Workers want pay boost

[slappy magoo]

Contrast and compare the wealth, possessions of those at the poverty line in the U.S. to those around the world at their indigenous poverty line.

That's a ridiculous metric and only serves to perpetrate the false notion that there can't possible be any poor people in America because they still manage to have stuff.
"Oh you can afford a car but you can't afford lunch for your kids?"
"Well, I live in a rural area not easily accessible by mass transit and I need the car to get my kids to school and get to my job otherwise my total commute increases by 5 hours a day."
"WHATEVER, TAKER!"

Are there people with screwed up priorities in every social strata? Sure. But to imply that poor people shouldn't get any help because some of them might have iphones or a tv set is appalling. You don't know their situation, you don't know when they became poor or what made them poor. And whatever their reasons for being poor, if they've got kids, I don't think letting them starve because mom and/or dad is a pantload is a way to make a next generation of solid taxpaying citizens. Meanwhile some food for thought - maybe our poor people have more stuff but we have more poor people as a percentage of our population than just about every other industrialized nation. http://www.epi.org/publication/ib339-us-poverty-higher-safety-net-weaker/

 

[wm49rs]

I think you missed the point of this discussion. We are talking about the people who work at WDW not the guests. I doubt that CMs are spending $4,000 to $9,000 on a trip to WDW when they already live there and get into the parks for free.

But it's easier to pass judgment on them if they were....

 

[GoofGoof]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the cost of living low in Florida I live in Chicago rent a 2 bed room house and pay 1,000 and I make 10/hour I know some one in Fl that pays 800 that owns a huge house? Some one explain

After the housing market collapsed a few years back there were certain parts of FL where buying a house became pretty cheap or at least cheap compared to where it was during the bubble. I'm not as familiar with the area directly around WDW but from what others have posted it sounds like there is a shortage of affordable housing which is probably leading to higher rent. Supply and demand dictate pricing. I don't know exact dollars for rent, but if a CM makes $9/hour they barely clear $1,000 a month after taxes. Without a second job, a roommate or two or help from mom and dad that doesn't leave much left over to pay for food, utilities, gas, car and other living expenses.

 

[maxairmike]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the cost of living low in Florida I live in Chicago rent a 2 bed room house and pay 1,000 and I make 10/hour I know some one in Fl that pays 800 that owns a huge house? Some one explain

Not at all, at least not in this area. Maybe if you go out about a half hour to the west or south, but even heading back east into main Orlando you really don't see a decrease in the overall cost situation between time/tolls/gas increases. Sure, someone working at Disney that also has a car could maybe find a decent apartment/house out around the 417 loop beyond the Lake Nona area that comes in a few hundred cheaper than the average rent within a 15-20 minute radius of the World, but then you start looking at not only longer commute times, public transit irregularities, but also the two biggest financial hits that likely make it just as expensive to live out there; tolls and gas. If you drive beyond the airport exit on 417 to Lake Nona and beyond, you're close to or over $3 in tolls each way. Just that amount in tolls over, say, 20 work days is $120 for the month. Add in any gas increase, and you're looking at breaking even on the monthly costs, really.

 

[lazyboy97o]

That's a ridiculous metric and only serves to perpetrate the false notion that there can't possible be any poor people in America because they still manage to have stuff.
"Oh you can afford a car but you can't afford lunch for your kids?"
"Well, I live in a rural area not easily accessible by mass transit and I need the car to get my kids to school and get to my job otherwise my total commute increases by 5 hours a day."
"WHATEVER, TAKER!"

Are there people with screwed up priorities in every social strata? Sure. But to imply that poor people shouldn't get any help because some of them might have iphones or a tv set is appalling. You don't know their situation, you don't know when they became poor or what made them poor. And whatever their reasons for being poor, if they've got kids, I don't think letting them starve because mom and/or dad is a pantload is a way to make a next generation of solid taxpaying citizens. Meanwhile some food for thought - maybe our poor people have more stuff but we have more poor people as a percentage of our population than just about every other industrialized nation. http://www.epi.org/publication/ib339-us-poverty-higher-safety-net-weaker/

A living wage demands a dictation of appropriate processions and spending because that is the metric by how the wage is determined.

