Workers want pay boost

[englanddg]

I watched the documentary. A few notes to her situation...

1) She is still married. Though, she is filing head of household, not joint, and claiming her dependents. However, this will effect her refund. Instead of EITC kicking in, she'd get a refund of around $2511 plus any withholdings (in the documentary they indicated she had withholdings, she shouldn't. She needs to refile her W-4 at work). I also note she went to HR Block. She's filing a 1040EZ, no doubt. There is absolutely no reason why she should be paying someone to file her return.

Now, while (as mentioned in the documentary, divorces are expensive), considering that it costs her $5581 per annum in EITC and CTC benefits to stay married, I'd say that needs to be her top priority. Note, she didn't get divorced during the year they followed her.

An non-contested divorce costs around $1000 to $1500. She should sink her refund into that immediately.

2) She is a CNA. Not sure where she got that certification, but she could have predatory student loans still outstanding. That being said, she didn't mention them in the documentary.

3) As noted, her luxury expenses are being eaten up with gas to take the kids to Alabama to see her father. That's her choice, and a good one I think. However, the father could (and should) chip in.

4) She acknowledges in the documentary that she recieves child support. Though, I don't recall her specifying the amount.

5) Based on where she lives, I'd suspect she's paying around $300 a month rent. Which is $350 less than I budgeted for her.

6) Her children are in state funded Pre-K.

7) She does not own her car at first. She makes partial payments per month at a "buy here, finance here" lot, which, while they accept partial payments, also charge the most APR they can. I suspect her car payment is around $150 per month, which I did NOT allocate. However, she does use part of her tax refund to pay it off. Smart move.

8) She mentioned storage...not sure what she is storing, but that's an expense she should cut.

9) She has pets (cat and a dog), and she got rid of the dog during the show. She should never have had pets. She can't afford them. Litter and food alone are at least $50 a month.

10) She has internet (she posted on craigslist), so I assume she also has cable. This is an expense that should be looked at.

11) Her gross reported income is 18,678.82. This means she was not working 40 hours per week. She worked 1968 hours, or about 38 hours per week. Minor point, but when playing with a tight budget like this, it makes a difference.

12) She bypassed medicine, complaining about the costs, but could afford a salon treatment. She paid $87 for that treatment, and also tipped. Probably paid more like $100. If her medical issues are truly that meaningful, this was irresponsible.

 

[slappy magoo]

I watched the documentary. A few notes to her situation...

1) She is still married. Though, she is filing head of household, not joint, and claiming her dependents. However, this will effect her refund. Instead of EITC kicking in, she'd get a refund of around $2511 plus any withholdings (in the documentary they indicated she had withholdings, she shouldn't. She needs to refile her W-4 at work). I also note she went to HR Block. She's filing a 1040EZ, no doubt. There is absolutely no reason why she should be paying someone to file her return.

Now, while (as mentioned in the documentary, divorces are expensive), considering that it costs her $5581 per annum in EITC and CTC benefits to stay married, I'd say that needs to be her top priority. Note, she didn't get divorced during the year they followed her.

An non-contested divorce costs around $1000 to $1500. She should sink her refund into that immediately.

2) She is a CNA. Not sure where she got that certification, but she could have predatory student loans still outstanding. That being said, she didn't mention them in the documentary.

3) As noted, her luxury expenses are being eaten up with gas to take the kids to Alabama to see her father. That's her choice, and a good one I think. However, the father could (and should) chip in.

4) She acknowledges in the documentary that she recieves child support. Though, I don't recall her specifying the amount.

5) Based on where she lives, I'd suspect she's paying around $300 a month rent. Which is $350 less than I budgeted for her.

6) Her children are in state funded Pre-K.

7) She does not own her car at first. She makes partial payments per month at a "buy here, finance here" lot, which, while they accept partial payments, also charge the most APR they can. I suspect her car payment is around $150 per month, which I did NOT allocate. However, she does use part of her tax refund to pay it off. Smart move.

