Disney World on list of lowest-paying jobs

[pilferk]

Anyone else see this story at MSNBC? Ouch!

The 8 lowest-paying jobs in America


"...but in Florida, land of Disney World, the wage is $8.90 an hour. Alas, Mickey Mouse isn’t spreading the joy to workers’ pockets. Wages there for these jobs are below the national mean hourly wage of $9.35 an hour."

I've always realized that the CMs don't make much money for what they do -- but this makes me appreciate them even more. Thanks to all the CMs who manage to spread the magic even if you're struggling to make ends meet yourself.

Florida, in general, tends to pay wages that are less than the national average, almost across the board.

Part of that is because the cost of living is so much less (well, chicken/egg), and some of it is because of the way Florida state taxes are structured. There is NO personal income tax...

For example, if someone were making 9.35 an hour in CT, full time, their tax rate would be about 5%. Functionally, they're making around $8.88 per hour.

Pretty much right in line with what Disney is paying, hourly.

 

[A Mickeyfan]

Florida, in general, tends to pay wages that are less than the national average, almost across the board.

Part of that is because the cost of living is so much less (well, chicken/egg), and some of it is because of the way Florida state taxes are structured. There is NO personal income tax...

For example, if someone were making 9.35 an hour in CT, full time, their tax rate would be about 5%. Functionally, they're making around $8.88 per hour.

Pretty much right in line with what Disney is paying, hourly.

only thing cheaper here is our real estate taxes & we do not pay State taxes. However, the average cost of living is pretty close to other areas. I am from NY and have seen both sides. Fl pays on the whole pays very poorly. It doesn't balance out as you think..

 

[nytimez]

For example, if someone were making 9.35 an hour in CT, full time, their tax rate would be about 5%. Functionally, they're making around $8.88 per hour.

Pretty much right in line with what Disney is paying, hourly.

That's true in principle but not in practice. Someone earning a Disney wage is making barely $18K per year. In most states, including Connecticut, the personal income tax would be little to nothing at that salary. In fact, if you just take the standard deduction and no other deductions (unlikely), your annual personal income tax in Connecticut would be less than $20 in total, not 5 percent.

Here are the current tax tables for Connecticut:
http://www.ct.gov/drs/lib/drs/forms/2009forms/incometax/2009incometaxtables.pdf

The five percent rate doesn't kick in until well over $100,000 of adjusting income for a single taxpayer.

In reality, with regular deductions, most people in most states won't pay any personal income tax at $8.90 an hour -- although those taxes might be collected and then refunded, depending on how you have your wages set up.

 

[pilferk]

only thing cheaper here is our real estate taxes & we do not pay State taxes. However, the average cost of living is pretty close to other areas. I am from NY and have seen both sides. Fl pays on the whole pays very poorly. It doesn't balance out as you think..

Not for nothing, but:

http://www.missourieconomy.org/indicators/cost_of_living/index.stm

NY and CT are amongst the highest COL state's in the union. CT is only bested by Alaska, Hawaii, DC and California.

It might not SEEM like it balances out, "on the ground", but the disparity is actually more than you're giving it credit for. We pay more for "stuff" (gas, commodities), we pay for heat and other incidentals you don't have to pay for, etc. We pay income taxes AND high property taxes (because property values are, in general, higher). We have lousy public transportation, even in our more urban areas. And almost everyone is a commuter.

Florida might not be TN or KY...it's pretty much right in the middle of the pack in terms of COL index this past quarter....but it's not NY or CT, either.

Given you're in the middle of the COL ranking, and looking at the "tax adjusted" wage....it seems pretty equivalent, to me.

That's not to say we all wouldn't like to see everyone paid a "living wage"....I think theoretically, everyone would. But the problem is...these jobs are low paying jobs for a reason. If you paid everyone a "living wage", the after effect would be that fewer people would be making a living, because costs would increase, and so then would prices.

 

[faneuil]

The cost of living in Florida is lower than that of CT.

But, it is about the same as lots of other major metro areas.
I need to earn about $41,000 (before tax) in Atlanta, or Orlando - if I want a small, safe apartment, food, medical insurance, and a car.

While you don't pay for heat as much in Florida, you're paying through the roof for air conditioning, practically 12 months a year. Utilities in general are a killer - anywhere in the country.

I don't know of anyone, anywhere, that can live on $18,000 (before tax) a year all by themselves.

 

[pilferk]

That's true in principle but not in practice. Someone earning a Disney wage is making barely $18K per year. In most states, including Connecticut, the personal income tax would be little to nothing at that salary. In fact, if you just take the standard deduction and no other deductions (unlikely), your annual personal income tax in Connecticut would be less than $20 in total, not 5 percent.

