$15 Minimum Wage by 2021!

[TheMaxRebo]

They actually aren't, and they certainly aren't to the extent that companies like Disney Profit. Why does Disney care about its investors ? They aren't issuing any further stock in order to generate investment money and build the company, they stock value is a moot point to Disney as a company. Of course, to it shareholder's / owners, that's a different story.

Maybe you are unaware, but most businesses, millions of them, don't make any profits. They pay their expense, pay their owner's/managers/workers a salary, and break even generally speaking.

It's ironic that your concern is that the money goes out to the shareholders so they can in turn spend it on things, and then you think it would be a terrible idea that the same money would go to the workers who produce those profits because that would spell the end of the economy, I mean, who would buy things and stimulate the economy ??? As if, if the money went directly to those workers they wouldn't spend the money and stimulate the economy themselves ?

Also, the owners aren't "mostly normal everyday people" around 10% of people own 85% of the stock market value. Sure, 15% is shared by the other 90%, and about half of Americans own none. The owners are, by FAR, VASTLY, Almost completely (use whatever accurate descriptor you want) The upper 10%, and upper 1% of the wealthiest in America and the world.

Disney cares for the investors if they want to get additional funds for future investment - the value of the stock and the volatility of their earnings and projected earnings has a direct impact on what interest rate they can borrow money at

Plus many senior executives are largely compensated through stock and dividends on the stock they are given ... so if you want to attract top executives your stock needs to perform well

And most of the stock is own by institutional investors - no individuals ... I am sure at least a good portion of that is probably from wealthy people investing in various funds, but a lot of it is funds that are managed as part of regular people's 401Ks and IRAs, etc. (I know that is where my ownership in DIS is)

So the stock price definitely matters - personally, I wish for a company like Disney the investors took more of a long term view and it changed to more of a dividend stock - as I think the brand name means a lot for the value of the stock and having happy CMs that provide great service and thus increase the feeling the general population has about the brand should matter - too much focus on quarterly earnings for DIS

 

[DisFanDad]

Disney cares for the investors if they want to get additional funds for future investment - the value of the stock and the volatility of their earnings and projected earnings has a direct impact on what interest rate they can borrow money at

Plus many senior executives are largely compensated through stock and dividends on the stock they are given ... so if you want to attract top executives your stock needs to perform well

And most of the stock is own by institutional investors - no individuals ... I am sure at least a good portion of that is probably from wealthy people investing in various funds, but a lot of it is funds that are managed as part of regular people's 401Ks and IRAs, etc. (I know that is where my ownership in DIS is)

So the stock price definitely matters - personally, I wish for a company like Disney the investors took more of a long term view and it changed to more of a dividend stock - as I think the brand name means a lot for the value of the stock and having happy CMs that provide great service and thus increase the feeling the general population has about the brand should matter - too much focus on quarterly earnings for DIS

None of this changes anything I said - stock price, profits, aren't necessary for a company to stay open.

Revenues are certainly important for a company to be able to borrow money, absolutely, but again a) not necessary, b) nothing says you can't have stable revenue that will allow you to borrow and still pay your employees well (and not run massive profits necessarily)

Stop with the "regular people" - "regular people" don't own any meaningful amount of stock. Not only, as I said before, is 85% of the stock market value owned by the top 10% of people, but 92% of the stock market value is owned by the 20% of wealthiest Americans. That means the bottom 80% of Americans share 8% of the stock market value (and yes, this includes 401Ks and other savings vehicles). And about 50% of Americans own nothing, zero, nadda. "Regular People" don't own stock. If you have a 401K, or stock holdings, with any significant value in them, chances are, you aren't actually a "regular person" you are part of the most well off economically in America, even if it doesn't feel to you like you are. That doesn't make you a 10%er, but it does mean you are doing pretty well, probably a 20%er (if you have any significant holdings / savings). And last time I checked, being in the top 20% of any group, doesn't make you a "regular" or "average" or "middle" representative of that group.

 

[KaptKaveman]

None of this changes anything I said - stock price, profits, aren't necessary for a company to stay open.