8) She mentioned storage...not sure what she is storing, but that's an expense she should cut.

9) She has pets (cat and a dog), and she got rid of the dog during the show. She should never have had pets. She can't afford them. Litter and food alone are at least $50 a month.

10) She has internet (she posted on craigslist), so I assume she also has cable. This is an expense that should be looked at.

11) Her gross reported income is 18,678.82. This means she was not working 40 hours per week. She worked 1968 hours, or about 38 hours per week. Minor point, but when playing with a tight budget like this, it makes a difference.

12) She bypassed medicine, complaining about the costs, but could afford a salon treatment. She paid $87 for that treatment, and also tipped. Probably paid more like $100. If her medical issues are truly that meaningful, this was irresponsible.

Shorter englanddg - I don't know this woman's whole story but she clearly made a few bad decisions, so I still feel pretty comfortable judging her in a way that my theory that "all the working poor simply need to budget better and can live hunky dory lives with nary an unforeseen expense ever coming down the pike" can remain intact.

 

[englanddg]

Shorter englanddg - I don't know this woman's whole story but she clearly made a few bad decisions, so I still feel pretty comfortable judging her in a way that my theory that "all the working poor simply need to budget better and can live hunky dory lives with nary an unforeseen expense ever coming down the pike" can remain intact.

No. I was merely posting details according to her case for those who have not or did not watch the documentary. You, yourself said a few posts ago, for example, you were not clear on her marital or filing status, and the impact that would have on EITC.

As the documentary revealed, she does have a real issue there.

That being said, at no point was I implying that on 19k in earned and 28k in real income that she is living high on the hog. However, to have 9500 budgeted annually for fluff (be it unforeseen emergencies, temporary loss of employment, or foreseeable expenses, including required expenses like clothes to unrequited ones like toys and DVDs) is pretty good. Far better then most households on even twice that income have to set aside, I suspect.

Is she going to build a strong fiscal foundation at that rate? Nope. But, she is able to live, and live reasonably well. Hence, she is paid a living wage.

If you disagree, then I would ask again. What amount should be considered a "living wage"?

 

[Obi]

i say, give a boost in pay to cinderella that would have to put up with katiebug101.

 

[CDavid]

Is she going to build a strong fiscal foundation at that rate? Nope. But, she is able to live, and live reasonably well. Hence, she is paid a living wage.

If you disagree, then I would ask again. What amount should be considered a "living wage"?

If what she is paid were actually a living wage, it is important to note that her actual wage from employment is $2.24/hour higher than the current minimum wage, which a few people are arguing doesn't warrant an increase. Also, she has children, and (again depending on tax filing status) thus receives a significant benefit in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit. A single individual would have slightly lower living expenses, but with only a fraction (a few hundred dollars???) of the EITC, would have far less income to work with (and no Tenncare either).

Again, while I agree coming up with a budget to live with what you've actually got for income is the right idea, I still think this woman's sample budget is too tight with too many incidentals omitted that add up to measurable expenses, but even if she and her kids can barely manage, there wouldn't seem to be any way for a single individual - even at $9.49. let alone the current minimum of $7.25.

Your modest-priced menu isn't bad, though I might quibble over if people will really eat cereal for breakfast and sandwiches for lunch nearly every day (and probably even less likely to strictly adhere to the menu "budget"). However, it has been my observation (from the food pantry at church) that low income families are eating more spaghetti and macaroni & cheese and far fewer beef-based (hamburger) dishes.

 

[flynnibus]

If what she is paid were actually a living wage, it is important to note that her actual wage from employment is $2.24/hour higher than the current minimum wage, which a few people are arguing doesn't warrant an increase.

Be careful to not blend positions where you lump different ones lazily.

