.

 

[October82]

Then bring those studies and opinions to the table to be discussed. So far, all we have is 'woe is me' opinions on why a person should be paid more without anything suggesting why they stay in that job.

I don't agree with this characterization of the conversation. People have discussed the general results that economists have arrived at (though I'm personally always happy to share pdfs of papers and the like, feel free to PM me or bring up specific points). The bigger issue, though, is that we shouldn't be talking about wages as "deserved" or in terms of individuals because that just isn't how markets work in general. What we should be talking about are the factors that lead to wages being what they are in a macroeconomic sense, and how those factors are impacted by things like minimum wage laws or financial regulations.

Sure they can grow and not create more or better jobs... but the inverse is not perpetually true. You can't keep producing more and better paying jobs without the money to fund that. Growth doesn't mean better paying jobs by default... but ultimately individual companies are forced to ATTRACT talent. Less need to attract.. less pressure on compensation.

This is only true if labor markets are well functioning - which we know they are not.

If you think $20/hr+overtime is underpaid for a role that is largely unskilled labor... I hate to think what you think people should be paid.. because it's no where near sustainable in today's dollars.

And the McDonald's job (and those like it) will always be cheap labor as long as that's what the market supplies.

And here's sort of where this conversation goes off course. What we're talking about, ultimately, is whether price level in labor markets - but the assumption underlying your point here is that price level is fixed or that those of us in the labor markets have good intuition for the overall market. It's not fixed and we don't have that intuition.

We can get a better sense of what labor markets should look like through historical data in our own economy, and by comparison to similar economies. In both cases, we find that wages are lower in the US than they should be, despite many decades of strong GDP growth.

 

[TP2000]

Not everyone can be a doctor, lawyer or Indian chief. We need skilled blue collar workers too....

There is plenty of jobs available, people just need the right kind of education.

Don't even get me started on how our culture has looked down on blue collar skilled tradesmen for the past 20 years or so. According to trendy pop culture, they were always the dumb grunts living in trailer parks in flyover states who shopped at the wrong big box stores and drank the wrong brand of beer and watched the wrong TV shows.

Going off to a trade school to learn a skill, which should be something many high school grads are encouraged to do and praised for, was thought to be a sign of parental failure. And too many high school guidance counselors and administrators played along with that stereotype and pushed kids into college who should have gone to trade school.

That 20 year old kid in Seattle in the NPR story making $28 an hour as his training rate while he is in trade school is actually the smart one. Meanwhile, his friends from high school are in college earning a nearly worthless Liberal Arts degree, racking up huge student loan debt, and working part time at Starbucks for half the money he is already making.

 

[October82]

That 20 year old kid in Seattle in the NPR story making $28 an hour as his training rate while he is in trade school is actually the smart one. Meanwhile, his friends from high school are in college earning a nearly worthless Liberal Arts degree, racking up huge student loan debt, and working part time at Starbucks for half the money he is already making.

I actually completely agree with you about learning a skilled trade - but in this last paragraph, you're guilty of exactly what you criticize. Just like a livelihood in a skilled trade is something to be admired and appreciated, so too is finding meaning and livelihood in a liberal arts education.

How about we focus on making sure everyone is able to achieve both a livelihood and a meaningful career?

 

[flynnibus]

The bigger issue, though, is that we shouldn't be talking about wages as "deserved" or in terms of individuals because that just isn't how markets work in general

Well that's because some don't see it as 'markets' but as employers who owe people sustaining jobs. Instead of people working jobs to sustain themselves. One is a mandate down... one is someone clawing up.

What we should be talking about are the factors that lead to wages being what they are in a macroeconomic sense, and how those factors are impacted by things like minimum wage laws or financial regulations

Ok, here's an easy one... how many people are at the casting center in Anaheim every week? What does that do to wages and retention needs?

This is only true if labor markets are well functioning - which we know they are not.

They don't have to be pure... to work in the simple sense of at the low end of hourly, part time work.... wages will have downward pressure as long as they can easily fill the roles successfully. Fail to do so, they make the roles more attractive.