Profits certainly help with staying open and drawing investors. Again few people start a business or invest in a business with the sole purpose of "breaking even". They would be better off putting money in a savings account.

Revenues are certainly important for a company to be able to borrow money, absolutely, but again a) not necessary, b) nothing says you can't have stable revenue that will allow you to borrow and still pay your employees well (and not run massive profits necessarily)

Profits are not a negative thing, and should be the goal of every company. If I am looking into a company to invest in and Company A has the mindset that profits are negative and we are not interested in making a profit and Company B has the mindset that profits are a good thing for employees and investors in Company B..... guess which company I will invest in?

 

[KaptKaveman]

Stop with the "regular people" - "regular people" don't own any meaningful amount of stock.

No. Regular people absolutely own meaningful amounts of stock. When I look at my investments I see a meaningful number, Bill Gates might see chump change.... meaningful is in the eye of the beholder I guess.

I actually worked for a small company where the owner wasn't interested in making big profits. So long as the business was growing and the employees taken care of, he was OK. That was, hands down, the best place I ever worked. And they didn't go out of business - they sold their business for a huge price

 

[fla4fun]

It may look contradictory, but I am saying two different things.

During his running of the company, the owner himself said many times that he wasn't in it to make a ton of money. As long as all the expenses were covered and everyone was making a good wage, he was good with that. And that's how the company operated on a day to day basis. There were corners he could have cut to make a larger profit if he wanted, but he didn't. He really did care about the people working for him, and showed it through his actions.

Some people may think that would be an enterprise doomed to failure, so I wanted to communicate the second item, that when it came time for the owner to retire, he elected to sell the business, and did make a tidy sum off the sale. He had created a successful business that was doing well enough that someone would be interested in buying it. But that was totally unrelated to the salaries and working conditions during his tenure as boss. The new owners were definitely in it to make as much profit as they could and the working conditions deteriorated a lot, although the company is still operating. I think it's still in business because people get used to being treated badly, and so it's no different there today than anyplace else - except to those of us who knew it "way back when".

 

[dlavender]

Profits certainly help with staying open and drawing investors. Again few people start a business or invest in a business with the sole purpose of "breaking even". They would be better off putting money in a savings account.



Profits are not a negative thing, and should be the goal of every company. If I am looking into a company to invest in and Company A has the mindset that profits are negative and we are not interested in making a profit and Company B has the mindset that profits are a good thing for employees and investors in Company B..... guess which company I will invest in?

Here's the argument "against" profits...

At what point do you draw a line? Profits keep hitting records. And behind those records are taxpayers propping up these record breaking profits by subsidizing their employees. If the company is making billions and that money is being redistributed to the upper 10% of those who own most of the stock market, why are we subsidizing that? In my view, we shouldn't be. We should say, ok, you can obviously afford to get your own employees off food stamps now......We've footed that bill for too long. I don't understand subsidizing the top 10%.

And on that note, why have a minimum wage at all? Why not let the large corporations just pay $1 an hour or whatever the "free market" dictates? Profits surely would soar even higher! I can't see a problem there....Companies have always historically done right by their employees....

 

[KaptKaveman]

Here's the argument "against" profits...

Here is the argument for Profits. Without profits no one would start up a business because you just removed the incentive for entrepreneurs and investor. No businesses.... no goods and services.

And on that note, why have a minimum wage at all?

Why shoot for 15$ as a minimum wage at all and then turn around and complain about it. Just go whole hog and ask for 30$ an hour for all employees period. I mean you just removed any incentive to improve their work performance and move up in the company but I am sure that won't be an issue.

Realize the free market is already at work, and working as intended. Sure some companies start you off at minimum wage but other companies(like Costco, Chick-fila, Publix, and soon to be Disney) willingly pay more than the minimum wage. Why? Because the free market has dictated it, higher salaries means better customer service, which leads to a more loyal customer base.

