Will Disney pass their new found wealth to the CM's ?

[flynnibus]

Or better yet, how do you define worth?

By how much value you deliver to the employer and how difficult it is to place someone into that job delivering that much value to the business.

The 'worth' is defined by the job, the employer, and the constraints in the market... people's view of their 'worth' comes from what jobs and value they think they can fill.

People fill jobs... not the other way around.

 

[Dutch Inn '76]

Not setting a compensation base results is extreme wealth distribution upwards.View attachment 262582

Setting a "compensation base" only results in misery for everyone: less employment, more inflation, etc.

I hire someone NOT to enrich them, but to enrich myself; or, the only reason I want the *trouble* of an employee is so that I can get more done, thus, making more money. The employee takes a job to better himself. Thus, it is a mutually beneficial transaction. If he doesn't like one job, he can go and find another fairly easily most of the time. The employer is taking ALL the risk, and gets the reward... that is, what the government doesn't take from him forcibly.

 

[21stamps]

3. They are not worth more
4. They are stigmatized (ex cons, crazy people, etc)

my point is, people prove themselves and become worth more. It happens all the time.

Trick is, is it true, or just a grandiose view of yourself?

Yes, when you prove yourself and become worth more- that’s when you receive a raise or promotion, and if you don’t, then you should leave.

This was an across the board bonus, a general show of appreciation, a gift stemming from a new tax law.
That’s it. That simple.

 

[jloucks]

I work in the public sector and never get a bonus, regardless of the economy or any other factors. Heck, I should be really insulted.

I worked in the public sector and did get a bonus of sorts. How about now? I'm probably just more valuable. How about now? No? Maybe you are worth less? No? Dang, ok, if you made it through that without offense then you are staying consistent with your sarcasm.

Not setting a compensation base results is extreme wealth distribution upwards

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And setting ridiculous levels results in a loss of jobs period. Keep in mind what is happening with fast food. As unskilled laborers demand more money or they will strike, McDonalds has started testing ordering Kiosks. Cheaper than an employee and guess what, they will pay a higher salary to kitchen employees now that they have rid themselves of counter employees. So you got your raise because you could cook, but, now are out of a job if you are just counting out change. Again, worth for a job. Value to the company. Noone is irreplacable and when a company has financial obligations to meet, one of the easiest ways is to cut the cost of labor. Not saying this would be a track WDW would take but just exemplifying that the whole compensation having a government forced controlled base, is not a good thing. The market sets the standards and I would argue if the market were free to be set, most companies would pay more because there would be more competition. So, while you can complain about those mean greedy execs...without the work they do, there isnt a WDW at all.

Much of that is trickle down theory, which is bunk.

If it were true, there would be no need for minimum wage.

What would really happen with no minimum wage is massive poverty. Sure, there would be a giant increase in jobs, but income for the majority would plummet.

And you touched on another topic, automation. Just wait until ai controlled ambulatory robots become mainstream. It is going to get ugly. Less than 100 years and all humans will be obsolete.

Self checkouts give you a little taste of what is coming.

Assuming we don't do something stupid as a species and regress.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Not setting a compensation base results is extreme wealth distribution upwards.

Wealth distribution does not occur within a static framework. The wealthy don't take the pie of the working poor, they grow the pie. Which scenario is "better" in your opinion?

Scenario 1:
- Joe makes $40,000 per year
- Steve makes $150,000 per year

Scenario 2:
- Joe makes $50,000 per year
- Steve makes $500,000 per year

Both Joe and Steve are better off in Scenario 2, yet Scenario 2 is also much more unequal. The only reason to prefer Scenario 1 is envy, and envy is evil.

Much of that is trickle down theory, which is bunk.

It's obviously not bunk because Disney actually did give $1,000 bonuses to all of their employees, i.e. it "trickled down."

 

[CaptainAmerica]

How does you logic fit into salary negotiations?

A salary negotiation only works if there's a credible threat that you could get what you're asking for from another employer.

Worker: I make $80,000 but I should make $90,000.
Employer: No.
Worker: Fine, then I'll leave and go somewhere that'll pay me $90,000.

If nobody is willing to pay the guy $90,000, then he isn't worth $90,000 no matter what he thinks.

 

[jloucks]

Wealth distribution does not occur within a static framework. The wealthy don't take the pie of the working poor, they grow the pie. Which scenario is "better" in your opinion?

Scenario 1:
- Joe makes $40,000 per year
- Steve makes $150,000 per year

Scenario 2:
- Joe makes $50,000 per year
- Steve makes $500,000 per year

Both Joe and Steve are better off in Scenario 2, yet Scenario 2 is also much more unequal. The only reason to prefer Scenario 1 is envy, and envy is evil.


It's obviously not bunk because Disney actually did give $1,000 bonuses to all of their employees, i.e. it "trickled down."

