Workers want pay boost

[DisneyCane]

Another problem is the issue of greedlords in the Central Fla area charging ridiculous rents for housing...just because they can. A pretty low thing to do in an area where most workers are making service industry wages. You can easily run a 20+ unit apartment complex which charges $450 to $500 per month per unit...and live large...very large. Yet we all know Central Fla rents are nowhere near that ballpark.

Can you please share the numbers that allow somebody to easily run a 20+ unit apartment complex and charge $500 per month and "live large...very large?" You do realize that there are costs involved in running an apartment complex, don't you? All the rent doesn't go to the landlord as profit.

There is a mortgage to pay for the cost of building the complex. There are property taxes and insurance. There are repairs and maintenance. Then there are the people that don't pay the rent and need to be evicted in a long drawn out process. I'd be shocked if the profit margin on an apartment complex was even 30%. If you think $36,000 a year is living large (and that's a high estimate) then there are a lot of teachers doing VERY well!

I'd really like to know about this business plan so that I can get in on the apartment complex business.

What somebody charges for rent is supply and demand also just like real estate sales. Is it a low thing to do to sell a house for $200,000 in Orlando if the exact same house with the same size property was $125,000 in Immokalee?

 

[TRONorail12]

Disney is reaching a breaking point. Prices have inflated so much that a lot of people are beginning to question whether or not to spend their money at Disney World. On the other hand, Disney argues it's to compensate for inflation, yet they don't compensate their cast members' pay for inflation. Something is about to give in the company. They are reporting record profits, but what are they truly investing in? Most people on these boards will argue that it's not the parks, and it's clearly not the employees. Every company I've worked for has had some sort of compensation to reward employees for hard work or at least long term dedication to the company. Disney demands cast members go above and beyond to deliver 5 Star treatment to every guest, yet won't compensate them for delivering more than their job description entails them too. I've been a stockholder for many years, but at this point, I am extremely worried about the state of the Walt Disney Company in regards to how the handling of the parks and resorts division has been run over the past few years. Guests aren't happy. Cast members aren't happy. Disney is losing the magic it once had.

 

[flynnibus]

If nothing else, it should be the ability to pay for the average rent in your area on a 40-hour work week. In far too many places across the country, a minimum-wage job requires 50 or more hours just to pay rent, and that doesn't begin to take into account other expenses.

For how many people?
How far from work?
In what neighborhood?

 

[lazyboy97o]

If nothing else, it should be the ability to pay for the average rent in your area on a 40-hour work week. In far too many places across the country, a minimum-wage job requires 50 or more hours just to pay rent, and that doesn't begin to take into account other expenses.

But rent what? A small studio for one person? A single bedroom? Two bedroom two bath? A townhouse? A house? And what sort of amenities are included? Does this included a working or non-working partner? Kids? How many?

 

[slappy magoo]

This then requires increased cost for everybody, including those who are just a dollar ahead. Take it from the owners or high earners is not a universal possibility and not a healthy long term strategy.

Just once in a while I'd like to see that be the first thing tried versus the blood from a stone technique.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Just once in a while I'd like to see that be the first thing tried versus the blood from a stone technique.

It is being tried, right now. Just look at the IRS' break down of what income percentile pays what percentage of tax revenues. There must be other factors at play beyond who pays what.

 

[slappy magoo]

Now you're using strawmen and ad hominem attacks rather than addressing the point. My example does not assume anything about people and ages - it's simply an example of how do you explain to one employee who works harder than another the slacker is justified more pay simply because he's happy sitting in the same job forever and morality says we should pay him more even tho he works less than someone else. You advocate a 'living wage' for people, yet fail to acknowledge how such guarantees penalize people when comparing workers and disincentives others.

I find it charming that you assume someone who enjoys his/her job and would prefer to remain in it is a "slacker." That they stop trying to do their job well because they've been there a while. Would you say the same thing to the owner of a non-franchised mom-and-pop business? "What? You're not franchising? You're not branching out? You're happy running this business? God I hope the wolves of Wall Street devour you!"

Today yes, but under your model you condition people to not desire advancement. You give them incentive to do nothing and still stay afloat.

No, they have an incentive to continue doing their job well or risk getting fired for not doing their job well. The fact that you are so contemptuous of hypothetical people who like their job and would like to keep it speaks far more about you than about those hypothetical people.

Then all you do is create even more incentive for the employer to flat out fire Sally because she makes too much money and her work can be done by someone much cheaper... still earning a 'living wage'. Paying people more than they are worth to the business just creates incentive to get rid of those people.

Not if the employer finds a value - tangible or not - in keeping long term employees around. Clearly you wouldn't which must make your holiday parties oh-so-cheery.

