The “wealthy” is not going to work

[Goofyernmost]

That brings up a good question for this board, given the topic...

How do you define wealthy?

Pretty much as @EngineerMom described it below.

But I know some people who are actually "wealthy". They don't have to think about doing things. They can just do what they want without ever worrying about paying for it. We have never had that. We think about how much things cost.

 

[Lilofan]

Pretty much as @EngineerMom described it below.

One I knew ran up credit card bills like no care in the world. She then moved to South America and didn't even pay her credit card bills before leaving the country.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

There is plenty of movement between economic classes. You will more likely than not be both "poor" and "wealthy" in your lifetime.

Talking about groups in generalities grossly misunderstands the progression through economic status of most Americans. You aren't entitled to a trip to Disney anyway.

Tell me about it!

I will say that is the genuine behind Disney marketing people now feel that they have to get to Disney at least once.
And I am stunned at how many people are personally, seriously mad that they can't afford to go. Do that many people here really get everything they want?

The problem is…that is statistically not correct. For everyone person that exceeds what they were born into…there’s about a 100 that go no further.

But we like to put that kinda stuff on tv and tell kids that…makes Christmas more merry…etc etc etc

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

One I knew ran up credit card bills like no care in the world. She then moved to South America and didn't even pay her credit card bills before leaving the country.

That’s not wealthy.

I would agree that wealthy - in essence - can navigate through life with the ability to change/move/educate as they want with no daily financial pressure

 

[SteveAZee]

One can have a high net worth but also have debt (net worth being assets minus debts equals equity, or net worth).. just saying. So if it's less important about income or even possible debt (if they have a lot of assets)... what's the ballpark figure of net worth for someone to be wealthy? $100M? $10M? $1M?

I agree that my view of someone who's wealthy probably doesn't have debt, or the debt they have is in something like real estate or a business venture or some other investment that's earning money at a higher rate than the rate of the debt... but generally someone who (as mentioned) doesn't think much about paying for something they want... though that's also got a cap on it, doesn't it? I think someone can be wealthy but not be able to afford that $100M yacht they've been thinking of. I guess, to me, it's all a continuum so that's why I ask... trying to get an idea of what people think wealth actually looks like.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

One can have a high net worth but also have debt (net worth being assets minus debts equals equity, or net worth).. just saying. So if it's less important about income or even possible debt (if they have a lot of assets)... what's the ballpark figure of net worth for someone to be wealthy? $100M? $10M? $1M?

I agree that my view of someone who's wealthy probably doesn't have debt, or the debt they have is in something like real estate or a business venture or some other investment that's earning money at a higher rate than the rate of the debt... but generally someone who (as mentioned) doesn't think much about paying for something they want... though that's also got a cap on it, doesn't it? I think someone can be wealthy but not be able to afford that $100M yacht they've been thinking of. I guess, to me, it's all a continuum so that's why I ask... trying to get an idea of what people think wealth actually looks like.

…within reason.

If you’re kids get into Yale and it costs $82,000 per (before sorority fees)…you say “ouch” and pay it nonetheless.

If you’ve always been looking for another place on a beach or a mountain…you say “oh well…” and let your attorney and semi private realtor handle it with little fuss.

That’s “wealth” to me…you can be happy with much less…and probably much more miserable with more

 

[SteveAZee]

…within reason.

If you’re kids get into Yale and it costs $82,000 per (before sorority fees)…you say “ouch” and pay it nonetheless.

If you’ve always been looking for another place on a beach or a mountain…you say “oh well…” and let your attorney and semi private realtor handle it with little fuss.

That’s “wealth” to me…you can be happy with much less…and probably much more miserable with more

This feels like someone whose net worth is north of $20M... multiple beach/mountain homes, not too bothered by $330K per child for a four year degree. Does that feel right?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

This feels like someone whose net worth is north of $20M... multiple beach/mountain homes, not too bothered by $330K per child for a four year degree. Does that feel right?

I would say a net worth of at least 5-10…least $750+ annual income would do it…

Obviously those numbers go up exponentially

 

[Lilofan]

That’s not wealthy.

I would agree that wealthy - in essence - can navigate through life with the ability to change/move/educate as they want with no daily financial pressure

Yes that isn't wealthy. Who is wealthy is The stealth wealthy and some I know who want to live like that below their means and under the radar is the FIRE crowd. Financially Independent Retire Early, crowd.

 

[DisneyHead123]

That brings up a good question for this board, given the topic...

How do you define wealthy?

Interesting philosophical question. I think it’s 100% relative. From a global perspective, anyone going to Disney World should consider themselves extravagantly wealthy and thank their lucky stars repeatedly that such a decision is in the cards for them. The wealth of the wealthiest few nations compared to much of the world is just staggering. Comparing “within county” is a bit different. In the US, unless you are Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk, it’s always easy to wave away whatever level of wealth you have because there’s always someone else who makes so much more (and there’s the phenomenon where the more you make, the more you pay - as soon as people make more money they often move to areas with staggering property taxes, private school fees, crazy costs of living, and so on, so increased income doesn’t necessarily translate to proportionate amounts of “money to burn” on the fun stuff in life.)

