Workers want pay boost

[George]

That may have not been your intent but that is the logical conclusion.

Minimum wage = Living wage
Living wage = $10.57 for single person household
Living wage = $20.66 for a 2 adult/ 2 child household

Therefore, Living wage is contingent upon household size.

Imagine if the Duggers (the lady with a uterus masquerading as a clown car) would need for a living wage. 2 adults with 19 kids would require Mr Dugger's employer to pay him $108.47/hr.

I need a lot more than that. 47 babies and 23 different mommas means a lot of child support for George. I tend to circumvent our odious and restrictive child labor laws by putting my young uns to work in my sock buddy factory.

 

[copcarguyp71]

You have to BE a small business person to understand how badly being one SUCKS in the US and my experience is a couple decades old now and its worse than it ever was. Guess we are 'greedy' for wanting to have a regular paycheck but ours is the only one we can legally NOT pay at the end of a pay period.

We are headed into our 16th year in may and I agree. Although, I would never be able to go back to work for anyone again.

I love how the politicians say they foster small business when what they really mean is that they do special favors for cronies who own businesses with over 10,000 employees. I have never seen a tax break, subsidy, grant or low interest loan made available to us despite looking. Hell, I get penalized on income tax for being self employed.

 

[jaklgreen]

To me, a minimum wage should be where you can support yourself, a single person, with housing /utilities/food/transportation. Like I was able to 20 years ago. Not as others have said as a per person/family wage. In a family you have 2 parents and kid/kids, so that is not 1 but 2 incomes. In my mind there are no such things as single parents unless one parent is dead then the child receives social security income. It takes 2 people to make a child so 2 people should pay. And if you are dumb enough to make kids without the benefit of marriage and the other parents is a dead beat then it is up to you to get 2 jobs to pay for yourself and the child. Minimum wage should be enough to support 1 person at the very least.

 

[Preston Chatsworth]

We are headed into our 16th year in may and I agree. Although, I would never be able to go back to work for anyone again.

I love how the politicians say they foster small business when what they really mean is that they do special favors for cronies who own businesses with over 10,000 employees. I have never seen a tax break, subsidy, grant or low interest loan made available to us despite looking. Hell, I get penalized on income tax for being self employed.

As one who recognizes the importance of the small business owner, I thank you for what you and other SBO's do for this country. The fact that the small business owner is the #1 employer in this nation and our government treats you like slave owners is deplorable.

 

[Nubs70]

To me, a minimum wage should be where you can support yourself, a single person, with housing /utilities/food/transportation. Like I was able to 20 years ago. Not as others have said as a per person/family wage. In a family you have 2 parents and kid/kids, so that is not 1 but 2 incomes. In my mind there are no such things as single parents unless one parent is dead then the child receives social security income. It takes 2 people to make a child so 2 people should pay. And if you are dumb enough to make kids without the benefit of marriage and the other parents is a dead beat then it is up to you to get 2 jobs to pay for yourself and the child. Minimum wage should be enough to support 1 person at the very least.

So as a single person determining my minimum wage, am I entitled an apartment or house? 1500 sqft or 3500 sqft? Deluxe internet or dial up? Cable, Satellite, or over the air? Can I eat out 5 or 10 times a week? Can I get a Bentley, Lexus, or Fiesta?

Or is it easier if I just make what the market can afford and live within my means?

 

[jaklgreen]

So as a single person determining my minimum wage, am I entitled an apartment or house? 1500 sqft or 3500 sqft? Deluxe internet or dial up? Cable, Satellite, or over the air? Can I eat out 5 or 10 times a week? Can I get a Bentley, Lexus, or Fiesta?

Or is it easier if I just make what the market can afford and live within my means?

Minimum wage is supposed to be the minimum people need to be able to live modestly. You have to apply reasonable common sense to it and live within your means, of course. I do not think anyone truly believes that minimum wage should get them a penthouse suite and a Lexus. Saying that is just argumentative. Ideally minimum wage was designed to provide a living with what the "market" could afford. Keep in mind we are talking about the lowest level of employment. Minimum wage should be a starting point and after improvement and experience you should get a salary increase. Someone doing any job for a few years should not make what a teenager in their first job is making. Because anyone who has worked with them knows most** do not work to the same level as someone who has been doing the job for a few year. Not necessarily because of laziness but lack of knowledge and practice. Inflation has gone up so that the current minimum wage is almost laughable in this country. We all see the increase in welfare and food stamps over the last decade. After WWII landlords where not able to charge someone rent that was more then 1 weeks salary. Now you will be hard pressed to find an apartment for $290/month. I stand behind what I say that the minimum wage scale is completely off and has not increase with inflation as it should.