 

[CDavid]

Fact is, the US has the best poverty in the world.

In America, there is no excuse for true poverty.

Yes, the United States has a high standard of living for pretty much everyone, especially compared to many third world nations. There is no widespread famine and people don't live in ramshackle structures in unsanitary conditions, but given that, there is also absolutely no excuse for anyone in this nation living in (abject) poverty. There are sufficient resources for everyone - enough food, adequate housing, and abundant material goods. Nobody need do without the basic necessities of life (or forced to struggle beyond reason). That doesn't necessarily mean we give people handouts, double the minimum wage, tax the wealthy, or really anything else; I am only saying that in a nation of plenty no person need be left wanting. There is obviously always going to be a lower socioeconomic level population - not everyone can be middle class - but we do have the means to ensure nobody must live below a basic level of necessity.

You people do realize that those who have low incomes are not only exempt of having to pay income taxes but they are also getting back a windfall at tax time ($4,000 to $9,000). Perhaps if the underserved would use this taxpayer funded money for everyday expenses (like it was intended) instead of a trip to Disney, they wouldn’t need a raise (not to mention the parks would not be as crowded and there wouldn’t be a moron wearing a NASCAR tank top and chewing with his mouth open sitting next to you at Narcoossee’s).

I seriously doubt many people who are (at all) struggling to get by in life are taking a tax refund and going on vacation. They need that money for too many other things. Indeed, I was told just the other day by a local auto dealer that come tax time, all the inexpensive cars they can get sell pretty much overnight. Not saying we all don't waste money sometimes, and it's more of a problem when you don't have much to begin with, but it's not going to Walt Disney World. You are also (erroneously) assuming that everyone with a low income receives such a $4,000 - $9,000 "windfall" refund. They don't.

 

[slappy magoo]

A living wage demands a dictation of appropriate processions and spending because that is the metric by how the wage is determined.

And we're back to that. It's dangerous to be the one who decides who that is poor is spending their limited means wisely, or appropriately. For instance, I see the value in a poor person still needing a cell phone - while you're looking for work you still need to be accessible, your kids might need you, the school might call or someone might know of a good job that might go fast, or you could use the internet to look for more work yourself. On the flip side are some folk who feel that if a poor person still has two nickels to rub together, if there's one item of value you can hock, then you're not poor, not really. call us back when you're homeless and only own the clothes on your back at which point we'll be happy to tell you about all the poor choices you made. It's why I suck up the fact that some people will game the system the same way I'm forced to suck up, say, CEOs who manipulate the tax code to effectively pay no taxes, may even get refunds or subsidies they don't need, so hardworking guys like me have to pick up THAT slack. Or an electronics manufacturer who's chummy with someone in DoD gets a no-bid contract to make a weapon or vehicle the Pentagon says it doesn't even need. Different strokes for different folks, I suppose, but I greatly prefer my kind of folks as I'm sure you do yours.

 

[lazyboy97o]

And we're back to that. It's dangerous to be the one who decides who that is poor is spending their limited means wisely, or appropriately. For instance, I see the value in a poor person still needing a cell phone - while you're looking for work you still need to be accessible, your kids might need you, the school might call or someone might know of a good job that might go fast, or you could use the internet to look for more work yourself. On the flip side are some folk who feel that if a poor person still has two nickels to rub together, if there's one item of value you can hock, then you're not poor, not really. call us back when you're homeless and only own the clothes on your back at which point we'll be happy to tell you about all the poor choices you made. It's why I suck up the fact that some people will game the system the same way I'm forced to suck up, say, CEOs who manipulate the tax code to effectively pay no taxes, may even get refunds or subsidies they don't need, so hardworking guys like me have to pick up THAT slack. Or an electronics manufacturer who's chummy with someone in DoD gets a no-bid contract to make a weapon or vehicle the Pentagon says it doesn't even need. Different strokes for different folks, I suppose, but I greatly prefer my kind of folks as I'm sure you do yours.

We're back to it because you and other proponents of a living wage fail to answer that question. You're going on a rant that is not really relevant.