For the purposes of this thread, though, the question is “What should Disney be doing to appeal to the demographic who is most likely to frequent their properties?”. And my opinion, which I’ve stated before, is that in the US you don’t have to really do anything super class specific in order to appeal to people with the needed level of disposable income (“needed” in terms of them being able to buy what they’re selling.) We are mostly a country of mass appeal when it comes to marketing, we don’t have very specific styles that are marketed to more strictly delineated social “castes” of sort. So in a sense I think that how the wealthy are defined doesn’t matter so much in this particular conversation. What matters is if there’s a point where personal tastes change sharply based on class - and in the US that tends to only happen at the furthest ends of the spectrum (extreme wealth or extreme poverty.) Given what a small group the “0.01%” is, I don’t think Disney is making a concerted effort to market to them anyways.

 

[SteveAZee]

I found this, which gives some idea of how many households in the US have various levels of wealth...

How Many Millionaires Are There in America? - DQYDJ

See how many millionaires and decamillionaires there are in the United States. We explore $2, $3, $4, $5, $50, and $100 million net worth as well.

dqydj.com

 

[Disney Glimpses]

Disney isn't even going after millionaires necessarily. They're just going after high income families; starting around that $200,000 household income mark (top 10%). Often people in this income category are not millionaires and they may not even have a positive net worth.

 

[Chef Mickey]

It all depends on what you consider "wealthy"
Many people will be "poor" and comfortable in their lifetimes.
We have had times where one of us was unemployed, where we had to watch our pennies and other times we can take the family to Disney and enjoy eating out, etc.
But I know some people who are actually "wealthy". They don't have to think about doing things. They can just do what they want without ever worrying about paying for it. We have never had that. We think about how much things cost.

My point remains. My definitions are stats based relatively to other Americans. As an example, the bottom 20% of Americans versus the top 20%. Over 60% of Americans will be in BOTH categories during some part of their lives; in the top usually when they are older. This is the miracle of capitalism. You aren't destined to be poor just because you're poor right now. Do something about it.

The point is, talking about the "poor" or "rich in generalities is a a complete economic misnomer because you're not talking about actual people due to the tremendous movement between classes. The assumption would erroneously believe that those people are somehow "stuck" poor - not true at all.

 

[Brad Bishop]

I'd define wealthy as:

Working because you want to work, not because you have to.

 

[Disney Glimpses]

I'd define wealthy as:

Working because you want to work, not because you have to.

Can't say I agree with that. While many consider these poor choices, a CEO of a small company living in a $5 million house but needing that job to continue to live there to me doesn't make them not wealthy.

 

[Chef Mickey]

Interesting philosophical question. I think it’s 100% relative. From a global perspective, anyone going to Disney World should consider themselves extravagantly wealthy and thank their lucky stars repeatedly that such a decision is in the cards for them. The wealth of the wealthiest few nations compared to much of the world is just staggering. Comparing “within county” is a bit different. In the US, unless you are Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk, it’s always easy to wave away whatever level of wealth you have because there’s always someone else who makes so much more (and there’s the phenomenon where the more you make, the more you pay - as soon as people make more money they often move to areas with staggering property taxes, private school fees, crazy costs of living, and so on, so increased income doesn’t necessarily translate to proportionate amounts of “money to burn” on the fun stuff in life.)

For the purposes of this thread, though, the question is “What should Disney be doing to appeal to the demographic who is most likely to frequent their properties?”. And my opinion, which I’ve stated before, is that in the US you don’t have to really do anything super class specific in order to appeal to people with the needed level of disposable income (“needed” in terms of them being able to buy what they’re selling.) We are mostly a country of mass appeal when it comes to marketing, we don’t have very specific styles that are marketed to more strictly delineated social “castes” of sort. So in a sense I think that how the wealthy are defined doesn’t matter so much in this particular conversation. What matters is if there’s a point where personal tastes change sharply based on class - and in the US that tends to only happen at the furthest ends of the spectrum (extreme wealth or extreme poverty.) Given what a small group the “0.01%” is, I don’t think Disney is making a concerted effort to market to them anyways.

Relativity is probably all that matters, agreed.

The average person on welfare in America has a cell phone, 2 TVs (with cable), internet, air conditioning, clean water, and trash pickup. They are also more likely than not to be obese (plenty of food). No, I didn't just make that up.

People in America have lost all of their ability to reason because they were born into a wealthy nation (created by capitalism) and they believe everything just happens, resources are infinite, and they aren't subject to tradeoffs. They believe "free" is possible and bad outcomes are unacceptable regardless of cost. It's no surprise something like 25% of college students have a positive view of communism and an even higher percentage have a positive view of socialism.