When I started working in 1992(as a bagger at Kroger) I made $4.25 and hour. I was at this Salary for about a month or so before getting a raise(at 15 years old). The reality is no one is forcing anyone to work for minimum wage. We all have the freedom to expand our skill set and sometimes that skill set can be something as simple as showing up for work on time and sticking with a company for longer than a month.

 

[dlavender]

Here is the argument for Profits. Without profits no one would start up a business because you just removed the incentive for entrepreneurs and investor. No businesses.... no goods and services.



Why shoot for 15$ as a minimum wage at all and then turn around and complain about it. Just go whole hog and ask for 30$ an hour for all employees period. I mean you just removed any incentive to improve their work performance and move up in the company but I am sure that won't be an issue.

Realize the free market is already at work, and working as intended. Sure some companies start you off at minimum wage but other companies(like Costco, Chick-fila, Publix, and soon to be Disney) willingly pay more than the minimum wage. Why? Because the free market has dictated it, higher salaries means better customer service, which leads to a more loyal customer base.

When I started working in 1992(as a bagger at Kroger) I made $4.25 and hour. I was at this Salary for about a month or so before getting a raise(at 15 years old). The reality is no one is forcing anyone to work for minimum wage. We all have the freedom to expand our skill set and sometimes that skill set can be something as simple as showing up for work on time and sticking with a company for longer than a month.

I didn't say remove all profits. I asked a question, where do you draw the line? Profits are great. But how high do you let profits soar while you are subsidizing them? Would you keep buying a friend groceries when he was making 1000x's more than you? Wouldn't you at one point say, "hey man, you are 1000x's richer than I am, why am I buying your food for you?" Simplistic analogy for sure, but it still makes the point...

 

[Disneymom1126]

It's important that companies pay workers a living wage because when they don't the responsibility to help people live (food, health care, housing, etc.) falls onto tax payers. People complain about social services (food stamps, etc.), but there wouldn't be a need for these programs if private companies appropriately paid their workers. There is no reason that we live in one of the wealthiest countries on the planet and people who work full time jobs (or multiple full time jobs) to support their families should need additional government help to live. It is that way because of corporate greed and an unbalanced distribution of wealth. It is a positive thing that Disney is paying its workers more. Here we are on a Disney message board where many of us are fortunate enough to take multiple trips to Disney and people are complaining that they may have to pay more/take one less trip a year so that people who are scraping by to make ends meet can better feed themselves/their families...then blaming them for circumstances/the choices they have made that have led them to this type of employment when it is very likely most of us had a plethora of opportunities via our social and cultural capital that set us up for the success we have had that were not afforded to them. Or maybe they have made mistakes, but now they are working hard to overcome them...Honestly....

 

[KaptKaveman]

I didn't say remove all profits. I asked a question, where do you draw the line?

You are talking about capping profits, which amounts to removing incentive to achieve. I don't draw any lines except for myself. I am certainly not going to hold a grudge against the Jeff Bezos and the Bill Gates of the world simply because they have more money than I. Nor am I going to advocate govt. or any other entity drawing an arbitray line to keep them from making profits.

It's important that companies pay workers a living wage because when they don't the responsibility to help people live

"Living Wage" must be the new idealistic buzzword. No one can define it, or set a value on it because it is "different" for every single person but yet somehow companies are supposed to figure out what it means for each employee and provide it. Wouldn't a better solution be for each individual to decide what their living wage is for them and go out and earn it?

 

[Hikergirl]

Why is the company's responsibility and not the individual?
Why does the company have to something, why aren't we expecting people to have to do something to better their financial position in life?
People make choices, they can make different choices however they don't, instead they have this expectation that someone else should be forced to have no choice in "helping" them because it's "fair".
I know all the arguments how some people can't ........ and it's BS. We all have the same opportunities, for some they may require more effort but they are there. People just aren't willing to sacrifice and work hard in order to take advantage of those opportunities then they cry it's not fair that they don't get paid $X when they live in a high cost of living area, or because they choose to raise a family they can't afford.......
If what people expected from themselves is what they expect from "the company" we wouldn't have a need for all those tax payer programs and subsidies. It isn't the corporations fault, it's society's fault for making excuses for why an individual can't be responsible for the choices they make.