There really are several positions.. not just two. You can summarize the different positions that have been thrown around in this thread as

1. there should be no minimum wage, let it be market dictated
2. minimum wage is too low because it hasn't kept pace with increased COA
3. minimum wage is too low because someone should be able to have a certain living standard
4. all employees are entitled to a minimum living wage for that reflects the employee's current point in their life
5. disney underpays their employees or not

Just because someone doesn't agree with someone advocating for #4, that does not mean they don't agree with #2 or #5. A distinction that keeps getting lost with all the emotional outlashes

 

[Hyperspace Hoopla]

I just went back and reread through this thread. I have to say, my favorite arguement was that Disney should pay employees more money because Frozen grossed $1 Billion worldwide.

Should employees have taken a paycut whn John Carter or Lone Ranger tanked?

 

[ford91exploder]

I just went back and reread through this thread. I have to say, my favorite arguement was that Disney should pay employees more money because Frozen grossed $1 Billion worldwide.

Should employees have taken a paycut whn John Carter or Lone Ranger tanked?

Long ago in America before it became 'Murica or as some would say Amerika (too lazy to do the cyrillic) - There was a concept called profit sharing, ie the line employees were given a share of the profits from that year's operations. In a good year that could be a nice check, Bad years no check.

Surprisingly employees frequently CARED about their companies and whether they were operating efficiently, Then the Wall St guys took over and that profit sharing money went no further than 'Mahogany Row' and checks were cut no matter what the year's financial performance was.

Is it a wonder the average line employee no longer gives a D--m about how well they do their job???

Under this system BOTH success and failure were shared experiences across the entire company.

 

[FireChiefGoofy]

I just went back and reread through this thread. I have to say, my favorite arguement was that Disney should pay employees more money because Frozen grossed $1 Billion worldwide.

Should employees have taken a paycut whn John Carter or Lone Ranger tanked?

I wasn't arguing. Just stating a fact. During out last contract talks three years ago, TWDC cried poor. They said they were not making enough money. In the past three years, ticket prices have increased (TWICE this year alone), Parks & Resorts is making money hand over fist, Pixar, Lucasfilms, Marvel, ABC, and ESPN (ESPN is our cash cow) are making tons of money. All of this doesn't even count the merchandise! I was unable to attend the negotiation session, but I suppose that the list of take-aways the company demanded were because they were not making enough money again. How much is enough?

I would like to see Bob Iger or Meg Crofton spend one day at a park or resort as a regular CM. I bet they would crack in the first hour.

 

[Andrew C]

Long ago in America before it became 'Murica or as some would say Amerika (too lazy to do the cyrillic) - There was a concept called profit sharing, ie the line employees were given a share of the profits from that year's operations. In a good year that could be a nice check, Bad years no check.

Surprisingly employees frequently CARED about their companies and whether they were operating efficiently, Then the Wall St guys took over and that profit sharing money went no further than 'Mahogany Row' and checks were cut no matter what the year's financial performance was.

Is it a wonder the average line employee no longer gives a D--m about how well they do their job???

Under this system BOTH success and failure were shared experiences across the entire company.

I agree with a lot of this.

The only place where I stray from this is when I was a line level employee I cared about how well I did my job (without profit sharing being involved). I knew if I did well, I would have the opportunity for advancement. No, there was no profit sharing that motivated me, but I was motivated by learning something new whenever possible and growing my career. I did not sit back and wait for things to happen to me because I was motivated and wanted to succeed. With advancement came more money. I figure that at least some out there would be motivated by the same types of things. However, I know this is not everyone and that is understandable.

 

[rob0519]

I wasn't arguing. Just stating a fact. During out last contract talks three years ago, TWDC cried poor. They said they were not making enough money. In the past three years, ticket prices have increased (TWICE this year alone), Parks & Resorts is making money hand over fist, Pixar, Lucasfilms, Marvel, ABC, and ESPN (ESPN is our cash cow) are making tons of money. All of this doesn't even count the merchandise! I was unable to attend the negotiation session, but I suppose that the list of take-aways the company demanded were because they were not making enough money again. How much is enough?