 

[GoofGoof]

This thread is so far off topic at this point, but it all started with a bunch of Disney union workers asking for more money from Disney. Many of these workers are making close to minimum wage and a lot are below the $10.10 number thrown out there by the President as a potential increased minimum wage. Disney's P&R segment had pretty healthy profit margins and is doing extremely well. We can debate hypothetical small businesses going out of business and make up the most extreme scenarios to prove our points both ways, but at the end of the day Disney isn't going bankrupt if the housekeepers and food service workers get a $1 or $2/hr raise. I appreciate the hard work and service provided by these CMs when I visit WDW and think they deserve to be paid more. I would support this move even if it means I would have to pay more for my trips. Bumping these employees up to a higher wage would likely add a buck or 2 to each days park ticket or hotel room. They raised prices a lot more than that this year without a meaningful raise for the workers.

The broader debate on federal minimum wage is where this conversation got out of control. IMHO it turned into a typical political debate with both sides towing the party line and neither side listening to the other. It's why politics isn't worth discussing. I'm not excluding myself from this description.

 

[CDavid]

So as a single person determining my minimum wage, am I entitled an apartment or house? 1500 sqft or 3500 sqft? Deluxe internet or dial up? Cable, Satellite, or over the air? Can I eat out 5 or 10 times a week? Can I get a Bentley, Lexus, or Fiesta??

Those decisions are entirely up to you and have no bearing whatsoever as to what level the minimum wage should be set.

 

[Andrew C]

This thread is so far off topic at this point, but it all started with a bunch of Disney union workers asking for more money from Disney. Many of these workers are making close to minimum wage and a lot are below the $10.10 number thrown out there by the President as a potential increased minimum wage. Disney's P&R segment had pretty healthy profit margins and is doing extremely well. We can debate hypothetical small businesses going out of business and make up the most extreme scenarios to prove our points both ways, but at the end of the day Disney isn't going bankrupt if the housekeepers and food service workers get a $1 or $2/hr raise. I appreciate the hard work and service provided by these CMs when I visit WDW and think they deserve to be paid more. I would support this move even if it means I would have to pay more for my trips. Bumping these employees up to a higher wage would likely add a buck or 2 to each days park ticket or hotel room. They raised prices a lot more than that this year without a meaningful raise for the workers.

The broader debate on federal minimum wage is where this conversation got out of control. IMHO it turned into a typical political debate with both sides towing the party line and neither side listening to the other. It's why politics isn't worth discussing. I'm not excluding myself from this description.

THIS!

 

[Andrew C]

This thread is so far off topic at this point, but it all started with a bunch of Disney union workers asking for more money from Disney.

Wait, wait, wait....I thought it all started with a mouse???

 

[GoofGoof]

Wait, wait, wait....I thought it all started with a mouse???

The mouse got paid in cheese and likely some of Walt's cigarettes. Times were simple back then...mice still worked for cheese and cigarettes were still cool to smoke

 

[draybook]

So as a single person determining my minimum wage, am I entitled an apartment or house? 1500 sqft or 3500 sqft? Deluxe internet or dial up? Cable, Satellite, or over the air? Can I eat out 5 or 10 times a week? Can I get a Bentley, Lexus, or Fiesta?

Or is it easier if I just make what the market can afford and live within my means?

They have done studies that show that if the minimum wage had stayed on course with inflation and CoL, it would be around $21 per hour. If anyone here thinks that you can live a "normal" life on minimum wage then I suggest you hit the marketing circuit and sell your methods to the masses.

 

[Preston Chatsworth]

This thread is so far off topic at this point, but it all started with a bunch of Disney union workers asking for more money from Disney. Many of these workers are making close to minimum wage and a lot are below the $10.10 number thrown out there by the President as a potential increased minimum wage.

This president has never had a real job in his life so what does he know? Mr. Potter showed you how much these low wage earners got back when they filed taxes so why is their tax refund not counted as income? Another good idea Mr. Potter had was to count this tax refund as income when it comes to qualifying for other entitlements (i.e. food stamps; section 8, Obamacare, etc...). This will help cut down on the # of parasites feeding off those who work hard.

 

[wm49rs]

This president has never had a real job in his life so what does he know? Mr. Potter showed you how much these low wage earners got back when they filed taxes so why is their tax refund not counted as income? Another good idea Mr. Potter had was to count this tax refund as income when it comes to qualifying for other entitlements (i.e. food stamps; section 8, Obamacare, etc...). This will help cut down on the # of parasites feeding off those who work hard.

Quoting the other judgmental prat. How utterly surprising.....





Yes, that was irony.

 

[flynnibus]

Nobody should be saying that - and certainly I am not. I am saying a reasonable increase in the minimum wage needs to be part of a comprehensive solution for low income workers in America. As I stated previously, a single individual should be able to basically support themselves; If you have kids to support on a low-income job you may very well need assistance.