Here are the current tax tables for Connecticut:
http://www.ct.gov/drs/lib/drs/forms/2009forms/incometax/2009incometaxtables.pdf

The five percent rate doesn't kick in until well over $100,000 of adjusting income for a single taxpayer.

In reality, with regular deductions, most people in most states won't pay any personal income tax at $8.90 an hour -- although those taxes might be collected and then refunded, depending on how you have your wages set up.

The problem with your logic is you're assuming deductions and total household income, when you really can't do that.

You don't know if the wage in question is a 2nd wage in the household, a supplemental wage, the wage of a college student still living at home, etc. You can't simply assume any of that.

All you know is the wage. CT state statues say that if your income, as a Single, is less than 10k, your tax % is 3% per dollar. If it is over 10k, your tax % is 5% per dollar on anything over 10k.

http://www.ct.gov/drs/cwp/view.asp?a=1510&q=451160

In Florida, that tax rate is 0%.

Now, argue how that matters from an individual situation to situation basis til your blue in the face. Yes, potentially the difference could be less than the 3% or 5%. But it could, potentially, be 3% to 5%.

To compare apples to apples, you have to take the situational variables out.

 

[pilferk]

I don't know of anyone, anywhere, that can live on $18,000 (before tax) a year all by themselves.

The cost of living in FL seems to be right in the middle of the pack.

No, you likely can't live on 18k a year, alone.

So don't take a job that pays 18k a year.

The issue is: If you don't have the skill set or education to take a job that pays a higher wage, you're not going to make much more in Atlanta. You'll probably make noteably more in NY or CT, but you'll pay a LOT more, too. "Unskilled" labor positions pay "unskilled" labor wages. I'll admit, it's sad to see. But it's not confined to Disney, and it's not something our economy can bear to fix.

At the end of the day, we're talking about the difference of around $976 per year (or about 18.77 per pay week), for a full time employee, between the wage Disney is paying and the national average. And if that amount was so remarkable, compared to similar jobs in the surrounding area, I would expect to see Disney employees leaving in droves. I would expect to see Disney unable to staff their positions, because they would be "outmaneuvered" on the labor market.

But it doesn't look like we have.

 

[pilferk]

While you don't pay for heat as much in Florida, you're paying through the roof for air conditioning, practically 12 months a year. Utilities in general are a killer - anywhere in the country.

Just as an aside:

We're a family of 5.

We run a super efficient furnace. Most of this part of the country heats with fuel oil (though some do use electricity).

We pay about $160 per month, for 10 months out of the year, to cover our fuel oil costs.

We also pay AC costs June - September. We "budget plan" our electricity, have a newer home (so good efficiency), use a low cost electricity supplier, energy efficient lighting and lots of energy star appliances.

Our electric bill is about $180 per month.

Total yearly costs: $3760

I suspect that, when you look, you'll find that cost is significantly higher than what you pay to heat/cool/provide electricity to the average floridian household. Largely, that's because your supply rates are LOTS lower than those in CT. I know the average electric bill in Florida (according to FPL) is about $109 a month.

I agree: Utilities are killer. But they seem to be less (gross, not when compared to income) in other places, compared to places like CT and NY.

 

[ConcKahuna]

Just as an aside:

We're a family of 5.

We run a super efficient furnace. Most of this part of the country heats with fuel oil (though some do use electricity).

We pay about $160 per month, for 10 months out of the year, to cover our fuel oil costs.

We also pay AC costs June - September. We "budget plan" our electricity, have a newer home (so good efficiency), use a low cost electricity supplier, energy efficient lighting and lots of energy star appliances.

Our electric bill is about $180 per month.

Total yearly costs: $3760

I suspect that, when you look, you'll find that cost is significantly higher than what you pay to heat/cool/provide electricity to the average floridian household. Largely, that's because your supply rates are LOTS lower than those in CT. I know the average electric bill in Florida (according to FPL) is about $109 a month.

I agree: Utilities are killer. But they seem to be less (gross, not when compared to income) in other places, compared to places like CT and NY.

I have a 2 bedroom apartment, and pay about $280 a month in electric (March-October). Having to run the heat only sometimes over the winter makes for a much lower bill (about $200 a month).

Another thing to consider in FL is commutes. If you work at Disney, you can't afford to live near Disney. Houses in the 4-corners areas used to sell for about $120k. They went through the roof for a while, but now you still can't get into a resale in that area for less than $200k (unless you luck out on a foreclosure). New homes are about the same price, or more.