 

[KaptKaveman]

^ What she said.

 

[Disneymom1126]

Why is the company's responsibility and not the individual?
Why does the company have to something, why aren't we expecting people to have to do something to better their financial position in life?
People make choices, they can make different choices however they don't, instead they have this expectation that someone else should be forced to have no choice in "helping" them because it's "fair".
I know all the arguments how some people can't ........ and it's BS. We all have the same opportunities, for some they may require more effort but they are there. People just aren't willing to sacrifice and work hard in order to take advantage of those opportunities then they cry it's not fair that they don't get paid $X when they live in a high cost of living area, or because they choose to raise a family they can't afford.......
If what people expected from themselves is what they expect from "the company" we wouldn't have a need for all those tax payer programs and subsidies. It isn't the corporations fault, it's society's fault for making excuses for why an individual can't be responsible for the choices they make.

If only life were truly as simple as working hard and making what you believe to be "good choices." It's not...we don't all have the same opportunities. People are born into circumstances that leave them set back from the start, others have bad things happen to them, medical bills they can't pay, etc. We can't all just work harder and things will get better. People in these circumstances sacrifice a lot more than you or I do. Life is MORE COMPLEX than that.

Maybe living wage is a "buzz word." Sure the cost of living is different in a lot of places, but even a single person living in a low cost of living location would struggle to make ends meet on $15/hr. Orlando is actually a pretty low-cost of living location compared to many places. There will always be stratification between classes of workers, but there should never be a category of workers who is unable to support themselves.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

Why is the company's responsibility and not the individual?
Why does the company have to something, why aren't we expecting people to have to do something to better their financial position in life?
People make choices, they can make different choices however they don't, instead they have this expectation that someone else should be forced to have no choice in "helping" them because it's "fair".
I know all the arguments how some people can't ........ and it's BS. We all have the same opportunities, for some they may require more effort but they are there. People just aren't willing to sacrifice and work hard in order to take advantage of those opportunities then they cry it's not fair that they don't get paid $X when they live in a high cost of living area, or because they choose to raise a family they can't afford.......
If what people expected from themselves is what they expect from "the company" we wouldn't have a need for all those tax payer programs and subsidies. It isn't the corporations fault, it's society's fault for making excuses for why an individual can't be responsible for the choices they make.

But it just isn't true that everyone has the same opportunities - some people are born into situations that give them many advantages over others. Yes, many people can make short term sacrifices to provide long term benefits, but not everyone is able to do that if they just need to put food on the table, pay medical bills, etc. - they have to take what they can get today

And even in high cost areas there are jobs that need to be done and someone has to do them - someone has to clean your hotel room, serve you your quick service burger, etc.

In a perfect world there would be no mandated minimum wage and companies would pay workers what they were worth and part of that is even people doing entry level type positions are viewed as valuable as they are jobs that need to get done - but the precedence has been set with a stated minimum wage and companies will manage to that and investors will want them to.

I don't know what "living wage" means - and it probably does mean something different to different people in different areas - but I still feel that no one should be at or near the poverty level if they are working full time and working hard at a job that someone needs to do

 

[dlavender]

You are talking about capping profits, which amounts to removing incentive to achieve. I don't draw any lines except for myself. I am certainly not going to hold a grudge against the Jeff Bezos and the Bill Gates of the world simply because they have more money than I. Nor am I going to advocate govt. or any other entity drawing an arbitray line to keep them from making profits.



"Living Wage" must be the new idealistic buzzword. No one can define it, or set a value on it because it is "different" for every single person but yet somehow companies are supposed to figure out what it means for each employee and provide it. Wouldn't a better solution be for each individual to decide what their living wage is for them and go out and earn it?

Never said cap profits....

I said why not make corporations start taking the financial burden off tax payers. They can profit as much as they want, just stop making us fill in the pay gap when they can afford it.

