Workers want pay boost

[ford91exploder]

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.

We could go back to the days when Laywers were not allowed to ADVERTISE, I want to throw something every time I see a lawyer ad for some drug side effect

 

[Andrew C]

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.

We are a public company. We are definitely not perfect, but I feel (for the most part) that management from bottom to top tries to take care of their team members. Are their those in the company who stumble on this, sure. But it is a culture that is stressed over and over again. And I just find it hard to believe the a decent chunk of other companies do not act in the same manner.

 

[BigTxEars]

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.

Exactly.

 

[BigTxEars]

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.

Unless someone on here is going to break out the balance sheets from Disney, then break them down to show wage ratio vs profit ratio none of us are going to know. I think Bob or Meg would last longer in a CM position than a CM in their position

 

[slappy magoo]

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"?

I don't know if you noticed that discrepancy there - for her to make what some might consider to be a "livable wage," she's receiving more than she's earned. Again, the government has to give her more money to stimulate the economy because the employer won't, or can't. Regardless of whether she's making what I think employees ought to make from her employer the fact is she's on a form of government assistance, it just so happens this one's tied to tax rates as opposed to receiving welfare or SNAP benefits.

 

[englanddg]

I don't know if you noticed that discrepancy there - for her to make what some might consider to be a "livable wage," she's receiving more than she's earned. Again, the government has to give her more money to stimulate the economy because the employer won't, or can't. Regardless of whether she's making what I think employees ought to make from her employer the fact is she's on a form of government assistance, it just so happens this one's tied to tax rates as opposed to receiving welfare or SNAP benefits.

It's odd, that her real income after SNAP and EITC came out somewhere around 28k.

I point back to this analysis I did far earlier in the thread...

Workers want pay boost

So, here's my question. Would she do better, with no more expenditure (or very little additional) to the employer if she had control of her monies throughout the year? Or does she do better with her not seeing a large chunk of the real expense of employing her as personal income, and that income is appropriated by the state?

Numbers are numbers. We can have our own opinions, but if all that is discussed is opinions, without facts, then the discussion truly goes nowhere.

That's why I made an effort to actually create a budget, to realize what it would be like to live on that level of income (outside of the fact I've done it before). And while not perfect, it's a decent starting point. You contended (rightfully) you thought my food budget was low. I then did an exercise for quite a nice meal plan, and a more limited one that came in at budget.

If you fail to plan, you plan to fail. I know that's a platitude...but it's quite true. I see it all the time in insurance. People what to buy the "cheapest" they can. Companies, such as Nationwide, even pray on the general ignorance over what is actually quite a simple system with their advertisements against "cut rate car insurance"...what they don't tell you is that they carry standard risks. 3 speeding tickets and bad credit, yeah, they ain't gonna take you. At least not for low premiums.

But, it works, because people won't take time to read or educate themselves about what they are buying. So, they get state minimums, instead of adding things like Uninsured Motorist endorsements and Comp and Coll. They come in and ask for "Full Coverage" insurance...which doesn't exist.

But, your insurance is clearly and plainly in your policy document. And, if you trust that commissioned salesperson who just wants to get you to fork over your down payment to truly assess your risk, you are fooling yourself. And, when you take a loss, you are the one who will get burned if said loss was excluded from your policy. Not the insurance company.

My point is...the literacy rate of the average person when it comes to things that impact your daily lives (and far more important in the long run then even a college education) is atrocious.

How people can graduate with Associates or Bachelors degrees, yet not be able to organize their fiscal house is incredibly annoying to me. Or heck, even a high school dilploma!

But, now I'm way off topic. So...</rant>

 

[slappy magoo]

It's odd, that her real income after SNAP and EITC came out somewhere around 28k.

I point back to this analysis I did far earlier in the thread...

Workers want pay boost

So, here's my question. Would she do better, with no more expenditure (or very little additional) to the employer if she had control of her monies throughout the year? Or does she do better with her not seeing a large chunk of the real expense of employing her as personal income, and that income is appropriated by the state?

Numbers are numbers. We can have our own opinions, but if all that is discussed is opinions, without facts, then the discussion truly goes nowhere.

That's why I made an effort to actually create a budget, to realize what it would be like to live on that level of income (outside of the fact I've done it before). And while not perfect, it's a decent starting point. You contended (rightfully) you thought my food budget was low. I then did an exercise for quite a nice meal plan, and a more limited one that came in at budget.

If you fail to plan, you plan to fail. I know that's a platitude...but it's quite true. I see it all the time in insurance. People what to buy the "cheapest" they can. Companies, such as Nationwide, even pray on the general ignorance over what is actually quite a simple system with their advertisements against "cut rate car insurance"...what they don't tell you is that they carry standard risks. 3 speeding tickets and bad credit, yeah, they ain't gonna take you. At least not for low premiums.

