• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Unionized cast members must approve company contract to receive $1K bonus

Sirwalterraleigh

Well-Known Member
CEOs hopping on Varney and Friends will tell you higher wages = less jobs. Strange they would say that, hard to imagine why they would have an interest in keeping wages down.
But here's the thing...THEYRE LYING!!!

even "liberal" ones like Zuckerberg, Tim Cook and iger....

There's little different between wall street and the guys who used to hang out in little Italy eating clams
 

Kman101

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
Amen, Reverend!!!
The business/politics things is a really vicious cycle that we're trapped in (and sinking in).

I could keep going but I don't want to veer into politics and I've probably already taken the thread a bit off course. I haven't caught up on all the pages.
 

Kman101

Well-Known Member
Absolutely no reputable economic studies have linked higher wages to higher unemployment...

That's the type of crap political pundits who used to be on access Hollywood or run a really boring hour of the Today Show spew...

It's pretty basic and logical...wages go up, people have more money to spend, they spend it, more people are employed to make and sell it to them...

It's the opposite of a "vicious cycle"..it's the middle class model and the 20th century history of the economics in the United States. Period.

I'm starting to really worry about some of this stuff...and I just saw Paul krugman on the street a couple weeks ago.
To be fair, the more I started making at my first retail store job I ended up working a little less because by that point I had mentally moved on and was looking elsewhere, it was a matter of time before the honeymoon ended. So I don't quite agree it's accurate to say someone making more works harder. In theory that's a nice thought, I'm sure on some level that's true for some but I don't think it's really statistically accurate. But if anyone has studies to show me I'd love to read them. It could very well be true.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Well-Known Member
To be fair, the more I started making at my first retail store job I ended up working a little less because by that point I had mentally moved on and was looking elsewhere, it was a matter of time before the honeymoon ended. So I don't quite agree it's accurate to say someone making more works harder. In theory that's a nice thought, I'm sure on some level that's true for some but I don't think it's really statistically accurate. But if anyone has studies to show me I'd love to read them. It could very well be true.
I'm not saying they work harder...I'm saying higher wages dumped into the economy has way more advantaged than disadvantages...like lower unemployment, or at a minimum - better paying jobs above that line.
 

21stamps

Well-Known Member
Absolutely no reputable economic studies have linked higher wages to higher unemployment...

That's the type of crap political pundits who used to be on access Hollywood or run a really boring hour of the Today Show spew...

It's pretty basic and logical...wages go up, people have more money to spend, they spend it, more people are employed to make and sell it to them...

It's the opposite of a "vicious cycle"..it's the middle class model and the 20th century history of the economics in the United States. Period.

I'm starting to really worry about some of this stuff...and I just saw Paul krugman on the street a couple weeks ago.
Let’s look at some basics. I have many,but I’ll just give 2 anecdotal examples, to keep it simple.

The company I work for had a record breaking 2015, then 2016 saw a slight increase, and then the first 2 quarters of 2017 saw a sharp downtown in profits. A coworker of mine, one I greatly respect, had a salary of 250k, with double-triple K didget bonuses on top of that figure, and an expense account, a high car allowance- much higher than the rest of us. I think he deserved it, obviously so did the company.
Who do you think was the first to go when profits fell?
The guy did nothing wrong, but his layoff automatically gave the company about half a million dollars per year, totally freed up now, with one payroll change. It wasn’t the only change, but it was the most shocking.



So let’s go to the other side of the spectrum.
Friends of mine, immigrants (legal) who came to America with not much more than a couple of suitcases and a backpack at age 21. They started out in a low wage retail job, lived in a 3 bedroom house with 4 people (Key West if you’d like to look up the low cost of living there).

They saved and saved. Then one after another, each purchased a store, just 1 store, and worked 12-16 hour days themselves, 6-7 days per week. Keeping one or two employees at most. Why? Because they couldn’t afford to hire more at that time.
1 of them went back to his home country. The other 3 now own homes, and own business much larger than 1 retail store. The 2 who stayed in the retail business no longer have to work in their stores at a salesperson. They can bounce between the different cities to check in, they can vacation where they wish.. they still work hard, but it’s a different kind of work. They don’t pay their low skilled employees $15-$20 per hour, btw, and they wouldn’t have been able to achieve what they did if they would have had that starting pay.
This happened during the height of the housing market craziness, so don’t tell me that it’s not possible now.
 