The danger in dictating expenses is exactly why a living wage is not a serious policy platform. The only way to ensure a wage can support a certain minimum lifestyle is to first define that lifestyle. That doesn't mean you draft legislation forcing people to only spend so much, but you have to have a guideline otherwise you just have a number that feels good.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

In theory you could compile a list averages based on key living expenses, since the data exists to do so, but the "average" may not be a useful number at the national level due to the extremes in variation in costs. That's why it makes more sense to have a statewide minimum wage IMO, even taking into account county or area code differences.

I still believe the US would survive a minimage wage increase, as it has in the past, but it won't solve the issues of upward mobility, job scarcity or a miseducated population (which includes birth control at this point, sadly). As with all issues, there's no one "magic pill" to fix everything. But it's a start.

 

[slappy magoo]

We're back to it because you and other proponents of a living wage fail to answer that question. You're going on a rant that is not really relevant.

The danger in dictating expenses is exactly why a living wage is not a serious policy platform. The only way to ensure a wage can support a certain minimum lifestyle is to first define that lifestyle. That doesn't mean you draft legislation forcing people to only spend so much, but you have to have a guideline otherwise you just have a number that feels good.

Hey, maybe we can make that guideline a baseline and call it "the minimum wage!"

 

[slappy magoo]

In theory you could compile a list averages based on key living expenses, since the data exists to do so, but the "average" may not be a useful number at the national level due to the extremes in variation in costs. That's why it makes more sense to have a statewide minimum wage IMO, even taking into account county or area code differences.

Which is more or less what's happening, as some states and some cities with certain states are raising their minimum wages above the federal level. But there needs to be a federal minimum because far too many states are itching to Thunderdome our working class to battle to the death for a burger slinging job that pays $2.50/hr, claiming it'd bring more industry into their state and who cares if workers can't even afford food OR rent, let alone both! Invisible hand! Working magic!

 

[lazyboy97o]

Hey, maybe we can make that guideline a baseline and call it "the minimum wage!"

Why is this so difficult for you? You either have an idea of what a living wage supports or you just think it sounds good.

 

[Mr. Moderate]

I'm a moderate person who has voted equally for both Republican and Democrats, consider myself a independent for a few years now, and I like reading some responses from both sides on this wage issue. However I ignore the mean spirited ones that sound like they are lifted directly from a far right wing talk radio host. I give some of you a lot of credit for trying to have a reasonable debate here and slappy magoo, I tip my hat to you especially for beating back a lot of the far right talking points a few posters used here consistently. I don't care for extremes and you did a good job, imo, with some of your reasoning here.

I would like to say that I hate welfare abuse on both sides and to me, a corporation like Walmart or Disney, who make a lot of profit, shouldn't pay their adult workers ( I said adult, not teens) such low wages that force their workers to go on public assistance, thereby having the tax payers subsidize that company's payroll. It isn't right or remotely fair to have the American tax payer be on the hook because places like Walmart keeps their wages low, offers almost no benefits, and then have their employees have to use public assistance, the emergency room for health care, etc, etc. That goes for the certain individuals who abuse the public aid system as well.

When you look up and see that the CEO of Walmart made $23.15 Million in salary last year, but see half of Walmart workers made less than $22,400 in 2012, according to PayScale, which is below poverty level for a family of four, it makes me wince. Those employees are needed to make that company run and should not need to go on public assistance. I once read that each 200-employee Walmart store costs taxpayers an average of more than $400,000 a year in welfare benefits, based on entitlements ranging from energy-assistance grants to Medicaid to food stamps to WIC—the federal program that provides food to low-income women with children.

I wonder how much of that applies to most of these low paying, big profit companies like Disney, Walmart,Target, McDonald's, etc. I'm not asking for high wages like they were UAW members working for Ford, just something a little more reasonable than they're getting. For example, I like how Costco does business and treats their workers, yet makes a great profit.

