Disney cuts theme park jobs

Jeff said:
At the high end, in my line of work, we hire people on work visas from India because there aren't enough "white boys" here to do the work.

Maybe your company should expand their horizons on who they wish to hire.. Perhaps non white boys or females ;)

::I now return you back to the tennis match::

wahoo skipper said:
If a company can afford to own their own jets and fly their employees to Aspen for trainings then I'd argue they were too bloated to begin with. Unfortunately it is hard to distinguish the good companies that are getting the shaft from the bad companies who deserve the shaft.

If a government can afford to own their own jets and fly their congressmento Aspen for junkets then I'd argue they were too bloated to beginwith. Unfortunately it is hard to distinguish the good goverment thatare getting the shaft from the bad goverment who deserve the shaft.

The problem is we are the ones getting the shaft from bad government

Let's look at this from the perspective of the common thread we all have here-- parks. Specifically, your typical park job-- ride op, food service, gift shop cashiers, and game workers.

For the sake of discussion, pretend these jobs aren't mostly part time and seasonal. If I understand what Jeff is saying, these jobs are only worth so much, so if a person isn't satisified being paid what the job is worth, they should learn some additional skills and move on to a job that is worth (pays) more based on skill level. But if enough people do that, then who's left to scoop out the Dippin' Dots and run the Tilt-a-whirl (as Ensign and Carrie pointed out)?

On the other hand, Carrie and gator believe that all jobs should pay a "living wage." Since nobody has been arguing (thankfully) that companies shouldn't be making a fair profit, we can say that the increase in expenses due to increased wages must be offset by an increase in revenue. Of course we all know where that comes from. We'll pay more for park admission and the Dippin' Dots will cost more-- maybe a little more, maybe a lot. The issue there is, jobs do have different "worths," so the jobs that require more skills should expect to be paid "living wage" plus more. Some a little bit more, some a lot more.

But what happens when the supermarkets, the dry cleaner, bookstores, fast food joints, etc., etc. all have to increase their revenues to cover their increased costs? Do we find that the new "living wage" again falls short? Do we have to keep increasing it beyond normal cost of living increases? Human nature tells us people not only want to maintain their style of living, they want to keep increasing it.

I don't know what the answers are. I'm opening it up for discussion.

"Living Wage" is a great idea in theory. I think it use to be called 'cost of living'. The problem, as I remember, was that when people reached the living wage, or COL, the prices of everything went up, putting them right back to square one, demanding more money and so forth.

Personally, I feel for everyone that's getting layed-off right now. Things are bad out there and getting worse.

Back to Disney, I've never been to a Disney park, but I did go to many of the Disney stores. Those stores always seemed to have at least 10-15 people working there at one time. The service was great and wait times were like nothing if you had questions or wanted to pay for something. Are there any Disney stores left in Ohio?

RatherGoodBear said:
But if enough people do that, then who's left to scoop out the Dippin' Dots and run the Tilt-a-whirl (as Ensign and Carrie pointed out)?

But that's exactly my point... the market responds and offers more for the job when there's a scarcity gap. That's the way supply and demand works, at both ends.

FLYINGSCOOTER said:
The problem, as I remember, was that when people reached the living wage, or COL, the prices of everything went up, putting them right back to square one, demanding more money and so forth.

There may be a simple soulution to that. I say that the exorbitant amounts of money that the CEO are making could be at least part of the problem. Take some money away from the big wig paychecks (just a little bit, enough to make a difference) and put it into the little guys paychecks, then prices don't have to go up because the company isn't losing money, the big wigs are. The balance between employee pay and profit leans too far toward the benefit of the business owners, CEO's, GM, ect., in my opinion.

Sure, anyone can do low-training/low-education level jobs. But isn't their time worth at least a little more than 7 bucks an hour? And sure, more experienced and higher educated people deserve more money, but some of them make way too much, in my opinion. If ten million was taken away from the salery of someone who makes fifety million, and that money was spread out to other employees, the living wage problem would be solved. Mr. Multi- millionaire probably wouldn't miss it either, because he still gets paid fourty million a year.

I know to some readers my post sounds reasonable, but my input will probably turn out to be "proven" very, very wrong, all within the next few posts.

Flying Scooter, I know there is still a Disney store at Belden Village Mall north of Canton.

LostKause said:
...my input will probably turn out to be "proven" very, very wrong, all within the next few posts.

Then there's no reason to. :)

So with that out of the way, we can move to the opinion portion of our show.

If there's one thing that kills me about the current economy and the stimulus and whatnot - it's the salary witch hunt.

Sorry, I'm not a propontent of spreading the wealth just because. I don't think some people should be penalized just because they were good/lucky/shrewd/skilled/talented/ruthless/driven/whatever enough to make ridiculous sums of money in life and on the flip side I don't think some people should be guaranteed a 'living wage' just because they weren't good/lucky/shrewd/skilled/talented/ruthless/driven/whatever enough.

A living wage isn't a right. If it were, we could all just sit on our asses all day and type on an enthusiast forum...

...oh, wait. ;)

And what really gets me is that you're a creative dude, LK. You're in a band that seems to be doing fairly well. You're a friggin' entrepreneur. You pretty much have a way to beat the system and do it your way. Should you be penalized for that?

I thought entrepreneurial frigging was illegal . . . ;)

I wasn't talking about myself there. I was talking about a possible solution to the problem. It's corny, but I want everyone to live a good life, not just me.

I believe that a living wage is a right, at least here in the U.S. (the persuit of happiness). How do we expect people fresh out of high school to be able to "make it" in the real world without being able to take care of themselves? Younger people should be able to pay for the necessities of life without getting charity, either from the parents or the government, imho. Isn't that the point of minimum wage in the first place?