The highlighted portion is the basis that screws you over - and yes you are saying these things (because these are the consequences of your ideal). When you throw out terms like 'basically support themselves' - how do you measure if you are doing that? By setting definitions of what someone should be expected to have. You can't simply say 'they have X dollars of disposible income' because they could just be living beyond their means and effectively be poor due to that. So you invariably are sucked into defining what is 'acceptable' to be spending money on to define what the person's costs should be.

No one is inferring the law would restrict them from doing something besides that definition, but by having to define that need and tying people's wages to it, you have created a in-effect standard that defines what the minimum lifestyle is. And that is why this ideal of gauging something to say 'you should be able to support yourself' and reflexing pay based on that is a no-win scenario. The countless examples in this thread highlight the problems in trying to do this.

Nobody is saying that either.

But it is the consequence of your implementing your ideal. You want a standard that ensures single people living comfortably, but anyone who has a family you will in effect penalize them by ignoring their needs in your social reform. When you have dependents, your costs go up, but your minimum wage policy discriminates against people who raise families.

 

[jaklgreen]

Sorry Flynnibus, I do not agree with your argument. Everyone knows what "basic needs" are. They might not like how basic they are but everyone know what they need to survive and what is a need and what is a want. The problem is with many now, that they want their "want" as a need. Everyone wants what their parents have, the nice big house, the new car, the latest electronics but they do not want to work towards them now like their parents did. Basic living is just that, food, shelter, transportation. To imply that someone can not define that is another way of "dumbing down" the people of this country.

 

[GoofGoof]

This president has never had a real job in his life so what does he know?

Like I said a pointless political debate. I don't really care about your political opinions. They have no place here.

Mr. Potter showed you how much these low wage earners got back when they filed taxes so why is their tax refund not counted as income? Another good idea Mr. Potter had was to count this tax refund as income when it comes to qualifying for other entitlements (i.e. food stamps; section 8, Obamacare, etc...). This will help cut down on the # of parasites feeding off those who work hard.

Just to get some facts straight and cut through the political propaganda. The earned income tax credit is heavily weighted towards people with children but the limits go up over $50K in earnings for married filing joint. Well above the minimum wage earning level even with 2 incomes. For a single worker with no children it maxes out at less than $500. Anyone can post what they claim to be someone's tax return, but the FACTS are the earned income credit isn't some windfall for "parasites". It's designed to help low to moderate income families with children make ends meet. Quite frankly a family of 4 with 2 incomes who are earning a combined $50K would likely be offended to be called low income and certainly would be offended at being called a parasite.

 

[Nubs70]

Sorry Flynnibus, I do not agree with your argument. Everyone knows what "basic needs" are. They might not like how basic they are but everyone know what they need to survive and what is a need and what is a want. The problem is with many now, that they want their "want" as a need. Everyone wants what their parents have, the nice big house, the new car, the latest electronics but they do not want to work towards them now like their parents did. Basic living is just that, food, shelter, transportation. To imply that someone can not define that is another way of "dumbing down" the people of this country.

So what are the basic needs and how much do they cost?

 

[flynnibus]

I seriously disagree with his politics and some of the reasons why he would introduce such a legislation but the math on consumer spending for WalMart customers seems relatively sound.

Do you have any link to the specific citation? I spent a few minutes trying to find the actual study referenced but got bogged down by all the other stuff that Berkley publishes. I'm particularlly interested in how they calculated the McDonald's number since McDonalds is a complex beast due to the franchising.

Although it is easy to disperse increases in labor across such a broad customer base, in this case the largest retailer in the world, I still see how this could work for even the small business model.

The dividing the costs over extremely large workforces works to mask the variation in impact and makes the stats look good.. the old 'who can't afford 20c a day?' kind of argument. But the pain is not distributed equally as the number would suggest, and without looking at the reasoning it's hard to put much faith in.

Another simple way to look at is.. if you raise wages by $3.. assume true cost is 30% more.. so basically $4/hr per worker. So a company needs to cover $4 more in costs... yet the increase of income in workers is only about $2.40... So that gap alone right there means this 'zero sum' arguments are completely bogus and costs or cuts must go up to offset those increased costs. Your costs are increasing more than the amount of disposable income you are putting into the market.

Like noted earlier many of these low income employers are in the service industry and fast food. I dont have a breakdown of employee expense ratios but hotels make huge profits on their room rates and as a former restaurant owner and manger I know that food costs and overhead(rent, utilities) are the major expenses

Yeah, but at the end of the day, what was your net operating margin really like? While labor may not be the dominate portion.. if it disrupts the delicate balance.. its still quite nasty.

The reason this will never happen(I'm sure 1 of many) is because Wall Street would implode if entire sectors would see a dip in their earnings. The world would sell away every share of Burger King because they only made 15% on earnings instead of 20%(hyperbole intended).

Yup.. I mentioned that earlier as well. No response suprisingly? People pitching purely on the moral grounds don't like to acknowledge 'unintended consequences' or how to deal with them.

 

[jaklgreen]

So what are the basic needs and how much do they cost?

Are you being serious?