But, it works, because people won't take time to read or educate themselves about what they are buying. So, they get state minimums, instead of adding things like Uninsured Motorist endorsements and Comp and Coll. They come in and ask for "Full Coverage" insurance...which doesn't exist.

But, your insurance is clearly and plainly in your policy document. And, if you trust that commissioned salesperson who just wants to get you to fork over your down payment to truly assess your risk, you are fooling yourself. And, when you take a loss, you are the one who will get burned if said loss was excluded from your policy. Not the insurance company.

My point is...the literacy rate of the average person when it comes to things that impact your daily lives (and far more important in the long run then even a college education) is atrocious.

How people can graduate with Associates or Bachelors degrees, yet not be able to organize their fiscal house is incredibly annoying to me. Or heck, even a high school dilploma!

But, now I'm way off topic. So...</rant>

Except you've admitted your "facts" about her "numbers" are "educated guesses." And how "educated" those "guesses" are is "questionable."

 

[englanddg]

Except you've admitted your "facts" about her "numbers" are "educated guesses." And how "educated" those "guesses" are is "questionable."

That's all one can make. "Educated guesses". Not unless I sat down with her, built a ledger and examined her actual lifestyle / income / expenses / risk factors could I even come close to crafting a detailed budget and lifestyle modification that would work for her.

That being said, she's at her wits end (at least that's what the documentary would like you to believe) and is barely making ends meet. She's not much better off the budget I proposed, however. And, I have yet to hear, outside of trumped up imaginary "unforeseen expenses" any specific points as to how that budget, while tight, isn't viable for feasible.

In the documentary itself she accounts for some of this. She's not a stupid person. She's not a lazy person. She's just treading water. (I'll save my comments about her husband for another post). But, notice the first thing she runs to in order to improve her income situation.

Higher education.

Now, don't get me wrong, there is nothing with this tactic. As an RN vs a CNA, she certainly would do much better on the pay scale. However, to think that if she gets into school (she was accepted) and racks up grant and loan monies (which, she was denied her FAFSA, which puts her at risk for educational predatory loans)...if she can't slow down and control what she currently has, and assess where she is, there is no way she can accurately create a road map to move forward.

And, tying back to my previous post, if you want to get into the medical field, specifically nursing, it doesn't take more than 15 minutes of searching to figure out...a CNA doesn't make all that much money. Perhaps she shouldn't have reached for that (after a 2 year certification program) alone? RN would have been 2 - 3 more years, but the income is nearly twice in most markets. Instead, she probably bought into the marketing points of the enrollment department at whatever business college she attended to get the CNA...and instead of planning a path, she just grabbed one rung up on the ladder.

And, none if it is very difficult to do. But, I don't imagine she has a simple household ledger where she tracks expenses and income. And, especially when your margins of error are so low, that is extremely important.

Again, don't you see it? It's the fallacy we, as a culture, con ourselves into, with many issues. The people who heatedly debate it tend not to be those who are most affected by it. The people who are most affected by it tend not to understand it (through their own choice, generally). And the people who make the decisions generally don't care (even when they put on their shiny suit and flag pin and pretend they do).

That is why both anecdotal stories and extensive studies alone are not truly effective. The former is likely in that situation because they lack the skills to understand it, grasp it, and move forward. The latter is based on assumptions, such as I made with my budget, even though they were researched and considered assumptions on my part to create a genuinely plausible one. For every graph of income disparity, there is someone who will post a graph of income mobility.

 

[GoofGoof]

It's odd, that her real income after SNAP and EITC came out somewhere around 28k.

I point back to this analysis I did far earlier in the thread...

Workers want pay boost

So, here's my question. Would she do better, with no more expenditure (or very little additional) to the employer if she had control of her monies throughout the year? Or does she do better with her not seeing a large chunk of the real expense of employing her as personal income, and that income is appropriated by the state?

Numbers are numbers. We can have our own opinions, but if all that is discussed is opinions, without facts, then the discussion truly goes nowhere.

That's why I made an effort to actually create a budget, to realize what it would be like to live on that level of income (outside of the fact I've done it before). And while not perfect, it's a decent starting point. You contended (rightfully) you thought my food budget was low. I then did an exercise for quite a nice meal plan, and a more limited one that came in at budget.

If you fail to plan, you plan to fail. I know that's a platitude...but it's quite true. I see it all the time in insurance. People what to buy the "cheapest" they can. Companies, such as Nationwide, even pray on the general ignorance over what is actually quite a simple system with their advertisements against "cut rate car insurance"...what they don't tell you is that they carry standard risks. 3 speeding tickets and bad credit, yeah, they ain't gonna take you. At least not for low premiums.