"Spreading the wealth", as you put it, is probably the only way to fix the gap between the milionair class and the poor class. There is only so much money (Well there's supposed to be, but that's a totally different debate.) to go around. If those making fiftey million a year, for example, lowered their income a few million per year, and allowed that money to suppliment the incomes of the lower class, I think that the economy would be in much better shape.

Mr. Mulit-Millionaire would still be well off, and the poor nobodies he employs would be able to pay the rent and live a happier life.

I own my own small home, my own used vehicle, and don't have any credit card bills. I'm not on any government assistance, but being from a very poor area, I know a lot of people who are. The people who own the businesses that they work for are very well off. Which brings me to this point...

Not everyone could own their own business. There would be too many business and no one to work at them, because business need employees to run them. Someone needs to be in that low wage job. Why not make the wages a little better? Mr. Multi-Millionare will not miss it.

-------

Most bands don't make much money, btw; not in this area anyway. I'd have to quit my real job and go on tour to promote the band in order to make any kind of substantial pay, and even there you aren't guarenteed decent money.

And if my new or old band (a.k.a. business) was huge enough that I would need to employ my own staff, I'd be fair to them in terms of compensation.

And so there is no misunderstanding about my band life, I need to let everyone know that my band is on hiatus right now, as of a while ago. There is a chance that we'll get back together some day, but I am working on another music project in the meantime. It all has been spelled out on the band's website, and it just occured to me that we are still talking here as if my band is still performing shows.

LostKause said:
Most bands don't make much money, btw; not in this area anyway. I'd have to quit my real job and go on tour to promote the band in order to make any kind of substantial pay, and even there you aren't guarenteed decent money.

I suppose that depends.

I have to come clean though, it was a loaded comment on my part.

My only (and later main) source of income from the time I was 16 until I was 24 was music. I suspect we have a lot more in common than you think.

Why not make the wages a little better? Mr. Multi-Millionare will not miss it.

Here's the thing - who gets to decide that and who gets to decide where the line is drawn? You essentially want to penalize anyone who gets too successful in order to reward those who aren't.

Robin Hood was a tool. :)

Wow, Gonch, I'm not sure I would have taken you for an Ayn Rand fan. Aren't you shooting down our entire system of progressive taxation (or what's left of it, anyway)?

I thought the reason the tax system we have (had) was to address inequities inherent in an unfettered capitalistic system. In the 19th century through the first third of the 20th century, the successful (and innovative and lucky and ballsy and manipulative and aggressive and any other adjective you care to stick in here) were rewarded, certainly. Unfortunately it didn't end there. The inequalities that were generated magnified themselves and fed upon themselves, until finally we wound up with the likes of Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie, businesses and businesses who were richer than Solomon and more powerful than the governments of many nations. Anybody remember things like company towns, monopolies, vertical integration? There's a reason both Roosevelts, Teddy and F.D., were as popular as they were.

I'm not suggesting we need to constantly push some sort of Reset button on anybody who's accrued large sums of wealth. Only that some perspective and moderation is in order -- now as much as it was then.

I see the main difference in your examples as instituting a limit to preserve the system. I think I'm ok with that. You don't want the game to break. Without a game, nobody can win.

There's a difference between drawing that line to keep the game fair so that everyone has a chance and drawing that line to keep those who are losing in the game at the expense of those winning.

Well, I was trying to insinuate that the business owners be the ones who take action, not government via a Celine on wages.

I always thought you were a closeted musician, Gonch. "Friggin' entrepreneur" kind of gave away that it was "loaded". :)

I don't have a problem with people making more and being taxed more. In fact, I forget who the CEO was recently who said he'd much prefer that than some arbitrary cap to salaries, which is absolutely wrong. The only problem is that the more you make, the more you can shelter your income from tax in various devices. I mean, I do OK for myself, and I can tell you my effective tax rate is lower than that of people who make half what I do.

But this entitlement stuff is crap. You're entitled to whatever you're willing to work for in terms of wage (health care, on the other hand is something completely different). People get all pissed off about executive pay, but I ask you, what incentive would they have to lead a company without the pay? I'm not suggesting that they not be held accountable for their performance.

It's not your place, or the place of government, to decide how much money a rich person will miss. You're responsible for yourself.

Jeff said:
I don't have a problem with people making more and being taxed more. In fact, I forget who the CEO was recently who said he'd much prefer that than some arbitrary cap to salaries, which is absolutely wrong.

I think you are referring to the CEO of Netflix.. But im sure others may have said the same thing, which in my opinion makes more sense as well.. The flat tax idea was always brought up in this nation and shot down. Me personally, I thought it was a good idea..

10% of 10,000 per year, you contribute 1K of it.

10% of 1,000,000 you contribute 100K of it.

Of course the 10% is just for illustration, but everyone would know what to expect in taxes every year instead of this sliding scale we have now that somehow seems to conveniently penalize the middle class and especially the middle class that's married (no matter what argument you say.. the marriage penalty still exists).

:sidebar: Im going to miss these deep conversations when the northern parks open ;)

Gonch, that was exactly what I was hitting at. Ensuring opportunity to advance one's lot in life. Unfortunately, and as Carrie has mentioned (although I don't remember if it's in this thread or a different one -- they're beginning to run together in my head), it's not as easy these days as Jeff would make it seem. And as states cut services, financial aid, tuition support, etc., it's only going to get that much harder.

Well, that's a different issue than the one I jumped in on.

Cutting some 'overpaid' CEO's salary isn't going create financial aid for education or services.

And if it somehow did, I'd still be against the penalization of success.

Seems to me there's two threads of this discussion. One I weighed in on. The other I purposely avoided. :)

Heh, and I am purposely avoiding the second one. Go figure. :)

I have no problem with rewarding success, if it is 

earned. It's just where success ends and excess begins.