Today, here in our regional sense, they artificially keep the supply of workers up by importing J-1 seasonal workers. People have realized they can make money by recruiting, placing, and housing those workers. Those workers are backfilling roles without requiring wages to go up.

And here's sort of where this conversation goes off course. What we're talking about, ultimately, is whether price level in labor markets - but the assumption underlying your point here is that price level is fixed or that those of us in the labor markets have good intuition for the overall market. It's not fixed and we don't have that intuition.

I don't assume it's fixed. But what I do know is... the idea of today's $3 Auntie Anne's pretzel at the counter will go away if the shop owner is paying $100/hr in raw labor instead of the $40/hr he is paying now.. because his sales would have to increase by multiples to even cover the new overhead. The demand for his product is not going to shoot up overnight like that.

I know the landscaper will no longer charge $30 to mow a lawn that takes them 25mins because he is paying 2 laborers that can only cut two lawns an hour... and at $40+/hr he can't even cover expenses. It doesn't matter how much more demand or labor is out there... people need to cover expenses first.

With cost of living growing way faster than any inflation indexes... I'm far more worried about that than the growth of mandated minimum wages.... especially when there are plenty of employers offering way MORE than the minimums today.

In my area, Sheetz is hiring at $12/hr for cashiers... the state minimum wage is $7.25. Be willing to work with kids, you can get hired at $15/hr... no prior experience needed. Just be good at your job.

If you are stuck at Burger King and miserable at $8/hr... improve yourself first.

When I see the 'working poor' struggle... I am far more motivated and empathetic than the folks who've done nothing but sit still and expect the world to bend to them.

"there is no good jobs in my town..." - Then why the hell are you still there?

 

[October82]

Well that's because some don't see it as 'markets' but as employers who owe people sustaining jobs. Instead of people working jobs to sustain themselves. One is a mandate down... one is someone clawing up.

Another poster on this board, who I probably disagree with on just about everything, recently put it well. Economics isn't about feelings, economics is about facts. It's not about mandates, and it's not about people pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. It's about how we can make sure that our economy works well and has a strong foundation.

If you want to have a conversation about the attitudes that you think employers should have, or what jobs you think are about people clawing up, that's a fine conversation to have. But it isn't one about economics or policy.

Ok, here's an easy one... how many people are at the casting center in Anaheim every week? What does that do to wages and retention needs?

Just to emphasize the point that you quoted here - this is a macroeconomic issue - not one about Anaheim, Disney, or any other specific company. Decisions that companies like Disney make can not be discussed without understanding what is causing labor markets to behave in the way that they are.

They don't have to be pure... to work in the simple sense of at the low end of hourly, part time work.... wages will have downward pressure as long as they can easily fill the roles successfully. Fail to do so, they make the roles more attractive.

I'm not sure what you mean by "pure" here, but again, we know as an empirical fact that this is not happening. The argument that you are making is based on ideas about how labor markets should work (really just how all markets should work), that only apply when markets are functioning well. When markets are not functioning, wages do not respond to changes in demand in the way that basic economic theory predicts. As a result, wages in general become stagnant.

The underlying causes for failures in labor markets are complicated - and we should talk about them - but to have that conversation, we have to acknowledge that the simple view of how labor markets should act does not mean that they do act that way.

Today, here in our regional sense, they artificially keep the supply of workers up by importing J-1 seasonal workers. People have realized they can make money by recruiting, placing, and housing those workers. Those workers are backfilling roles without requiring wages to go up.

This is really a separate topic.

I don't assume it's fixed. But what I do know is... the idea of today's $3 Auntie Anne's pretzel at the counter will go away if the shop owner is paying $100/hr in raw labor instead of the $40/hr he is paying now.. because his sales would have to increase by multiples to even cover the new overhead. The demand for his product is not going to shoot up overnight like that.

I know the landscaper will no longer charge $30 to mow a lawn that takes them 25mins because he is paying 2 laborers that can only cut two lawns an hour... and at $40+/hr he can't even cover expenses. It doesn't matter how much more demand or labor is out there... people need to cover expenses first.