But, it works, because people won't take time to read or educate themselves about what they are buying. So, they get state minimums, instead of adding things like Uninsured Motorist endorsements and Comp and Coll. They come in and ask for "Full Coverage" insurance...which doesn't exist.

But, your insurance is clearly and plainly in your policy document. And, if you trust that commissioned salesperson who just wants to get you to fork over your down payment to truly assess your risk, you are fooling yourself. And, when you take a loss, you are the one who will get burned if said loss was excluded from your policy. Not the insurance company.

My point is...the literacy rate of the average person when it comes to things that impact your daily lives (and far more important in the long run then even a college education) is atrocious.

How people can graduate with Associates or Bachelors degrees, yet not be able to organize their fiscal house is incredibly annoying to me. Or heck, even a high school dilploma!

But, now I'm way off topic. So...</rant>

I applaud your effort to lay out the budget. It was a good way to bring these hypothetical debates into real world terms. There are any number of ways to tweak the numbers and we could all add or take away items but the point is its possible for this particular woman to get by. It's not going to be an easy life, but it's possible and she owes it to those kids to give it her best effort. I wish more people would have taken their time and read your budget post instead of reposting the same tired arguments.

The biggest takeaway for me is that she is getting by because of the tax breaks and other government assistance. She is also making a little over minimum wage. If you take away the earned income credit as some have suggested she isn't making ends meet.

Bringing it all back on topic, it doesn't look like we will ever all agree on whether WDW CMs should be paid more. This thread could go to 1,000 pages and we won't get much more than we already got out of it. I doubt anyone is changing their mind at this point. Slappy fought the good fight and I think you and @flynnibus made some logical arguments even if I don't fully agree with all of it. Some others are so far out there with their thought processes I don't think they can be helped. Probably don't want to be helped either.

 

[jlsHouston]

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.

Which is why if you own a business, and you are successful and profitable you pay yourself well . I think companies should be able to compensate those taking the largest risks and bearing the most accountability for success or failure. And I don't think there is anything wrong with companies rewarding the rank and file with profit sharing and bonuses. Financial incentives work from top to bottom.

 

[CDavid]

That being said, she's at her wits end (at least that's what the documentary would like you to believe) and is barely making ends meet. She's not much better off the budget I proposed, however. And, I have yet to hear, outside of trumped up imaginary "unforeseen expenses" any specific points as to how that budget, while tight, isn't viable for feasible.

In fairness, "unforeseen expenses" like car repairs & maintenance are neither trumped up nor imaginary. That doesn't necessarily mean someone won't make it on your budget, but these are very real, often unavoidable expenses.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but don't many nursing homes or home health agencies provide CNA training, perhaps if you work for them for a time? For someone interested in nursing or healthcare, that's a better option than retail, and probably pays just a little bit better.

How on earth does someone get flatly denied for federal student aid?

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.

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.

While I completely agree that in her present situation it's a bad idea to have pets, it is also true that for many people their pets are almost as much a part of the family as their own children. They would rather do without something themselves to keep Fluffy or Rover fed and housed, and asking them to give the animal up would appear to them to be like asking them to give up a child. Not the most practical viewpoint, but it happens.

Medicine should come first, but if for instance its a $60/month prescription or something, it may not be affordable even if she skips the occasional luxury.

As for her divorce, are there free legal-aid programs which could help, I wonder?

 

[ford91exploder]

How on earth does someone get flatly denied for federal student aid?

Have a felony conviction for a drug related offense is one way to lose eligibility for student funding, Dishonorable discharge from Military is another.

More likely she was applying to an unaccredited school and with the changes in the student loan program in many cases those are no longer eligible for federal student loans.

And now that Student loans have been federalized they are now subject to a minimum FICO score if one exists for the borrower.

Now there are LOTS of ways the Government can deny student loans now that they are the sole issuer. This NEVER should have happened because education funding is now politicized. see drug / military above.

 

[slappy magoo]

That's all one can make. "Educated guesses". Not unless I sat down with her, built a ledger and examined her actual lifestyle / income / expenses / risk factors could I even come close to crafting a detailed budget and lifestyle modification that would work for her.

Yet you had no issue originally creating budgets that imply she's doing far better than the doc would have us believe. Funny, that.

That being said, she's at her wits end (at least that's what the documentary would like you to believe) and is barely making ends meet. She's not much better off the budget I proposed, however. And, I have yet to hear, outside of trumped up imaginary "unforeseen expenses" any specific points as to how that budget, while tight, isn't viable for feasible.

Because you didn't sit down with her, build a ledger and examine her actual lifestyle / income / expenses / risk factors so you could even come close to crafting a detailed budget and lifestyle modification that would work for her?

As an RN vs a CNA, she certainly would do much better on the pay scale. However, to think that if she gets into school (she was accepted) and racks up grant and loan monies (which, she was denied her FAFSA, which puts her at risk for educational predatory loans)...if she can't slow down and control what she currently has, and assess where she is, there is no way she can accurately create a road map to move forward.