*yawn* - yet another attack vs addressing the topic. I'm a slave driver to look at compensation as something that should reflect an employee's contribution and one that incentivizes people to actually achieve? Funny... it's the same type of attitude that build a billion dollar company full of people personally invested in the success of the company that achieved more than companies 3x it size could do. Funny how things work when people are actually driven and everyone contributes.

If you're bored, by all means, you're free to stop posting. I'm not pointing a gun at your head. After all, if you have a bad work day because you were sleepy posting on a Disney board, you might get replaced by some young whippersnapper with dandy ideas to increase productivity while decreasing overhead.

 

[slappy magoo]

Great, so your exaggeration about NYC disqualifies the idea for the entire country. Got it.

You made a snarky comment, I replied in kind. Don't like getting it? Don't give it, Boss.

Or you put the sensationalism down and face the reality of having manage both incomes and expenses. But yeah, your soul jerking commentary is so much more convincing and moving...

If I didn't know any better, I'd doubt your sincerity.

More attacks.. you're stacking them up now. So someone deserves to earn a living that doesn't require government assistance.

Does that mean if I hire someone who can only be available part time, I need to pay them twice as much as someone who has full time availability?

No. Because they are part-time. But if you're hiring nothing but part-time workers because you think full-time workers aren't worth it, I'd say your short-term thinking risks damaging your corporate brand eventually, but by that time you would have probably sold the company and let it be someone else's problem so my comments would fall on deaf ears.

Does that mean the minimum I must pay someone depends on what phase someone is in on their life? Do I have to pay someone more because they have dependents? Or do you propose we punish people for having dependents because their 'living wage' is tied to someone else's definition of family?

Listen...to your heart.

I look forward to your society that rots in place because their life sucked so bad... they were paralyzed to do anything about it. Thankfully generations before me didn't just wallow in their sadness and instead drove themselves for better lives and handed me a great country to live in. [/QUOTE}
I guess you're the guy who actually bought the Atlas Shrugged movies on blu-ray and hands them out at work as holiday gifts in lieu of bonuses? The generations before you also set in motion the extreme financial disparity this country now experiences. No wonder they're your heroes!

Not everyone succeeds in life - but you will never succeed if you never try.

I guess that depends on what it is you wish to strive for success at doing.

 

[slappy magoo]

By bad you mean one that can't afford to hire employees? Or one that doesn't radically boost the prices of everything to offset the labor costs? Oh wait... if costs all go up... you've just erroded my 'living wage'. I guess we should increase that wage again... oh wait... now my costs go up..

Someone said 'labor is a fraction of costs' - it all depends on your industry and type of business you are in. But 'living wage' advocates don't like to acknowledge the huge variations in industries.

"living wage advocates" also don't like to see people working two jobs and still having to apply for assistance either. But since you enjoy the misery of others they must get in the way of your good time. Schadenfreude - nbot just for breakfast anymore!


Wait, let me guess... "yawn?" Is that your reply? did I win something? Please let it not be a job at your company ohpleaseohpleaseohplease...

 

[slappy magoo]

SIDE NOTE: I just figured out how to do the countdown timer, pretty excited about that.
My Next Trip to WDW  

You have a degree in economics but you can't figure out the days to your next trip without a countdown clock?

 

[lazyboy97o]

"living wage advocates" also don't like to see people working two jobs and still having to apply for assistance either.

But you are still assuming that there is a constant of employers who have such funds available. Assistance is the mechanism by which such variables are addressed.

 

[flynnibus]

You made a snarky comment, I replied in kind. Don't like getting it? Don't give it, Boss.

Mine wasn't snarky - it was facts. Access to the web is freely available through our public services - it is not some 'luxury' item someone needs to struggle to afford. Then you try to tear down that reality with some extreme... nope, public libraries are still valid.

No. Because they are part-time. But if you're hiring nothing but part-time workers because you think full-time workers aren't worth it, I'd say your short-term thinking risks damaging your corporate brand eventually, but by that time you would have probably sold the company and let it be someone else's problem so my comments would fall on deaf ears.

Here you go attacking and riding your emmotions rather than actually acknowledging the reality. I said "if I hire someone who can only be available part time" - CAN ONLY BE AVAILABLE - not my choice as the employer. Part time availability.. like someone trying to go to school, or someone who has dependents they must care for, etc. Your driving motivation is 'any one, any job' should be able to live without assistance... so again.. what does your heart say someone should pay someone who is in school and trying to make ends meet? Should I pay a 19yr old who is going to college twice as much per hour as the 25yr old doing the same exact job?

 

[lazyboy97o]

@flynnibus - I think it's a never winning battle with sir slappy. There's probably a reason his "likes" to "messages" ratio is so wide spread

That is not a fair comment due to the still relative newness of the Like system.

