Disney reduces education benefit for cast members

Jeff:

Companies aren't people, they don't have feelings, so they can't really be greedy.

Let's not turn this into a semantics thing. Companies are obviously not people, but companies cannot make decisions either. Companies are run by people, typically a very small group of them, and more often than not it looks like those people are greedy, those people do have feelings, and therefore I would say even though companies aren't people. Companies are people.

Let's also not forget that companies have more or less been given the same protections and treatment as a person by the law.

But it does matter. Fist-waving Bernie Sanders messaging, and calling it greed, is intended to elicit an emotional, political response. It's not actionable. There's nothing to do. However, when you talk about the structural underpinnings of why it happens, then you can have a meaningful discussion about what has to change.

Is it greedy for me, a hypothetical executive, to want to keep my job when the owners of the company (shareholders) have told me that they will fire me if I don't return X dollars on the money they have invested? No.

Is it greedy for them, the owners/shareholders of a for-profit enterprise to expect a return on their investment and make the above demands? No.

Who are the owners & shareholders of these for-profit enterprises? If you have a retirement plan, it's likely you.

I think we have to be clear on who exactly is being accused of being greedy.

I would like to know the numbers. What is the ceiling of profit a company is entitled to receive before it is considered "greed"? If I'm a baseline employee and earn $X salary, what percentage increase should I expect to receive when my company starts turning profit? What about managers? Directors? C-level? I need to know so I can start judging companies appropriately.

Along those lines, couldn’t you make the argument that wanting the highest salary your employer is willing to pay or wanting your employer to pay for a larger part of education is “greed”?

I just sort of draw the greed line at the living wage. If you want a salary that can afford a normal house, and associated living items, food, etc. then that isn’t asking too much. Greed is the politicians doing insider trading, Jeff Bezos who is building a clock under a mountain, the CEO who has multiple planes and yachts, Elon with whatever games he is playing this week, and the desire for more from those same people. Don’t act like you cannot distinguish greed from normal desire to live and improve for the average citizen.

So what number of planes and yachts equals greed? You’re still just talking about drawing arbitrary lines. By your definition of earning above a living wage, I would think we’re all greedy to a degree. Not to go all Gordon Gecko on everyone, but I’m not saying that’s a bad thing.

From a company's perspective, there are (mostly) two ways to think about this:

One: pay your employees as little as you possibly can. That's basically the lowest amount such that you attract enough minimally-competent people in the current labor market to staff the organization. This is based on the belief that who you have working for you doesn't really matter that much; you just need warm bodies to serve as cogs in the machine.

Two: pay your employees more than this, in order to get better people/reduce turnover/etc. This is based on the belief that who you have working for you does matter--maybe because there are specific skills one has to learn, or maybe because training new people takes time. The idea is that having "better" staff allows you to be more productive/provide a better service (for which you can charge more)/reduce turnover costs/etc. While employees are paid "better" in this framework, it is not the same as "as our profits go up, give some of them to employees." Indeed, the compensation framework is still motivated by what is best for the company, and the fact that it helps employees is secondary.

There is a third way, but it is pretty rare: Intentionally pay your employees enough to meet some other threshold. The companies people normally think of are e.g. Ben & Jerry's (their original "factor-of-five" rule), but they are less common. Even this doesn't necessarily translate to "as our profits go up, give some of them to employees"

I think it was Dave who said in a thread like this (or elsewhere) that the challenge with our system is that it bottoms out at making $0 but has no ceiling, so any cap would be completely arbitrary. As much as people complain about CEO salaries, almost every time you do the math, redistributing what they make (if there's a cash component at all) to their underlings will not make any meaningful difference. The CEO salary is not the problem, it's just a symbolic concern. Don't get me wrong, it's a reasonable concern, because compensation is frequently not tied to positive outcomes. Still, at the end of the day, it is not a zero-sum game.