In these sorts of conversations, it's important to understand that simple analogies (or simple examples) are not likely to be representative. Again, we know from studies of 1) other economies with similar makeup to our own 2) historical data on our own economy, and 3) empirical studies of wage increases in certain economic sectors, that wages are below the best estimates of what wages would be were the labor markets functioning. This applies most strongly to low skill labor, but it also applies to medium and high skill labor.

With cost of living growing way faster than any inflation indexes... I'm far more worried about that than the growth of mandated minimum wages.... especially when there are plenty of employers offering way MORE than the minimums today.

If cost of living is growing faster than inflation (not sure exactly what you mean by this or what data you're referring to), than the poverty problem is going to get worse, and the necessity of minimum wage increases is higher than if the reverse is true. You're correct to point out that inflation is not necessarily the same as the real rate of cost of living increases, but the point you're making here is one that I addressed earlier - namely that minimum wage increases do not translate directly into price increases.

If you are stuck at Burger King and miserable at $8/hr... improve yourself first.

I just want to emphasize, here, again, that in a macroeconomic sense, we are not seeing people able to attain the sort of wage increases by "improving themselves" that you want to see. I think this is something we can agree on - we need to figure out how to make it so that people can move from those low income jobs to high income jobs by improving themselves. People who go to school or become skilled in some profession should get a living wage. That they're not is a problem that has largely been ignored in this conversation.

When I see the 'working poor' struggle... I am far more motivated and empathetic than the folks who've done nothing but sit still and expect the world to bend to them.

"there is no good jobs in my town..." - Then why the hell are you still there?

I think it is really difficult to blame people for the position they're in when I don't know anything about them. I do think that working people shouldn't be in poverty - even if their career choices aren't the ones I would make.

 

[TP2000]

I actually completely agree with you about learning a skilled trade - but in this last paragraph, you're guilty of exactly what you criticize. Just like a livelihood in a skilled trade is something to be admired and appreciated, so too is finding meaning and livelihood in a liberal arts education.

How about we focus on making sure everyone is able to achieve both a livelihood and a meaningful career?

Valid point. But I worry about all those kids who were shuffled off to State U to get a "degree" and then start their cubicle career tens of thousands of dollars in debt; starting their lives with a flood of other similarly trained graduates who depress the wages for the cubicle jobs that do exist.

Meanwhile, the trade schools are employing every graduate they can create with instant high paying jobs and virtually no debt.
From an economic and self-development perspective, the kids going off to trade school should be lauded as the smart and savvy ones, but too often in pop culture that is not the case at all.

 

[Travel Junkie]

Bernie Sanders opinion piece for The Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...neyland-workers-living-wage-disney-inequality

 

[Deleted member 107043]

Bernie Sanders opinion piece for The Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...neyland-workers-living-wage-disney-inequality

The average hourly wage for Disneyland Resort workers in real dollars dropped 15% from 2000 to 2017, from $15.80 to $13.36. Today, over 80% of Disneyland workers make less than $12 an hour. Almost three-quarters say that they do not earn enough money to cover basic expenses every month. Over half of Disneyland employees report concerns about being evicted from their homes or apartments.

Incredibly, more than one out of 10 Disneyland Resort employees report having been homeless – or not having a place of their own to sleep – in the past two years. More than two-thirds of Disneyland Resort workers are food insecure. Only 28% of Disneyland employees report having the same schedule every week.

I can't think of a more damaging set of facts for Disneyland in 2018 than these two paragraphs. The only thing that would make it more embarrassing is if Sanders had shared data on increases in guest spending and ticket prices during the period from 2000 to 2017. The ideals for Disneyland, and the spirit of hope and optimism that inspired it, have been completely drained by Disney's greedy corporate management.

 

[flynnibus]

Another poster on this board, who I probably disagree with on just about everything, recently put it well. Economics isn't about feelings, economics is about facts. It's not about mandates, and it's not about people pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. It's about how we can make sure that our economy works well and has a strong foundation.