 

[slappy magoo]

@flynnibus - I think it's a never winning battle with sir slappy. There's probably a reason his "likes" to "messages" ratio is so wide spread

Needy much? And what happened to your itemized list of how you'd survive on a grand a month? I mean, you're the one who said you could do it, I'm merely asking you to accept your own challenge. Unless you've already tried and realized you can't and you're just hoping ignoring it is cute.

 

[slappy magoo]

That is not a fair comment due to the still relative newness of the Like system.

Thanks, lazyboy97o, but if I never get another "like" again, I'll somehow muddle through. People do, however seem to like my comments a bit in this thread, so maybe this will be the beginning of eventual takeover of the board and soon thereafter, the world! (insert maniacal laughter and mustache twirl here)

 

[WDWDad13]

Needy much? And what happened to your itemized list of how you'd survive on a grand a month? I mean, you're the one who said you could do it, I'm merely asking you to accept your own challenge. Unless you've already tried and realized you can't and you're just hoping ignoring it is cute.

there are lots of ways to "survive" on $1,000 a month... what you're assuming is that person has to have an apartment on their own with things like HD cable tv with dvr, smartphone with unlimited plan, high speed internet, ipad, xbox, playstation, nice car, etc.

I could survive on $1,000 a month if I lived with my parents, or with roommates, had a second job, or better yet, worked hard and looked for ways to move up the ladder or find better opportunities elsewhere.

point being is if being a frontline CM at Disney isn't paying enough for your way of life... then why be a or just a frontline CM

 

[xdan0920]

@flynnibus - I think it's a never winning battle with sir slappy. There's probably a reason his "likes" to "messages" ratio is so wide spread

Slappy used to be a much more prolific poster, not counting this thread, before the Like system was implemented. He is also one of the more well respected and liked members around here. So that's not really an accurate or fair comment.

 

[slappy magoo]

Mine wasn't snarky - it was facts. Access to the web is freely available through our public services - it is not some 'luxury' item someone needs to struggle to afford. Then you try to tear down that reality with some extreme... nope, public libraries are still valid.

You should tell that to your new bestie WDWDad13...if he's not busy making up his list of how he'd easily be able to survive on a grand a month, a challenge he instigated himself yet seems reluctant to finish for some reason...

Here you go attacking and riding your emmotions rather than actually acknowledging the reality. I said "if I hire someone who can only be available part time" - CAN ONLY BE AVAILABLE - not my choice as the employer. Part time availability.. like someone trying to go to school, or someone who has dependents they must care for, etc. Your driving motivation is 'any one, any job' should be able to live without assistance... so again.. what does your heart say someone should pay someone who is in school and trying to make ends meet? Should I pay a 19yr old who is going to college twice as much per hour as the 25yr old doing the same exact job?

I'm riding my emmotions? That's precious, truly. I'm sorry your fee-fees were hurt. But as I've said, I believe once or twice, I'm talking about people who are working full-time, yet have to rely on public assistance because their pay is so inadequate, and if someone is working hard at a job 40-50 hours a week, they deserve a livable wage. Discussion of part-time work is a red herring as far as I'm concerned, and if one of your part-time employees gave you that red herring thinking it was a good zinger to use, you should reprimand them. But don't fire them. They probably need the gruel and loincloth you're providing as pay.

 

[WDWDad13]

Slappy used to be a much more prolific poster, not counting this thread, before the Like system was implemented. He is also one of the more well respected and liked members around here. So that's not really an accurate or fair comment.

point taken... my mistake on that... thanks

 

[slappy magoo]

there are lots of ways to "survive" on $1,000 a month... what you're assuming is that person has to have an apartment on their own with things like HD cable tv with dvr, smartphone with unlimited plan, high speed internet, ipad, xbox, playstation, nice car, etc.

I could survive on $1,000 a month if I lived with my parents, or with roommates, had a second job, or better yet, worked hard and looked for ways to move up the ladder or find better opportunities elsewhere.

point being is if being a frontline CM at Disney isn't paying enough for your way of life... then why be a or just a frontline CM

Hell, I could survive on nothing if I married myself a sugar mama! I could give money away were I a billionaire! I could make it rain were I a god! Let's see some numbers, Slim. You said you could do it. So prove it.

I will say this - "looking for ways to move up the ladder or find opportunities elsewhere" is not, in and of itself, a way to earn income. There's a difference twixt the means to an end and the end. Something to ponder while you put your numbers down. I already helped - there's an apartment complex in Orlando that has 4 bedroom units starting at 900. So with three roommates that only means you nee 225 a month in rent. Continue apace.