BTW, I'm not one of those guys who say tax the rich or make the minimum wage $15 bucks an hour, like what was reported some fast food workers in NYC wanted, but we have to do better somehow. Just repeating tired old talking points and not having any compassion to make things better, isn't an answer to me. Thank you for letting me lay down some of my thoughts here and taking the time to read them.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I'm a moderate person who has voted equally for both Republican and Democrats, consider myself a independent for a few years now, and I like reading some responses from both sides on this wage issue. However I ignore the mean spirited ones that sound like they are lifted directly from a far right wing talk radio host. I give some of you a lot of credit for trying to have a reasonable debate here and slappy magoo, I tip my hat to you especially for beating back a lot of the far right talking points a few posters used here consistently. I don't care for extremes and you did a good job, imo, with some of your reasoning here.

I would like to say that I hate welfare abuse on both sides and to me, a corporation like Walmart or Disney, who make a lot of profit, shouldn't pay their adult workers ( I said adult, not teens) such low wages that force their workers to go on public assistance, thereby having the tax payers subsidize that company's payroll. It isn't right or remotely fair to have the American tax payer be on the hook because places like Walmart keeps their wages low, offers almost no benefits, and then have their employees have to use public assistance, the emergency room for health care, etc, etc. That goes for the certain individuals who abuse the public aid system as well.

When you look up and see that the CEO of Walmart made $23.15 Million in salary last year, but see half of Walmart workers made less than $22,400 in 2012, according to PayScale, which is below poverty level for a family of four, it makes me wince. Those employees are needed to make that company run and should not need to go on public assistance. I once read that each 200-employee Walmart store costs taxpayers an average of more than $400,000 a year in welfare benefits, based on entitlements ranging from energy-assistance grants to Medicaid to food stamps to WIC—the federal program that provides food to low-income women with children.

I wonder how much of that applies to most of these low paying, big profit companies like Disney, Walmart,Target, McDonald's, etc. I'm not asking for high wages like they were UAW members working for Ford, just something a little more reasonable than they're getting. For example, I like how Costco does business and treats their workers, yet makes a great profit.

BTW, I'm not one of those guys who say tax the rich or make the minimum wage $15 bucks an hour, like what was reported some fast food workers in NYC wanted, but we have to do better somehow. Just repeating tired old talking points and not having any compassion to make things better, isn't an answer to me. Thank you for letting me lay down some of my thoughts here and taking the time to read them.

Why is $15/hour too extreme? The federal poverty guidelines, which are used to determine eligibility for assistance, are calculated out to 400% of the minimum. That means a minimum wage of about $24/hour. Even just for a full time Walmart employee to exceed the federal minimum for a family of four would require at least $12/hour. And that still assumes that costs remain the same.

 

[CDavid]

The only way to ensure a wage can support a certain minimum lifestyle is to first define that lifestyle.

An individuals lifestyle is completely up to that person; It isn't anybody else's business, and certainly we shouldn't be trying to define a minimum lifestyle by which people should be able to live (on a minimum wage). Rather, the question is whether a worker may support themselves at a basic level (without public support) earning the prevailing minimum wage. If the rent for a typical inexpensive apartment, plus allowances for food, transportation, and utilities total (for instance) 90-120% of the monthly income for a person employed 40 hours per week at the minimum wage, we can be certain that's not a living wage (because there are always additional expenses).

We shouldn't even try to determine those miscellaneous expenses, though, since then we needn't worry (and debate) the little things like if a person really needs a cell phone, how often they need new clothes, or a monthly budget for recreation. Leave the specifics up to the individual. So long as they at least have a reasonable amount in the budget left over for incidentals, the particular choices aren't anyone else's concern.

 

[lazyboy97o]

An individuals lifestyle is completely up to that person; It isn't anybody else's business, and certainly we shouldn't be trying to define a minimum lifestyle by which people should be able to live (on a minimum wage). Rather, the question is whether a worker may support themselves at a basic level (without public support) earning the prevailing minimum wage. If the rent for a typical inexpensive apartment, plus allowances for food, transportation, and utilities total (for instance) 90-120% of the monthly income for a person employed 40 hours per week at the minimum wage, we can be certain that's not a living wage (because there are always additional expenses).