If you want to have a conversation about the attitudes that you think employers should have, or what jobs you think are about people clawing up, that's a fine conversation to have. But it isn't one about economics or policy.

Clearly you are one that either studies or practices in the topic.. but maybe we should have a gut check. Economics is not a science of hard laws and theorms. Economics is about describing and modeling what is ultimately human behaviors. It is predictive theory and modeling that is not an exact science at all. It's why after centuries, we still do not have consensus on the 'right path' and why organizations with the most resources on the planet still fail to control their economies with rigor.

So please, spare us the dismissive vague "fact" citations that Economics works like X... if we just executed it.

There is a reason there is no economy on the planet "works fully" over a sustainable period of time without swings and adaptations... and why it's not just "look it up in the tables" to answer how something should be done.

Just to emphasize the point that you quoted here - this is a macroeconomic issue - not one about Anaheim, Disney, or any other specific company. Decisions that companies like Disney make can not be discussed without understanding what is causing labor markets to behave in the way that they are.

But the solutions being proposed ARE specific to a specific area or company. And at the same time, most efforts to change these policies around minimum pay HAVE been in pockets. So, please, point us to your cities of MACRO level labor resolutions fueled by more than trippling the minimum pay out there.

Heck, show me any cites of the working, functional, SELF SUFFICIENT, long term success models you keep inferring are needed here. Most examples I suspect people will point to are not actually self sufficient societies or haven't actually executed that way over generations. Because again, if it were so perfect, why isn't everyone already there?

I'm not sure what you mean by "pure" here, but again, we know as an empirical fact that this is not happening

Pure - as in 'ideal' or 'perfect' - The empirical data I've seen is always limited in scope... or not representative of the type of change being poised here (changes in 10-20% are nothing like changes in 200-300%).

The underlying causes for failures in labor markets are complicated - and we should talk about them - but to have that conversation, we have to acknowledge that the simple view of how labor markets should act does not mean that they do act that way.

Yeah, kind of how economic theory doesn't mean a certain outcome... so why do you keep pointing to vague examples as if it were a certainty?

This is really a separate topic.

No, it's not separate. It's an example of how the balance of jobs vs workers vs pay can act in the real world.. and how Economics doesn't always predict the adaptations that ultimately result from human behavior... that the theory is just a model, limited by what it takes into consideration... not an actual law or fact. Where as things like balance sheets, are real, and businesses don't survive month to month on theory, but accounting - not economics.

In these sorts of conversations, it's important to understand that simple analogies (or simple examples) are not likely to be representative. Again, we know from studies of 1) other economies with similar makeup to our own 2) historical data on our own economy, and 3) empirical studies of wage increases in certain economic sectors, that wages are below the best estimates of what wages would be were the labor markets functioning. This applies most strongly to low skill labor, but it also applies to medium and high skill labor.

Yet the analogies picked are not red herrings... nor are they corner cases. Please direct us to these functioning labor markets with economies similar to our own that are sustaining themselves long term.

If cost of living is growing faster than inflation (not sure exactly what you mean by this or what data you're referring to), than the poverty problem is going to get worse, and the necessity of minimum wage increases is higher than if the reverse is true. You're correct to point out that inflation is not necessarily the same as the real rate of cost of living increases, but the point you're making here is one that I addressed earlier - namely that minimum wage increases do not translate directly into price increases.

I think the price indexes are full of @#$^. I can't think of any consumer products (except those in tech.. or those who are still migrating to being offshored) where the prices follow anything like the CPI. Services are even worse. So yes, I am particularity sensitive to topics that will drive overhead costs dramatically... because it's impossible (macro or micro or anything) for these costs to be absorbed transparently in all businesses. Macro analysis may love to aborb variations through differences in scale or volume... but it does not change the hard reality that you can't sell your products at a loss, or if you must target a specific margin, you will be forced to adapt to hit it.