 

[Hikergirl]

Baloney, we all do have the same opportunities.
One can use their circumstance as an excuse to not take advantage of them though. And I never said it was simple, in fact it is far from that, and that is the point. People want a simple easy fix they don't want to do what is necessary to grab hold of those opportunities. And I'm not talking about just working harder, like you said it is much more complex.

 

[Disneymom1126]

Baloney, we all do have the same opportunities.
One can use their circumstance as an excuse to not take advantage of them though. And I never said it was simple, in fact it is far from that, and that is the point. People want a simple easy fix they don't want to do what is necessary to grab hold of those opportunities. And I'm not talking about just working harder, like you said it is much more complex.

Come on...this is really just laughable at this point. We all have the same opportunities? Every single person in this country? Let's just look at the differences in the early life of kids. Every one of our parents is a good parent? Every one of us grows up with someone reading to us from the time we are babies? Every one of our children goes to bed at a decent hour with a full belly? No child is abused? No child is neglected? These things don't affect a child's ability to thrive in school and get the education that is clearly necessary to advance down the road in jobs/careers? Peoples' opportunities vary greatly from the time they are conceived. Some people are lucky enough to overcome these circumstances, others are consumed by them. It's why there is such a thing as generational poverty. That isn't even getting into issues that further stratify and divide us...once again that some people have to overcome and others do not. I happen to be someone lucky enough to overcome a lot of adversity in my life, but I know countless others who have not been able to and it isn't for lack of effort it's because the system is set up in such a way that makes it darn near impossible to "pull yourself up by your bootstraps." Privilege is a heck of a drug.

 

[dlavender]

Come on...this is really just laughable at this point. We all have the same opportunities? Every single person in this country? Let's just look at the differences in the early life of kids. Every one of our parents is a good parent? Every one of us grows up with someone reading to us from the time we are babies? Every one of our children goes to bed at a decent hour with a full belly? No child is abused? No child is neglected? These things don't affect a child's ability to thrive in school and get the education that is clearly necessary to advance down the road in jobs/careers? Peoples' opportunities vary greatly from the time they are conceived. Some people are lucky enough to overcome these circumstances, others are consumed by them. It's why there is such a thing as generational poverty. That isn't even getting into issues that further stratify and divide us...once again that some people have to overcome and others do not. I happen to be someone lucky enough to overcome a lot of adversity in my life, but I know countless others who have not been able to and it isn't for lack of effort it's because the system is set up in such a way that makes it darn near impossible to "pull yourself up by your bootstraps." Privilege is a heck of a drug.

Or how about simple physiological and biological differences? Everyone has the same IQ? Everyone has the same physical abilities? Ok.......

And lets pretend that everyone somehow overcomes everything. Now what?

And I've brought up subsidies umpteen times in this thread. Not one person has even countered. Wonder why that is?

Fact is, there is a lot of growing tension and friction in the work place right now around this. How long can we just keep saying, "just do better for yourself?"

Quick question/theoretical since the C-suite is so deserving of making all of the money....
Pretend all of the C-suite calls out for a week. The next week, all of the ride attendants call out, which one has a greater impact on the company?

This is what we are facing. Teachers are doing it, and IMO, the other groups are not too far behind. Why not get ahead of this? Why would it be so terrible for corporations to funnel some of the wealth downstream this time? See above theoretical......

 

[dlavender]

See below chart...This is what we are facing. As I stated previously, there is a lot of friction around this.

 

[dlavender]

No. Regular people absolutely own meaningful amounts of stock. When I look at my investments I see a meaningful number, Bill Gates might see chump change.... meaningful is in the eye of the beholder I guess.

I'm on a chart binge right now.....



"The CEO-worker retirement benefit gap is even larger than the wage gap. As of the end of 2015, just 100 CEOs had company retirement funds worth $4.7 billion — a sum equal to the entire retirement savings of the 41 percent of U.S. families with the smallest nest eggs. Workers lucky enough to have a 401(k) plan through their employer had a median balance of just $18,433."

Still discounting statistics?