Scenario 3:
- Joe makes $20,000 per year
- Steve makes $700,000 per year

Scenario 4:
- Joe makes $150,000 per year
- Steve makes $400,000 per year

Scenario 3 is the reality.

Scenario 4 is best.

Trickledown was originally concieved to explain to the masses how wealth would NOT end up all with the 1%. It detailed how it would trickle down to the masses.

Look at wealth distribution trends.

It is fact, pure unadulterated fact, this is never happened. The money never overflows because the glass just gets bigger.

 

[21stamps]

Scenario 3:
- Joe makes $20,000 per year
- Steve makes $700,000 per year

Scenario 4:
- Joe makes $150,000 per year
- Steve makes $400,000 per year

Scenario 3 is the reality.

Scenario 4 is best.

Trickledown was originally concieved to explain to the masses how wealth would NOT end up all with the 1%. It detailed how it would trickle down to the masses.

Look at wealth distribution trends.

It is fact, pure unadulterated fact, this is never happened. The money never overflows because the glass just gets bigger.

Are you joking with this one?
People making $20,000 per year should jump to $150,000 per year? And that’s going to come from the highest salary levels?
What happens to everyone in between?

I realize that you’re most likely exaggerating, but where do you think an entry level income should be?

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Look at wealth distribution trends.

I have, I don't care. What the wealth distribution trends ignore is the fact that quality of life has improved exponentially for the poorest people throughout the West for centuries. If you got to choose to be born poor at any time and place in human history, you'd choose the United States in 2018 every single time. It doesn't matter if 10% of the people are rich or 1% of the people are mega rich or 0.001% of the people are uber-mega-ultra-MAGA-unbelievably-obscenely rich. Life for the poor has improved, despite the inequality. In fact, life for the poor has improved specifically because of the inequality. Innovation and excellence are rewarded in the marketplace and they're rewarded obscenely well. If they weren't we wouldn't get that innovation in the first place.

 

[jloucks]

Seriously, are you joking with this one?

People making $20,000 per year should jump to $150,000 per year? And that’s going to come from the highest salary levels?

What happened to everyone in between?

This is a grossly simplified model. I assumed it was a representative model and not a specific model. So no, I don't mean someone with no skills should make $150

Everybody seems to forget I understand and agree with the notion that supply and demand (for labor) dictate price.

This train jumped the tracks when I stated a 5% tip/bonus would to me, be offensive. The a boatload of words-in-my-mouth later I am somehow a liberal socialist. I'm a solid 80% capitalist.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

This train jumped the tracks when I stated a 5% tip/bonus would to me, be offensive.

That's not a measure of worth, it's a measure of expectation. If the norm for your job is a 10% bonus, of course you'd be ed with a 5% bonus. The norm for these folks is zero bonus, so for them it's an upgrade.

"Worth" has nothing to do with it. I'm "worth" more (economically) as a finance manager than a waitress at Applebee's, but my boss doesn't give me an 18% gratuity when I completely my work.

 

[21stamps]

This is a grossly simplified model. I assumed it was a representative model and not a specific model. So no, I don't mean someone with no skills should make $150

Everybody seems to forget I understand and agree with the notion that supply and demand (for labor) dictate price.

This train jumped the tracks when I stated a 5% tip/bonus would to me, be offensive. The a boatload of words-in-my-mouth later I am somehow a liberal socialist. I'm a solid 80% capitalist.

Whew. Ok. You had me worried.

 

[jloucks]

I have, I don't care. What the wealth distribution trends ignore is the fact that quality of life has improved exponentially for the poorest people throughout the West for centuries. If you got to choose to be born poor at any time and place in human history, you'd choose the United States in 2018 every single time. It doesn't matter if 10% of the people are rich or 1% of the people are mega rich or 0.001% of the people are uber-mega-ultra-MAGA-unbelievably-obscenely rich. Life for the poor has improved, despite the inequality. In fact, life for the poor has improved specifically because of the inequality. Innovation and excellence are rewarded in the marketplace and they're rewarded obscenely well. If they weren't we wouldn't get that innovation in the first place.

I'm not sure how to debate a mathema fact being intentionally desreguarded.

And as far as quality of life goes, if it is true, I'd need to see what really happened. Child labor comes to mind. The kids didn't come out of the coal mines because of the generous and kind mine owners.

I'm curious now. I'll research it.

 

[Chef Mickey]

Oh, you are correct. There is pride involved. Absolutely. Self respect too. I don't think 'petty' is an accurate adjective.

Many years ago, I told one employers they could keep the raise they offered, and that it was not commensurate with all of the hard work I had put in over the last year. I admitted that I felt it a bit insulting. They doubled my raise. I accepted.

My whole point being, rejecting offensive behavior of any kind, including offensive compensation, is a part of self respect. You called it pride, but there is a thin line between the two.