Targeted increases hide impacts because businesses are forced to compete with others who are not impacted equally... which means making compromises that may not be sustainable long term.. but don't show up in short term analysis.

I just want to emphasize, here, again, that in a macroeconomic sense, we are not seeing people able to attain the sort of wage increases by "improving themselves" that you want to see

Well maybe because there are macro trends in people... that mean they aren't doing it in large scale. You're measuring from the result of the whole, verse the impact of those actually participating in the change.

I think this is something we can agree on - we need to figure out how to make it so that people can move from those low income jobs to high income jobs by improving themselves. People who go to school or become skilled in some profession should get a living wage. That they're not is a problem that has largely been ignored in this conversation.

No it's not ignored - it's the difference in belief in what the target is, and how to get there. I want a healthy society - that doesn't mean I necessarily want a world where 'anyone can live comfortably doing anything they want'.

Some advocate the solution is 'pay everyone at least X to get people to afford a cost of living' - others don't believe every task should meet that standard, nor do people necessarily agree on what costs should be included.

Hence why we get a conversation of if someone should be a valet for 10+ years... and what the result of that should be.

I think it is really difficult to blame people for the position they're in when I don't know anything about them. I do think that working people shouldn't be in poverty - even if their career choices aren't the ones I would make.

And I don't think the solution is a 'gimmie' to any and every situation. Which is why you've seen me advocate in this thread for solutions that include ENABLERS and means to try to reduce burdens... not just hand out monopoly money and think 'if everyone makes alot, our problems are solved'

 

[October82]

Clearly you are one that either studies or practices in the topic.. but maybe we should have a gut check. Economics is not a science of hard laws and theorms. Economics is about describing and modeling what is ultimately human behaviors. It is predictive theory and modeling that is not an exact science at all. It's why after centuries, we still do not have consensus on the 'right path' and why organizations with the most resources on the planet still fail to control their economies with rigor.

It's a mistake to think that because there are things that we don't know about a topic, that this means that we don't know anything about a topic. Economics isn't physics, but there is plenty of consensus on the issues that are relevant to policy making.

So please, spare us the dismissive vague "fact" citations that Economics works like X... if we just executed it.

I apologize if I've ever come off as dismissive, but when claims are made that are not factual, those claims don't get a pass. We should use the best information that is available to us, and make policy with that in mind. Not dismiss information because we either previously weren't aware of it or it conflicts with our views about how the world should work.

There is a reason there is no economy on the planet "works fully" over a sustainable period of time without swings and adaptations... and why it's not just "look it up in the tables" to answer how something should be done.

No one said otherwise.

But the solutions being proposed ARE specific to a specific area or company.

As you pointed out earlier - we should to decouple our conversation around the minimum wage from the political and emotional discussion around it. Yes, this thread is specifically about Anaheim and Disney. The reason for that is that Disney is a high profile company whose workers have not seen appreciable wage growth - and hence, it is easy to talk about politically. But Disney and Anaheim are part of a larger economy, and that economy matters for this discussion. The specific questions that you asked will only have misleading answers because of that.

That's why what I have been talking about is more general - what are wages like nationally in all sectors of the economy? What should they be? What is the poverty rate? How do we address this from a policy perspective? What are the likely impacts of those policies?

And at the same time, most efforts to change these policies around minimum pay HAVE been in pockets.

Because that's how our political system works.

So, please, point us to your cities of MACRO level labor resolutions fueled by more than trippling the minimum pay out there.

That's not a claim I made. I'm happy to provide citations for any specific claim - things like the impact of minimum wage on price level, minimum wage laws on poverty, on employment rates, etc. I've also been quite clear that there are other policy options, and exactly what form increases to the minimum wage should take is an open question.

Heck, show me any cites of the working, functional, SELF SUFFICIENT, long term success models you keep inferring are needed here. Most examples I suspect people will point to are not actually self sufficient societies or haven't actually executed that way over generations. Because again, if it were so perfect, why isn't everyone already there?

Every developed economy on the planet? You seem to think this is about ideology - again - I'm not interested in politics or feelings, I'm interested in economics. Capitalist economies are a great thing.