She has to pay grant money back?

And, tying back to my previous post, if you want to get into the medical field, specifically nursing, it doesn't take more than 15 minutes of searching to figure out...a CNA doesn't make all that much money. Perhaps she shouldn't have reached for that (after a 2 year certification program) alone? RN would have been 2 - 3 more years, but the income is nearly twice in most markets. Instead, she probably bought into the marketing points of the enrollment department at whatever business college she attended to get the CNA...and instead of planning a path, she just grabbed one rung up on the ladder.

Since we're living in the world of "I don't know her but let's judge her anyway" maybe she got pregnant and thought the best thing to do was make a steady income RIGHT NOW to support her family, even if a few more years of schooling would likely reward her with better pay? It's a decision lots of people make, and while it seems like it bites most people in the butt, the alternative could have been not being able to support her family which, if you don't know what options might be available to you, seems kind of scary in a country where no one is supposed to get a free ride from the "makers?"

 

[slappy magoo]

Now there are LOTS of ways the Government can deny student loans now that they are the sole issuer. This NEVER should have happened because education funding is now politicized. see drug / military above.

Yeah, Lord knows banks never denied potential borrowers money, ever.

 

[ford91exploder]

Yeah, Lord knows banks never denied potential borrowers money, ever.

That's true - but there was ALWAYS another bank, Once the Government turns you down you are DONE FINISHED KAPUT.

 

[slappy magoo]

That's true - but there was ALWAYS another bank, Once the Government turns you down you are DONE FINISHED KAPUT.

Yes, because when a person with a dishonorable discharge or drug offense is denied a college loan, other banks are usually eager to snap those borrowers up. That's easy money, right there.

 

[ford91exploder]

Yes, because when a person with a dishonorable discharge or drug offense is denied a college loan, other banks are usually eager to snap those borrowers up. That's easy money, right there.

Slappy your heart is in the right place, However those new conditions for denial were ADDED when the government took over issuance of loans.

All banks care about is the ability to REPAY or if the loan is eligible for federal guarantees (like student loans used to be) they don't care if you are 'politically undesirable'.

 

[slappy magoo]

Slappy your heart is in the right place, However those new conditions for denial were ADDED when the government took over issuance of loans.

All banks care about is the ability to REPAY or if the loan is eligible for federal guarantees (like student loans used to be) they don't care if you are 'politically undesirable'.

It's not a question of "desirability," unless that person with a drug conviction or a dishonorable discharge otherwise has a sterling credit rating, and more than likely has the sort of collateral on hand where they wouldn't even technically NEED to borrow money to go to college (or a co-signer with that kind of record), they're not going to get that money from a bank, either.

On the flip side, because we're no longer paying banks to take our money and loan it out to students, because they eliminated them as middlemen, that frees up that extra money to go to more eligible students, so let's not pretend this is a case of "awwww, the gubmint ruins everything!"

 

[ford91exploder]

It's not a question of "desirability," unless that person with a drug conviction or a dishonorable discharge otherwise has a sterling credit rating, and more than likely has the sort of collateral on hand where they wouldn't even technically NEED to borrow money to go to college (or a co-signer with that kind of record), they're not going to get that money from a bank, either.

On the flip side, because we're no longer paying banks to take our money and loan it out to students, because they eliminated them as middlemen, that frees up that extra money to go to more eligible students, so let's not pretend this is a case of "awwww, the gubmint ruins everything!"

Slappy, I think you will find that considerably FEWER students are getting federal financial aid than in years past as a result of the changes. In a prior life I was an academic officer with a Ivy league university so I have some experience in this field. I am now in the dreaded private sector.

On the bright side the new federal student loan system created tens of thousands of government jobs in the DC area...

 

[slappy magoo]

Slappy, I think you will find that considerably FEWER students are getting federal financial aid than in years past as a result of the changes. In a prior life I was an academic officer with a Ivy league university so I have some experience in this field. I am now in the dreaded private sector.

On the bright side the new federal student loan system created tens of thousands of government jobs in the DC area...

Correct me if I'm wrong but Back in the Day, weren't the college loans that were routed through banks still insured through the government?
So while the banks would hound delinquent students to pay back the loans, they still would get their money?
Therefore the banks could take chances with higher risk borrowers because they were only risking the interest, not the loan itself?
And taxpayers were on the hook for that money?
I don't know if I'm right, I could be wrong, you're in a position to correct me and I seriously don't mind.

Oh, and is there proof that this new setup resulted in tens of thousands of jobs in the DC area? Again, I'm not saying you're wrong, I honestly don't know, but considering how federal jobs kept getting trimmed in the years since this change, I'd find it hard to believe it was indeed "tens of thousands."