I would like to see Bob Iger or Meg Crofton spend one day at a park or resort as a regular CM. I bet they would crack in the first hour.

FireChief and I think alike on this point. Take the money out of it for a minute. Most CEOs and COOs today have never worked the front line of the businesses they run. It's evident from watching any episode of "Undercover Boss". They have no idea what their employees are expected to do and put up with on a day to day basis, nor do they know what their customers actually want or how they act on a day to day basis.

Making financial decisions from spreadsheets is fine, but making management decisions should sometimes include seeing how the business is actually run. Goofy is right. Bob and Meg wouldn't last an hour in Cosmic Ray's or the Emporium, but it would be great of them to go down there and try.

As for profit sharing, that's how our company is keeping yearly raises in check. We may get a 1%-3% raise a year, but they've replaced anything more with a profit sharing bonus. For non-management, salaried employees it comes out to 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, or 10% of your annual salary depending on job grade. The company performance and your individual performance review determine the exact amount. It is quite an incentive.

 

[ford91exploder]

I agree with a lot of this.

The only place where I stray from this is when I was a line level employee I cared about how well I did my job (without profit sharing being involved). I knew if I did well, I would have the opportunity for advancement. No, there was no profit sharing that motivated me, but I was motivated by learning something new whenever possible and growing my career. I did not sit back and wait for things to happen to me because I was motivated and wanted to succeed. With advancement came more money. I figure that at least some out there would be motivated by the same types of things. However, I know this is not everyone and that is understandable.

There is no replacement for individual initiative, But American business is doing it's best to kill initiative - It's thoroughly demoralizing when line workers are told there is no money for pay increases and then the nightly news trumpets how their CEO was given a huge bonus due to the fiscal performance the company turned in.

The huge executive bonuses fuel the desire for pay increases for the worker, One of the steps that Lee Iacocca did that SAVED Chrysler the first time was cutting his salary to $1, He was weathy and did not NEED his salary but it sent a message that 'Chrysler is BROKE' there is no money for executives as well.

Contrast that to Interstate Bakeries where management gave themselves a %50 percent pay bump at the same time they asked the union for a 20% pay decrease. That proposal had a snowballs chance. The bakery might have been saved if not for executive greed IF they had reduced their pay to $1 per year, There might have been a lot more people employed today.

 

[englanddg]

If what she is paid were actually a living wage, it is important to note that her actual wage from employment is $2.24/hour higher than the current minimum wage, which a few people are arguing doesn't warrant an increase. Also, she has children, and (again depending on tax filing status) thus receives a significant benefit in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit. A single individual would have slightly lower living expenses, but with only a fraction (a few hundred dollars???) of the EITC, would have far less income to work with (and no Tenncare either).

Again, while I agree coming up with a budget to live with what you've actually got for income is the right idea, I still think this woman's sample budget is too tight with too many incidentals omitted that add up to measurable expenses, but even if she and her kids can barely manage, there wouldn't seem to be any way for a single individual - even at $9.49. let alone the current minimum of $7.25.

Your modest-priced menu isn't bad, though I might quibble over if people will really eat cereal for breakfast and sandwiches for lunch nearly every day (and probably even less likely to strictly adhere to the menu "budget"). However, it has been my observation (from the food pantry at church) that low income families are eating more spaghetti and macaroni & cheese and far fewer beef-based (hamburger) dishes.

It's worse. A single person at minimum wage won't get any EITC at all. Rather, they'll pay a marginal tax rate of 10%, for a balance of $508 to be deducted from withholdings.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Is it a wonder the average line employee no longer gives a D--m about how well they do their job???

Under this system BOTH success and failure were shared experiences across the entire company.

Scoff if you like but I feel this is a direct result of a form of political correctness. Just like every kid that plays baseball, or whatever sport, gets a trophy.