Pure - as in 'ideal' or 'perfect' - The empirical data I've seen is always limited in scope... or not representative of the type of change being poised here (changes in 10-20% are nothing like changes in 200-300%).

There seem to be several separate arguments being made here. What has been discussed up until this point in this thread is historical income measures. The comment you were responding to here was about whether labor markets are competitive. "Ideal" and "perfect" aren't really terms in common use in economics, while terms like "competitive" and "functioning" have quantitative meaning.

If you want to restrict the discussion of the data to a particular group, we can look for data appropriate to answering a specific question.

Yeah, kind of how economic theory doesn't mean a certain outcome... so why do you keep pointing to vague examples as if it were a certainty?

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

No, it's not separate. It's an example of how the balance of jobs vs workers vs pay can act in the real world.. and how Economics doesn't always predict the adaptations that ultimately result from human behavior... that the theory is just a model, limited by what it takes into consideration... not an actual law or fact. Where as things like balance sheets, are real, and businesses don't survive month to month on theory, but accounting - not economics.

Economics is a science like any other - just like physics isn't just "theory" - economics isn't either. Again, the points that I have made are well studied in the economics literature, most of which consists of how the economy behaves in the "real world". I have tried to be careful to note where the data is either insufficient for answering questions or where I am personally unaware of what the answers are. I am happy to provide direct citations on any specific point.

Yet the analogies picked are not red herrings... nor are they corner cases. Please direct us to these functioning labor markets with economies similar to our own that are sustaining themselves long term.

I don't usually do this because I think that it doesn't help conversation - but actually your analogies are exactly red herrings - and the latter part of this comment is a strawman. If you want to talk economics, let's talk. If you're more interested in arguing about your political and social views, that's not really a conversation I'm interested in. We probably agree about many of those issues. I want an economy that provides opportunity for people and allows people a reasonable livelihood. We simply don't have that, and no amount of ideology is going to change the facts around things like wage stagnation. If increasing the minimum wage can help solve that problem, then we should support that solution.

And that's why I'm probably going to leave this conversation here. It's about economics, not ideology.

 

[flynnibus]

No one said otherwise.

Yet you keep saying these correlations are proven - as if it's just a matter of implementing them and the future is clear. It's not.

Yes, this thread is specifically about Anaheim and Disney. The reason for that is that Disney is a high profile company whose workers have not seen appreciable wage growth - and hence, it is easy to talk about politically

No, it's the topic because there were SPECIFIC initiatives aimed at this locale and company... which people tried to advocate should be the standard for all.

Because that's how our political system works.

And it also means you can't extrapolate results as if the scenarios were the same.

That's not a claim I made. I'm happy to provide citations for any specific claim - things like the impact of minimum wage on price level, minimum wage laws on poverty, on employment rates, etc. I've also been quite clear that there are other policy options, and exactly what form increases to the minimum wage should take is an open question.

You specifically have called out the $20 concrete finisher as under paid. And make references like "We can get a better sense of what labor markets should look like through historical data in our own economy, and by comparison to similar economies. In both cases, we find that wages are lower in the US than they should be, despite many decades of strong GDP growth" to suggest there is a better number out there... yet again fail to reference specific working examples where the theory is in practice with healthy results.

Every developed economy on the planet? You seem to think this is about ideology - again - I'm not interested in politics or feelings, I'm interested in economics. Capitalist economies are a great thing.

So you say our labor market isn't well functioning... and when asked to point to an example of the sustaining one.. you answer with glib (which also contradicts yourself) instead of pointing to these current proven examples we should be following.

If you want to restrict the discussion of the data to a particular group, we can look for data appropriate to answering a specific question.

And yet, anytime that was done.. your retort was 'well at the MACRO level..."...