Think of it another way. Think of it like tipping. You don't tip somebody 5% and expect them to just be grateful. Disney tipped their employees an offensive %.

I mean, lol.

If you don't like your situation to the point you're declining raises, probably time to leave. It's America.

Again, your argument of $1,000 being insulting and you'd rather take nothing is just absurd.

$1,000 to a person making $10/hr is 5% of their entire annual earnings. Working at Disney for $10/hr isn't really designed to be a career. This is market rate and many companies pay in this range for similar jobs.

Have you ever worked for <$10 hr? I sure did. Great experience and I wasn't crying about how I deserve more, giving back raises, and saying I don't want $1,000 in free money.

 

[aw14]

Have you ever worked for <$10 hr? I sure did. Great experience and I wasn't crying about how I deserve more, giving back raises, and saying I don't want $1,000 in free money.

My first job at 11 years old was for $3. I was thrilled. Instead of going to summer camp I worked 48 hours a week at 8 hours a day. I didn’t complain,I earned that money and was happy with it. I was never jealous of the owner of the store where I worked, he earned whatever he needed to purchase his shop.

At the end of the day, it’s the entitlement mentality that seems to be permeating. Very sad.

 

[The_Jobu]

This is a grossly simplified model. I assumed it was a representative model and not a specific model. So no, I don't mean someone with no skills should make $150

Everybody seems to forget I understand and agree with the notion that supply and demand (for labor) dictate price.

This train jumped the tracks when I stated a 5% tip/bonus would to me, be offensive. The a boatload of words-in-my-mouth later I am somehow a liberal socialist. I'm a solid 80% capitalist.

If you ever want to derail a thread, bring up tipping and/or minimum wage.

Works like a charm.

 

[POLY LOVER]

The flaw in your statement is that you’re painting these people as victims. They chose their own life, their own position.

How many times do they have to put in long work weeks, without getting additional pay in the form of “overtime”?
How many times do they go spend a day out and can choose to not think about work?
How many vacations can they go on where they don’t have to bring their laptops, or worry about what’s going on at their workplace?
How much are they actually responsible for?

They do a job that they are told to do. They can leave their work at the job site.

There is a reason that low level employees get paid less than higher level employees. If the reasons why can’t be understood, then we’re at a standstill.

No they are not victims, that is what some people's superior mentality wants to hear. This is nothing more than a mega billion dollars company throwing a bone to its valuable workers. You are painting these people as worthless and you as a superior person to them because you have the burden of carrying a laptop and they don't. Well let me say if you don't like it quit and find a job that doesn't have such requirements. It's sad when you can't understand that some folks don't have the same opportunity as others. But once again if you value your employees you can profit share with them in a meaningful way. You expect top level service but want to pay a low level price for it. Sad.

 

[POLY LOVER]

My first job at 11 years old was for $3. I was thrilled. Instead of going to summer camp I worked 48 hours a week at 8 hours a day. I didn’t complain,I earned that money and was happy with it. I was never jealous of the owner of the store where I worked, he earned whatever he needed to purchase his shop.

At the end of the day, it’s the entitlement mentality that seems to be permeating. Very sad.

Entitlement? So a minimum wage worker should accept what's given and never hope that the master will increase his wages. Thank god for minimum wage laws or we would all be working for 3.00 an hour still. Maybe I just like the freedom of driving a bus , is this a character flaw of some kind, am I not considered a professional, should I never receive a raise because some people consider me a low level nothing. This person has your life in their hands. I should be glad I get anything and thank the master. Is the bus driver not worth a dollar more an hour?

 

[POLY LOVER]

We are on the crazy train now, shut it down.

 

[rk03221]

I mean, lol.

If you don't like your situation to the point you're declining raises, probably time to leave. It's America.

Again, your argument of $1,000 being insulting and you'd rather take nothing is just absurd.

$1,000 to a person making $10/hr is 5% of their entire annual earnings. Working at Disney for $10/hr isn't really designed to be a career. This is market rate and many companies pay in this range for similar jobs.

Have you ever worked for <$10 hr? I sure did. Great experience and I wasn't crying about how I deserve more, giving back raises, and saying I don't want $1,000 in free money.

The problem is, is that people DO make disney a career. Is it a bad one? Yes, especially in central FL where the cost of living has skyrocketed. Times are way different now than they were 15-30 years ago, college is more expensive, wages suck, buying a house is more difficult etc. Back then you could buy a house working a crappy job and support a family, heck my parents did it but in todays world thats almost impossible. Its not about deserving more its about not living in 3rd world conditions. In my previous post I mentioned of families living in motels who work for disney, and there is plenty of them (Look up the movie "The Florida Project). No one working 40+ hours in america should be living in those conditions. We are the richest country on earth. When the rich billionaires ask for tax cuts we dont blink an eye but when the poor person asks for a few extra $$$ an hour we freak out and make a big deal out of it calling them selfish and lazy, hardly the case