Here's the thing that people don't seem to understand: You can give people raises in good times, but you can't take them back in bad times. All you can do is let people go. I don't know if you have to be a manager to see that, but I've been through that cycle so many times, and it happens fast in tech companies. As a manager for so many years, the worst part of the job is firing someone, especially if it's strictly because of financial reasons. This leaves leaders in a difficult position, because if you tip the scale in one direction, your people leave. If you go the other way, you may put the company at risk in the event of some catastrophic event. If the demand for your skilled labor is high, and you can't make enough to pay them what their in-demand skills are worth, you don't have a business at all.

I'm not an economist, but I think the single biggest issue around "living wage" (whatever that even means because, again, arbitrary lines) is housing. The supply is insanely behind demand, and with interest rates high, there's less development. That drives the cost up, whether you're trying to buy or rent. If the housing component is making it hard for a person (with roommates/partners) making $15/hr to pay for a place to live, now we have something specific to look at. How do you fix that problem? Obviously there has to be more housing. As Boomers die, some of that will free up, but there still has to be more new construction to drive the prices down. Things like tax abatements, credits and such can help that along, but the loud voices that believe that just enriches corporations don't want that. You see how it goes both ways?

My belabored point is that shouting "living wage!" and "CEO's!" is great to stir people up, but it doesn't do anything. Those are outcomes. It's like yelling at a virus instead of vaccinating against it.

How many homes was it that Blackrock owns? We could free those up and transfer those deeds into the hands of those renters. That would be a start at providing stability and cheaper housing into the hands of the working class.

Jeff wants things done, let’s do some things.

Anyone or any company who owns more than two single family homes pays a 50% property tax on those homes. That tax gets redirected into food stamps, housing for homeless, etc

Any commercial real estate used to have workers sit in cubes or offices and not interface with the public. Company pays property taxes equal to the value of the property, all taxes go towards funding and buildout of public transit.

Those are two that should greatly improve the world we live in for everyone.

There's no universe where property tax is ever going to be the value of the property. I don't know how you even suggest that with a straight face. Neither of your suggestions fix the shortage.

TheMillenniumRider:

Any commercial real estate used to have workers sit in cubes or offices and not interface with the public. Company pays property taxes equal to the value of the property, all taxes go towards funding and buildout of public transit.

That is the most random thing to penalize. What is so egregious about having workers not interact with the public?

I know I'm walking a thin line by using hyperbole to make a point about the overuse of the greed label, but what you're suggesting is not grounded in any sort of rational thought.

It would promote work from home, thus reducing traffic and waste commuting to a place where you can just stay home.

So there won't be as much commercial real estate left to tax?

Just when you think it can't get more arbitrary, it does.

I ask for the specific numbers that define greed and discover that cubicles are the problem.

Sort of a hard left into the grassy field, but Jeff said actionable stuff. So it’s actionable stuff.

Less corporate real estate in city centers could be converted to mixed use buildings, thus further helping out with housing and making less car centric more enjoyable and walkable cities, less pollution, less traffic, more money back in the pockets of workers, could possibly lose a car payment, lose an insurance payments, less gas, less clothing budget, more time for themselves and family. Better mental health and well being. It all can be tied back together.

One facet of corporate greed that has affected this country is the lobbying for and development of car centric / required societies to sell more product.

Im not saying that taxing real estate is the best way to achieve this, but how else will you effect change at the corporate level? They can choose to continue the status quo, at much increased cost, or they can choose to give up the space, which is already happening to some degree, either way the people of the cities win.

You're over thinking it. If housing supply drives up housing cost, and that makes it harder to pay the bills, we need more places to live. More places to live need not come at the expense of other things. I've been surrounded by new construction for 11 years, with no end in sight.

TheMillenniumRider:

Anyone or any company who owns more than two single family homes pays a 50% property tax on those homes. That tax gets redirected into food stamps, housing for homeless, etc

Any commercial real estate used to have workers sit in cubes or offices and not interface with the public. Company pays property taxes equal to the value of the property, all taxes go towards funding and buildout of public transit.

Im not saying that taxing real estate is the best way to achieve this, but how else will you effect change at the corporate level? They can choose to continue the status quo, at much increased cost, or they can choose to give up the space, which is already happening to some degree, either way the people of the cities win.

Freedom is life's great lie. Once you accept that, in your heart, you will know peace. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life's joy in a mad scramble for power, for identity. You were made to be ruled.