jakeman
Well-Known Member
I'm proud to say I've never been caught stroking my emotion.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Workers want pay boost
- Thread starter Figaro928
- Start date
slappy magoo
Well-Known Member
Actually he's doing better than the federal poverty line as an individual because I've been talking about 1000/month net. But I am using phrases out-of-context and swapping them, so I do need to correct myself. We were originally talking about minimum wage, not the federal poverty line. WDWDad13 insisted he could live on the minimum wage (currently $7.25/hr). I estimated (and I could be wrong) that take home pay on $300/wk would probably translate into roughly $900/month, as he probably wouldn't pay much if anything in federal taxes but he may still need to pay state, local and payroll taxes, plus if he has a deductible for healthcare (though in some states he'd probably now be eligible for Medicare) and if he's contributing to a 401(k) which seems laughable for a minimum wage job, but he insists he's a responsible guy and it's responsible to save. So I generously bumped up his own scenario to $1000/mo. take home and asked him to do the math.
I think that has been found to cause visual acuity problems.
WDWDad13
Well-Known Member
look... if I was on my own and had a place of my own and was responsible for 100% of all my bills and I couldn't make it on the income of a certain job... I wouldn't apply for that job unless I had no other choice and then I would probably get a second job and continue looking for better opportunities until sometime come along
I wouldn't just apply for a job at Burger King at $7.25/hr and regardless of what hours they give me start complaining I'm not making enough to live on like it's THEIR fault...see my point
if a CM at Disney is complaining they can't live off the income they make at that job level based on their life's situation... then why are they a CM at Disney and only relying on that income?
for example... my perfect job would be traveling around the world...but I can't exactly live on that... so I'm not going to do it and then complain that the US owes me a livable income
slappy magoo
Well-Known Member
Because currently, nationwide, there are roughly 3 applicants for every job opening. That CM at Disney might have gone to Disney under the assumption that they're so big that was his best chance at getting something, anything. He may, in fact, be looking for better work now, but there's certainly nothing wrong with labor organizing to try to get better wages. And the increase in pay they're trying to get is fairly incremental, not beyond the realm of acceptability.
And thanks for finally admitting you didn't know what you were talking about and can't make the numbers work to live on minimum wage, even as a single with no dependents.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
I understand the scenario. That still does not excuse your repeated failure to give objective benchmarks. You have invoked the poverty line, but that wage level is already met by current laws. Not needing assistance is a very different benchmark that applies to a far wider group of people than just those earning minimum or near minimum wage and the definitions of who qualifies have only been growing. Please describe, in detail, the sort of lifestyle that a living wage covers.
slappy magoo
Well-Known Member
I will admit I've been using the term "federal poverty line" incorrectly as people who are on or even above that line are usually eligible for assistance. I was using it as a replacement term for "being able to survive without federal assistance," because that was becoming a P.I.T.A. to keep typing as I have quite a bit. My apologies.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
So now I have some more questions. What level of federal assistance constitutes that threshold of being able to survive? Is it only programs like food stamps? What about federal student loans? The various and many federal tax credits?
We are currently at a point where the majority of workers do not pay federal income taxes. That is a huge number of people and why I think your earlier assertion that a business unable to pay a living wage is so fundamentally flawed. It ignores your entire premise of being content with a certain level of income as well as the large number of people working for small businesses whose owners must be part of this majority of persons. How do you shift that burden of payment away from the federal government into the wage system while still ensuring that sort of balance of who bears what costs?
And what about re-evaluating the role of some of these federal programs and how they impact lives? Do we try to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies? Do we change zoning and housing laws to allow for smaller apartments that can therefore command lower rents? Really addressing poverty is about a lot more than wage and labor policy. It is a far more structural issue that requires examining and reevaluating any more aspects of what we consider to be acceptable.
I think your refusal to discuss part time, temporary and seasonal work is also highly problematic because these fields must be tied into any discussions of minimums wages in order to create effective policy. We are already seeing this now in response to the Affordable Care Act with businesses cutting employee hours so as to avoid a significant jump in expenses due to new costs associated with the difference between part time and full time.
slappy magoo
Well-Known Member
What's ironic is in most political threads I visit and write replies, I get accused of being a socialist. This is the first time I'm being attacked for not being socialist enough!
flynnibus
Premium Member
But you do answer like a politician... lots of words without answering the question.
slappy magoo
Well-Known Member
Since The Mom has admonished us to be civil, I was trying to keep it lighthearted. Why you're itching for a fight I've no idea, though I'm bemused by the attempt. But fine...
I'm talking about "getting by right now" assistance, not student loans (which I consider an invaluable investment in our nation's future not just the individual getting the loan).
Because so many of them make so little that they're not required to pay federal income taxes. But they still pay state, local & payroll taxes, no? They're not getting away scot-free without contributing to society and their own future.
Hence my joke about not being socialist enough, because as I argue that people who work for a living, no matter what they do, should be able to provide for themselves and their families, the counter argument seems to be, no, let the government continue to assist them because otherwise the employer who has to pay them more money won't be able to make a profit without charging to much for their product or services, at which point, every taxpayer is subsidizing employers who don't or won't pay their employees a decent wage.
Fine by me, I'm not the one trying to close Planned Parenthood.
I'd worry that smaller apartments wouldn't necessarily command lower rent, but for all my prior bluster about the dignity of work, knowing how prevalent homelessness is in our society, supposedly the Greatest Society Ever, I don't have much of a problem with subsidized housing except for the fact that they are often poorly tended to and become susceptible to dilapidation and harboring criminal elements. But the flip flop is making this housing akin to a police state, and the money needed to keep such buildings safe would probably then require a higher rent.