Kman101

Well-Known Member
I'm not saying they work harder...I'm saying higher wages dumped into the economy has way more advantaged than disadvantages...like lower unemployment, or at a minimum - better paying jobs above that line.
Ok. True. I agree with that. If we're making more money we're spending more money. But companies don't seem to recognize that anymore. Like Disney. "If you build it, they will come". For a company that sometimes nickels and dimes, they actually leave a LOT of money on the table.
 

xdan0920

Think for yourselfer
Let’s look at some basics. I have many,but I’ll just give 2 anecdotal examples, to keep it simple.

The company I work for had a record breaking 2015, then 2016 saw a slight increase, and then the first 2 quarters of 2017 saw a sharp downtown in profits. A coworker of mine, one I greatly respect, had a salary of 250k, with double-triple K didget bonuses on top of that figure, and an expense account, a high car allowance- much higher than the rest of us. I think he deserved it, obviously so did the company.
Who do you think was the first to go when profits fell?
The guy did nothing wrong, but his layoff automatically gave the company about half a million dollars per year, totally freed up now, with one payroll change. It wasn’t the only change, but it was the most shocking.



So let’s go to the other side of the spectrum.
Friends of mine, immigrants (legal) who came to America with not much more than a couple of suitcases and a backpack at age 21. They started out in a low wage retail job, lived in a 3 bedroom house with 4 people (Key West if you’d like to look up the low cost of living there).

They saved and saved. Then one after another, each purchased a store, just 1 store, and worked 12-16 hour days themselves, 6-7 days per week. Keeping one or two employees at most. Why? Because they couldn’t afford to hire more at that time.
1 of them went back to his home country. The other 3 now own homes, and own business much larger than 1 retail store. The 2 who stayed in the retail business no longer have to work in their stores at a salesperson. They can bounce between the different cities to check in, they can vacation where they wish.. they still work hard, but it’s a different kind of work. They don’t pay their low skilled employees $15-$20 per hour, btw, and they wouldn’t have been able to achieve what they did if they would have had that starting pay.
This happened during the height of the housing market craziness, so don’t tell me that it’s not possible now.
Can we all agree to ignore this dopey post?
 

ksr99

Active Member
You can pay people $15 an hour all you want but all that happens is positions get cut to make up the increase. My wife works at a large well known bank and they push them to make sure that any transactions that can be done by the atm they walk the customer to the atm and teach them how to use that rather than the teller. Their basically using my wife and her peers to put themselves out of a job. Walk into McDonald’s lately? They now have large touch screens where you just order your food and pay without having to use the person at register. Same reason you see self checkouts at Walmart and target, get people used to checking themselves out so you can cut down on register employees.

Wages go up, positions get cut.
Precisely, I own a company and started replacing workers with robots! They do just as good of a job and now I’ll pay one person a better wage to manage them but it’s still cheaper than the cost of paying for three people and the associated carrying costs.
 

21stamps

Well-Known Member
Can we all agree to ignore this dopey post?
Why?because it shows the direct correlation between wage and jobs? Or maybe because it shows that someone can get out of a minimum wage job if they have the ambition and plans as to how to get out of it?

I’ve watched so many immigrants come here and become successful, some in the top income bracket, some enough to live relatively comfortable planted firmly in the upper middle class. They didn’t start out that way, and they didn’t demand a 40-50% wage increase from their employer when working at an entry level position, they demanded it of themselves to get out of that position/wage bracket, and made a roadmap.

You can feel sorry for the poor life long minimum wage worker and the evil business that employ them. Like I said, I have empathy for them At some point though, do you ever think that maybe a bit of personal responsibility is at play? That maybe that person doesn’t want to risk or sacrifice for more?

Precisely, I own a company and started replacing workers with robots! They do just as good of a job and now I’ll pay one person a better wage to manage them but it’s still cheaper than the cost of paying for three people and the associated carrying costs.
Oh wait, so you cut out jobs because it’s cheaper for your business to do so?
Holy cow! Weren’t we just told that this never happens?
 

Kman101

Well-Known Member
A bus driver starts at $12.65. After six years as a bus driver, I make $12.84. Disney likes wage penetration.
Wow. But that's a problem everywhere.

In the retail job I worked for 7 years, I left making what someone now starts out with (so trust me, I know exactly what you're going through), give or take a few cents. I've been gone from that job for almost 5 years now so I imagine it's about the same. And in 7 years my wage went up about a total of 2.50, maybe 3. I suppose that's good though, I don't have a lot to compare that with.