We shouldn't even try to determine those miscellaneous expenses, though, since then we needn't worry (and debate) the little things like if a person really needs a cell phone, how often they need new clothes, or a monthly budget for recreation. Leave the specifics up to the individual. So long as they at least have a reasonable amount in the budget left over for incidentals, the particular choices aren't anyone else's concern.

But the only way to figure out where that amount exists is to create a model lifestyle as a minimum. It doesn't mean enforcing such a lifestyle, but having a measurable objective on which to compare and evaluate the wage.

 

[GoofGoof]

BTW, I'm not one of those guys who say tax the rich or make the minimum wage $15 bucks an hour, like what was reported some fast food workers in NYC wanted, but we have to do better somehow. Just repeating tired old talking points and not having any compassion to make things better, isn't an answer to me. Thank you for letting me lay down some of my thoughts here and taking the time to read them.

I would say that in general I agree with your line of thinking. Here's the question, do you build the system to compensate for the average person or for the most needy. For instance, if you take the poverty list from your attached link and look at a family of 6 you would need to make $15 per hour to be above poverty. Now that assumes a single parent with 5 kids. If you bump minimum wage to $10.10 that person is still going to be below the poverty level and on some form of federal and/or state assistance. Not an ideal situation and probably towards the extreme. If you bump everyone to $15 then a single person with no kids would be almost 3Xs the poverty level. I think there is probably a middle ground somewhere.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I would say that in general I agree with your line of thinking. Here's the question, do you build the system to compensate for the average person or for the most needy. For instance, if you take the poverty list from your attached link and look at a family of 6 you would need to make $15 per hour to be above poverty. Now that assumes a single parent with 5 kids. If you bump minimum wage to $10.10 that person is still going to be below the poverty level and on some form of federal and/or state assistance. Not an ideal situation and probably towards the extreme. If you bump everyone to $15 then a single person with no kids would be almost 3Xs the poverty level. I think there is probably a middle ground somewhere.

I think the middle ground is to accept that wage policy is an ineffective tool that requires far too many value judgements of people's personal lives. We can have a bigger impact by focusing on the issues wage policy is supposed to overcome. Wage policy is looking at the wrong side of the equation. Paying people more so they can afford an apartment is meaningless if the supply of such apartments is insufficient. All raising wages would do is increase demand, driving up rent. Even with rent control, there is still a finite supply. Wages don't get grocery stores built. Or streets that are safe to walk. Education seems to be a HUGE factor regarding future socio-economic position. And while the socio-economic position of parents is a big influence on education, manipulating numbers will do little to change that position. The entitlement nature of our general culture also needs to be addressed. That's not everything that contributes to poverty, but it would be a start meaningful change and not a momentary fix that fails to properly deal with its own consequences.

 

[Nubs70]

I think the middle ground is to accept that wage policy is an ineffective tool that requires far too many value judgements of people's personal lives. We can have a bigger impact by focusing on the issues wage policy is supposed to overcome. Wage policy is looking at the wrong side of the equation. Paying people more so they can afford an apartment is meaningless if the supply of such apartments is insufficient. All raising wages would do is increase demand, driving up rent. Even with rent control, there is still a finite supply. Wages don't get grocery stores built. Or streets that are safe to walk. Education seems to be a HUGE factor regarding future socio-economic position. And while the socio-economic position of parents is a big influence on education, manipulating numbers will do little to change that position. The entitlement nature of our general culture also needs to be addressed. That's not everything that contributes to poverty, but it would be a start meaningful change and not a momentary fix that fails to properly deal with its own consequences.

Additionally, simply raising wages puts more money into circulation without increasing the availability of goods and services which results in inflation. While some may argue that there is little to no inflation, one just needs to visit the grocery store.

 

[GenerationX]

The push to boost the minimum wage suffers from the pull of the exorbitant supply of workers willing to take minimum wage positions. This is anecdotal, I know, but I remember as a kid seeing a lot of teenagers in minimum wage positions that I see adults doing now.

There's a natural rate of employment/unemployment, and we're not at it. The best way to get to it, as I see it, is to
1. turn down the spigot on the influx of unskilled workers a few notches
2. expand student loan programs for secondary and trade schools.
Wages would rise naturally for low to unskilled positions as fewer people would be vying for those positions.