Only complete ignorance of the facts and/or a privileged life enjoyed due to free markets would allow these perspectives.

Disney is in America. If it's important enough to you, you'll find a way to get there. You have limitless opportunity (until the government ruins it) to build your own wealth and make Disney a part of your life is you desire. Others abroad aren't that lucky.

 

[eliza61nyc]

The problem is…that is statistically not correct. For everyone person that exceeds what they were born into…there’s about a 100 that go no further.

But we like to put that kinda stuff on tv and tell kids that…makes Christmas more merry…etc etc etc

But do they blame a company? So I get to blame Mercedes Benz because I can't afford their cars??

I'm in no way getting into the why's and how's of why people can't get out of poverty and debt that's a whole 'bother issue but sorry sir, if you can't afford Disney (and that's the conversation I was chatting about) that's NOT the companies responsible

Disney can and should charge the maximum they can.

I'll let you know when the change.org petition to force Disney to be free goes live.

 

[DisneyHead123]

Relativity is probably all that matters, agreed.

The average person on welfare in America has a cell phone, 2 TVs (with cable), internet, air conditioning, clean water, and trash pickup. They are also more likely than not to be obese (plenty of food). No, I didn't just make that up.

People in America have lost all of their ability to reason because they were born into a wealthy nation (created by capitalism) and they believe everything just happens, resources are infinite, and they aren't subject to tradeoffs. They believe "free" is possible and bad outcomes are unacceptable regardless of cost. It's no surprise something like 25% of college students have a positive view of communism and an even higher percentage have a positive view of socialism.

Only complete ignorance of the facts and/or a privileged life enjoyed due to free markets would allow these perspectives.

Disney is in America. If it's important enough to you, you'll find a way to get there. You have limitless opportunity (until the government ruins it) to build your own wealth and make Disney a part of your life is you desire. Others abroad aren't that lucky.

So my view involves capitalism but diverges from yours a bit - I don’t think Disney has the capacity to accommodate everyone who truly wants to go and in some ways we’re seeing what happens when you don’t have enough competition in the market. Jacking up prices and lowering perks at an ever accelerating pace. My stance on this has generally been “capitalism works, but it works slowly”. It’s a Darwinian model and evolution of markets doesn’t happen overnight. I think we will see meaningful competitors to Disney pop up slowly over the next few decades and then we might have a market where people at many different income brackets can more easily access a Disney-esque experience without the overwhelming crowds. I think the demand for recreation has just exploded in recent history and the market has not caught up yet. As you noted, we’ve managed to make many things - cell phones, tvs, abundant food - pretty available to a huge portion of the population in the US. When there’s a really strong demand then hopefully there will be innovative people who find a way to meet it.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

But do they blame a company? So I get to blame Mercedes Benz because I can't afford their cars??

I'm in no way getting into the why's and how's of why people can't get out of poverty and debt that's a whole 'bother issue but sorry sir, if you can't afford Disney (and that's the conversation I was chatting about) that's NOT the companies responsible

Disney can and should charge the maximum they can.

I'll let you know when the change.org petition to force Disney to be free goes live.

Probably…but they shouldnt

 

[Chef Mickey]

So my view involves capitalism but diverges from yours a bit - I don’t think Disney has the capacity to accommodate everyone who truly wants to go and in some ways we’re seeing what happens when you don’t have enough competition in the market. Jacking up prices and lowering perks at an ever accelerating pace. My stance on this has generally been “capitalism works, but it works slowly”. It’s a Darwinian model and evolution of markets doesn’t happen overnight. I think we will see meaningful competitors to Disney pop up slowly over the next few decades and then we might have a market where people at many different income brackets can more easily access a Disney-esque experience without the overwhelming crowds. I think the demand for recreation has just exploded in recent history and the market has not caught up yet. As you noted, we’ve managed to make many things - cell phones, tvs, abundant food - pretty available to a huge portion of the population in the US. When there’s a really strong demand then hopefully there will be innovative people who find a way to meet it.

Capitalism doesn't work slowly. Capitalism performs miracles if allowed to work without government intervention. Disney is an experience, not like cellphones which are tools, used every day.

There are competitors to Disney. Six Flags, Sea World, Universal, Cedar Point, etc. You can't have unlimited amounts of theme parks because they are too costly to build, maintain, and keep the steady flow of guests.

The market is likely saturated with theme parks. Even Disney makes relatively low operating margins and Wallstreet essentially hates the Parks biz. Too capital intensive, too unpredictable, too lower of margins, etc. Disney just put up record park numbers and Wallstreet has sold off DIS by 50% from the high.

The reason Disney can get away with some stupid decisions is because they are 100 years old and have an incredibly huge competitive advantage, nostalgia, a massively strong brand, etc. That part takes time to build, but that's not evidence capitalism is slow. It just means consumers still like Disney despite prices increases and some stupidity. Ask Blackberry how slow capitalism is when a better product comes along.