But see, if someone starts out with $12 and that's what you're currently making after 6 years, no reason your own paycheck shouldn't receive a cost of living increase to bring it up to scale. But companies don't seem to want to do that.
 

ksr99

Active Member
Why?because it shows the direct correlation between wage and jobs? Or maybe because it shows that someone can get out of a minimum wage job if they have the ambition and plans as to how to get out of it?

I’ve watched so many immigrants come here and become successful, some in the top income bracket, some enough to live relatively comfortable planted firmly in the upper middle class. They didn’t start out that way, and they didn’t demand a 40-50% wage from their employer, they demanded it of themselves, and made a roadmap.

You can feel sorry for the poor life long minimum wage worker and the evil business that employ them. Like I said, I have empathy for them At some point though, do you ever think that maybe a bit of personal responsibility is at play? That maybe that person doesn’t want to risk or sacrifice for more?



Oh wait, so you cut out jobs because it’s cheaper for your business to do so?
Holy cow! Weren’t we just told that this never happens?
I know right!! Here’s the big kicker, it’s more streamlined now, soooo the person that manages now makes much more and hes quite happy. You may be asking. “How did I choose who to keep?” I initially thought a cage fight, but then I realized the one I kept had superior skills and worked his butt off. Crazy logic!
 

Kman101

Well-Known Member
Precisely, I own a company and started replacing workers with robots! They do just as good of a job and now I’ll pay one person a better wage to manage them but it’s still cheaper than the cost of paying for three people and the associated carrying costs.
In theory, maybe, but I don't know if that's a reality.

My local Walmart seems to like to employ between two and three people to monitor self check-outs so where are the jobs being cut for these self check outs (what I see is less regular check-outs open but that doesn't mean less cashier jobs, because three of them are standing at self check out)? I was working in retail when my company was rolling out self check outs. No one lost their job because of them, in fact two of us were often stationed there. But that's just a personal example, every situation could be different.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Well-Known Member
Why?because it shows the direct correlation between wage and jobs? Or maybe because it shows that someone can get out of a minimum wage job if they have the ambition and plans as to how to get out of it?

I’ve watched so many immigrants come here and become successful, some in the top income bracket, some enough to live relatively comfortable planted firmly in the upper middle class. They didn’t start out that way, and they didn’t demand a 40-50% wage increase from their employer when working at an entry level position, they demanded it of themselves to get out of that position/wage bracket, and made a roadmap.

You can feel sorry for the poor life long minimum wage worker and the evil business that employ them. Like I said, I have empathy for them At some point though, do you ever think that maybe a bit of personal responsibility is at play? That maybe that person doesn’t want to risk or sacrifice for more?



Oh wait, so you cut out jobs because it’s cheaper for your business to do so?
Holy cow! Weren’t we just told that this never happens?

You just keep digging deeper and deeper to try and get the last word...but that's not the same as "winning"...unless you're charlie sheen.

You have a burr under your saddle on this...I don't know why...

When I worked at Disney...I only saw this this kind of vitriol directed toward frontline nametags after a bad breakup (the vista way special)...

I'll give you this: you're Agassi...you keep thundering away from base line...keep pounding. I mean, you're down two sets and two breaks to Sampras on grass in this discussion...but that's not deterring you.

I'll say no more.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Well-Known Member
I know right!! Here’s the big kicker, it’s more streamlined now, soooo the person that manages now makes much more and hes quite happy. You may be asking. “How did I choose who to keep?” I initially thought a cage fight, but then I realized the one I kept had superior skills and worked his butt off. Crazy logic!
Tell me how wdw implements this policy? If it works...I can get iger to make you an executive VP in charge of popcorn ;)
 

ksr99

Active Member
In theory, maybe, but I don't know if that's a reality.

My local Walmart seems to like to employ between two and three people to monitor self check-outs so where are the jobs being cut for these self check outs (what I see is less regular check-outs open but that doesn't mean less cashier jobs, because three of them are standing at self check out)? I was working in retail when my company was rolling out self check outs. No one lost their job because of them, in fact two of us were often stationed there. But that's just a personal example, every situation could be different.
Your 100 percent correct I shouldn’t imply that this example represents all the outcomes....in my case it worked out perfectly....well a little bit of a learning curve on my part.
 
Top Bottom