Economics is a science like any other

Not at all - systematic or modeling does not make it equal with the idea of absolutes or intrinsic laws of nature. Math is an absolute. Economics is a model that describes and organizes observations and tries to explain the behavior in a way that can be applied to other samples. But in no way can you go back and say "That can't happen because Economics says it can't" - you can only hope your sample follows in the same way your theory has accounted for. Understanding of sciences can be incomplete, so the predictions may be off.. but when the understanding is correct, the outcome will always be correct within the margin of error. Economics is more like psychology than it is physiology. It hopes to explain behaviors - not bind them.

but actually your analogies are exactly red herrings - and the latter part of this comment is a strawman

No, I just want you to stop talking theory and start talking examples of your theory in practice. You keep saying this is all known.. and compare our current situation to other working models. Well... point out the control case. Point out the one that IS working. Otherwise, it's just back to models and theorems, not practical examples to follow.

 

[October82]

No, I just want you to stop talking theory and start talking examples of your theory in practice. You keep saying this is all known.. and compare our current situation to other working models. Well... point out the control case. Point out the one that IS working. Otherwise, it's just back to models and theorems, not practical examples to follow.

I want to try to bring this conversation back on course, since it seems like we're talking past each other because we have different understandings of what "theory" and "practicality" are.

In science and economics, theory does not mean unsupported or "vague", rather, theory consists of both (precise) models and empirical evidence. Another word for theory is "best understanding". But it's easy to criticize "theory" because to most people the word implies uncertainty.

This makes conversation difficult because all of our arguments are about theory. What we want to figure out is which "theory" is the right one. And we do that by looking at the data. If we believe labor markets, for instance, are working well, then we know what the data should look like. If we look at that data and don't see that, we know that labor markets aren't working well. The indicator of dysfunctional labor markets that I've focused on is wage stagnation (e.g. relative to history in our own economy, or in comparison to other similar economies (G8, G20, etc.)), and while there are other measures, I don't think I've been particularly vague about it. Many others in this thread have also referenced the data and provided links to it in various forms, and I'm happy to give citations on specific points.

Where we seem to be encountering friction is that many of the arguments you've offered are really about specific individuals in specific situations - and while I think those are worth discussing for many of the reasons you've mentioned and the important insights they sometimes yield - the ones you've mentioned so far don't address the bigger picture. They just ignore too much about the economy. We should come back to them once we've made progress on our bigger disagreements.

That doesn't mean that talking about what we know from economics is ignoring the practicalities. It just means that the bigger picture is more complicated, and those complications turn out to matter a lot. I can answer specific questions for which there is a specific answer - if you want to know how wages have evolved, adjusted for things like household size, there's a definite answer. I can't answer questions with data that don't have answers - either because it is hard to measure certain effects, or because the question turns out not to make sense.

One issue that comes up in that context is that a lot of the macroeconomic effects have to do with the global economy. As a consequence, we have to be careful in comparing, for instance, wage growth in the UK compared to wage growth in the US. That doesn't mean that we can't do it, but it does mean that we have to be careful in our interpretation. We also need to be careful not to beg the question with references to claims about the unsustainability (I assume) European economies that have been made earlier in this thread. If we're serious about understanding our own economic policy issues, we need to be careful to understand how other countries have approached economic policy.

Economics is hard. I came into this conversation with the goal of clarifying some places that the everyday wisdom turns out to not be right, and to hopefully point out some places where the conversation gets bogged down without making progress, not to support any political or social ideology. I'm not sure if you want to continue this conversation, but I'm happy to as long as we can make progress on the economic disagreements. I'll probably leave the politics as economics discussion to others.

 

[Darkbeer1]

Gentlepersons , I have a request...

This thread is basically a thread that discusses the interaction between the Disneyland Resort and the city of Anaheim's government.

Yes, one of the things in the news recently is the Anaheim Living Wage Initiative,

But it seems we have gone past the ALWI into a sub-totic that has morphed into a discussion that deserves its own thread.

I would appreciate it if we could either wrap it up here, or if you want to continue, please start a new thread.

Thanks in advance.

Have a great weekend, watch out for pirates that want to auction off your belongings.

 

[Phroobar]

I've stopped reading their "discussion" long ago.

Guys get a room!