The lawsuit happy world based on the misguided interpretation that "all men are created equal" never can come to grips with the variable degrees of ability that all those equal humans possess. They cannot reward people that do exceptional work because that might offend the slacker that hasn't broken into a sweat since the time that their air conditioning broke down in August. We live in a world that is bent on becoming dumber every single day.

 

[Andrew C]

There is no replacement for individual initiative, But American business is doing it's best to kill initiative - It's thoroughly demoralizing when line workers are told there is no money for pay increases and then the nightly news trumpets how their CEO was given a huge bonus due to the fiscal performance the company turned in.

The huge executive bonuses fuel the desire for pay increases for the worker, One of the steps that Lee Iacocca did that SAVED Chrysler the first time was cutting his salary to $1, He was weathy and did not NEED his salary but it sent a message that 'Chrysler is BROKE' there is no money for executives as well.

Contrast that to Interstate Bakeries where management gave themselves a %50 percent pay bump at the same time they asked the union for a 20% pay decrease. That proposal had a snowballs chance. The bakery might have been saved if not for executive greed IF they had reduced their pay to $1 per year, There might have been a lot more people employed today.

I understand there are a lot of business like that (this I do not deny), but there are also ones that do not do this, even major corporations. For example, during the height of the recession, management in my company did not take a raise for 2 consecutive years but we still made sure that line level (hourly) team members received some sort of annual raise each of those years. The amount they were given was based on performance reviews for the most part. I think it is easy to paint all businesses as evil because the evil ones make the headlines.

 

[BigTxEars]

Long ago in America before it became 'Murica or as some would say Amerika (too lazy to do the cyrillic) - There was a concept called profit sharing, ie the line employees were given a share of the profits from that year's operations. In a good year that could be a nice check, Bad years no check.

Surprisingly employees frequently CARED about their companies and whether they were operating efficiently, Then the Wall St guys took over and that profit sharing money went no further than 'Mahogany Row' and checks were cut no matter what the year's financial performance was.

Is it a wonder the average line employee no longer gives a D--m about how well they do their job???

Under this system BOTH success and failure were shared experiences across the entire company.

Profit sharing is alive and well in America. In fact the country's largest employer does it 4 times per year.

 

[flynnibus]

Long ago in America before it became 'Murica or as some would say Amerika (too lazy to do the cyrillic) - There was a concept called profit sharing, ie the line employees were given a share of the profits from that year's operations. In a good year that could be a nice check, Bad years no check.

Still a big difference between profit sharing and actually assuming the risk of business. Profit sharing is an incentive program that is all upside. You don't lose money when the company goes negative, you just don't get the bonus. Contrast that with shouldering the burden.. which is.. the company takes losses.. you too take losses.

 

[Minnie1976]

I haven't had a raise in 5 years. Cry me a river.

I haven't had one in 4 years. Health insurance has gone up and benefits down and my take home pay keeps decreasing yearly.

 

[ford91exploder]

Still a big difference between profit sharing and actually assuming the risk of business. Profit sharing is an incentive program that is all upside. You don't lose money when the company goes negative, you just don't get the bonus. Contrast that with shouldering the burden.. which is.. the company takes losses.. you too take losses.

No question about that. Trouble is that kind of system has not been around for years.

 

[ford91exploder]

I understand there are a lot of business like that (this I do not deny), but there are also ones that do not do this, even major corporations. For example, during the height of the recession, management in my company did not take a raise for 2 consecutive years but we still made sure that line level (hourly) team members received some sort of annual raise each of those years. The amount they were given was based on performance reviews for the most part. I think it is easy to paint all businesses as evil because the evil ones make the headlines.

That makes your company very unusual this day and age, I assume it's a privately held company, Businesses are not inherently evil but since the 80's when companies stopped paying dividends in large part companies are forced to manage their stock price with more rigor than they manage their BUSINESS with and that leads to all kinds of distortions.