Sure, but considering this thread started with an article about Disney workers trying to raise their lowest salaries a bit, it might not be the best place to solve Poverty In America.
I did eventually state my position about part-time and temporary work, despite being more concerned about full time workers. In part because I recognize many workers are part-time workers because they have to be, not because they want to be. Some people are working 2 or 3 part time jobs because they can't get a single full-time job in the first place and whether it's a work ethic that says any work is good work or they're desperate and are taking what they can get, they deserve to get the equivalent of a livable wage in relation to the hours they work. IMHO, someone who works 50 hours a week working 3 jobs should make enough to at least cover the bare-bones essentials for a family of 4, as should an individual working a single job 50 hour a week. Even if those people are singles with no dependents, in part because that extra money has a stimulative effect on other businesses as workers spend their dough, in part because it eliminates the arguments over "should a worker have to pay more money to a worker who's a parent versus a worker who is single and unmarried."
Admittedly this is me in Rush Limbaugh The Way Things Ought To Be mode, even if my opinions are distinctly un-Limbaugh-esque.
The one thing in which I agree with you is that these are complex problems with no easy solutions. But just as some 'Murkans are enraged when they see someone disrespecting the flag, I get incensed when I think about how we as nation tie so much of what we consider a person's worth in relation to the paycheck they bring home. It bothers me that we simultaneously tell the poorest among us that they have to get a job so they're not a leech on society, but if they get any job they can get but that can't cover rent and food, we attack them for not getting a good enough job, then when they tell us their job is inadequate we smugly insist they quit and find a better job, but if they quit to go off in search of a better job, they're unemployed until they find that job so we attack them for being a leech again. Too many of us attack unwed women if they get pregnant, but too many of us also insist the government paying for their birth control is wrong, then attack them for having kids when they can't afford them (like they're all Immaculate Conceptions). This thread can go and has gone off the original topic many times over. I don't purport to have all the answers, and clearly you don't have all the answers either. But to go back on the original topic, good for the workers for trying to improve their lot. I don't begrudge them for their effort, and anyone who does begrudge them falls into that cynical cycle I wrote about earlier - don't complain about your job, find a better job, don't expect me to subsidize you, don't expect me to pay for you, but someone's gotta take that job and no one's gonna make that employer pay a better salary until someone tries to make that employer pay a better salary. What some of us seem to want is a sub-class of American who will take the crap job and the crap pay and not bore us with whining about it. Which I think is sad.
CDavid
Well-Known Member
Thanks for answering. This I more or less agree with. I do think it is much harder to get out of such a situation than you make it out to be (sometimes I think people can't see a way out even if one exists, almost learned helplessness); There are too many people trying to juggle two jobs who end up failing at both because of conflicting schedules - they just can't be in two places at the same time, or there are child care or other issues standing in the way. Also, there are often few better alternatives; If you had to take Burger King (certainly any job is better than no job at all!) your only other option might be McDonald's. Still, I agree with your approach.
Oh, and when you figure out how to get paid touring the world, let us know, huh!
jaklgreen
Well-Known Member
In theory this sounds great. But how do better yourself by going to school if you can not even afford the basics like food and transportation. Today's minimum wage is unlivable and for those people who are not lucky enough to have someone helping them while trying to go to school, it is near impossible. My 87yo grandma says how they lived off of $2/hour in the 40s and I try to explain to her that things are too expensive now. She also says her social security checks do not cover all of her monthly expenses and she has to dip into savings. I figured it out that she makes $8.50/hour with her social security(based on a 40 hour work week/4 weeks a month). Only then did she realize that if she can not live off of that with just paying her utilities and insurance and medicine(trust me she lives a very frugal life, house paid for) then how can someone who makes less then that support themselves. 20 years ago you could do it but not now. You do need 2 jobs now but then how do you go to school to better yourself?
flynnibus
Premium Member
There is plenty of work that pays above minimum wage. You have to be willing to do the work. no it's not as picturesque as working at Disney world... it might not be where you are now.. but these 'Disney is all I have' woes are excuses.
ford91exploder
Resident Curmudgeon
OT: Great Disney Villian from 'The Black Hole' as your Avatar, One totally EVIL robot.
I'd love to see Disney build one, fly that sucker in during a Disney Villain dance party and have him just go crazy with laser fire. Talk about making memories......
Mr Bill
Well-Known Member
Fun with math incoming!
Profits: $1.39 billion
Number of workers: 166,000
Profit per employee: $8373.50
Profit per employee per pay period (weekly): $161
Profit per employ per hour (assume 40 hours/week): $4
A $4/hour wage increase for all employees would consume all of the profits of The Walt Disney Company.
Do with this math what you will. I'm not getting into this discussion beyond this post.
Okay then, I'll correct it. You just took a quarterly profit number and then spread it out over a year. Disney's net income for the last fiscal year was $6.14 billion, not $1.39.
Profit per employee: $36,988
Profit per employee per pay period (weekly): $711
Profit per employee per hour (assume 40 hours/week): $17.78
Oops.
ford91exploder
Resident Curmudgeon
That would be awesome!, It could be done make the body a helium filled structure with a laser, radio control it to complete it Max could shoot at B.O.B and V.I.N.C.E.N.T ...
tribbleorlfl
Well-Known Member
Ah, this thread has been so much fun. Reminds me of my Labor Econ course where our professor just let the neocons and liberals battle it out every class. Every Tuesday was like Mortal Kombat with calculators.