2-bedroom apartments in the area average $800-$1200 a month. There are some cheaper, but they tend to be in less-than-desirable areas (no big deal if you don't have a lot to steal).

I lucked out with an apartment that costs $470 a month, but then again I'm about 35 miles south of Disney now.

 

[faneuil]

I suspect that, when you look, you'll find that cost is significantly higher than what you pay to heat/cool/provide electricity to the average floridian household. Largely, that's because your supply rates are LOTS lower than those in CT. I know the average electric bill in Florida (according to FPL) is about $109 a month.

I agree: Utilities are killer. But they seem to be less (gross, not when compared to income) in other places, compared to places like CT and NY.

I'm thinking of moving to Florida from the metro Atlanta area, so I've been doing lots of research.

Electric in Florida will cost me 25-30% MORE than what I pay in Atlanta.
Electric rates in Atlanta are low compared to a lot of places, and I'm totally electric - which is what I'd be in Florida. (Oil?? What's that?!? J/K - I know.)

The problem I've seen with the south - in general - is that buildings aren't as well insulated as in the north. I actually know of office buildings that lock their revolving doors in the summer, because revolving doors are "to keep the cold from coming in". When I mentioned to a building engineer that they also keep the heat from coming in, he looked at me like I was crazy.

Housing is about the same. I'm prepared to live within 10 miles of Disney and pay $900 a month for rent.

When I was thinking of grad school, I did check into Boston. Until I realized that the northeast was killer for cost. Even though the Orlando area pays less than the Boston area - I'd actually live better in Orlando.

 

[Donut23]

I have a 2 bedroom apartment, and pay about $280 a month in electric (March-October). Having to run the heat only sometimes over the winter makes for a much lower bill (about $200 a month).

Another thing to consider in FL is commutes. If you work at Disney, you can't afford to live near Disney. Houses in the 4-corners areas used to sell for about $120k. They went through the roof for a while, but now you still can't get into a resale in that area for less than $200k (unless you luck out on a foreclosure). New homes are about the same price, or more.

2-bedroom apartments in the area average $800-$1200 a month. There are some cheaper, but they tend to be in less-than-desirable areas (no big deal if you don't have a lot to steal).

I lucked out with an apartment that costs $470 a month, but then again I'm about 35 miles south of Disney now.

I'm surprised everyone is still tossing this around. I WILL say I always peek at what you post....because I LOVE the seagull!

 

[WDSearcher]

I have a 2 bedroom apartment, and pay about $280 a month in electric (March-October). Having to run the heat only sometimes over the winter makes for a much lower bill (about $200 a month).

Yikes! I have a 2-bedroom apartment near Ocoee and pay about $88 a month in electric. It can be as low as $55 in the winter. I seldom go over $100, even in mid-August. Of course ... if you're paying $470/mo rent, you're likely in a much older apartment (with less efficient AC/utilities). My rent is twice yours, but I'm less than 15 miles away, so a significantly shorter commute. Not sure who has the better deal, overall.

 

[WDSearcher]

Right. That's my point -- the theme parks (including hotels) earn enough money on their own -- and plenty of it. The other poster seems to think these things cost Disney more than what they charge guests, and then the company makes up for that loss through stock issues.

Actually ... that's not QUITE what I said. What I said was that the amount someone pays for a Disney vacation doesn't equal what it costs Disney to provide that vacation.

Based on your POV, Disney wouldn't have to cut costs when the economy was lean. Your position is that if you're paying $2000 for 7 days for one person, that's all it's costing Disney to provide that vacation to you. Your share of Disney expenses for those seven days is $2000. And, probably, it costs them less than that because they're making a profit.

If that's the case, then it shouldn't matter if there are 60 people in the park or 60,000 people in the park. If everyone showing up at Disney is paying at least as much as it costs Disney to provide them with their vacation, then attendance wouldn't matter. But Disney could certainly not survive if there were only 60 people in the park every day.

Disney puts on fireworks every night. The fireworks cost the same amount no matter how many people are there to see them. Disney doesn't adjust how many fireworks are in "Wishes" based on attendance. My ticket costs the same amount no matter how full the park is. I don't get charged more to get in when there are fewer people; they don't up the ticket price on a slow day so that they can balance against the cost of fireworks that night.

I'll agree that there's a profit margin to merchandise and resorts that can help offset ticket sales. But if every person walking onto property was providing enough income to pay for their share of the salaries, entertainment, operations and attractions every day, Disney should be able to set prices so that a specific profit were guaranteed all the time. No layoffs, no cost-cutting, no special incentives needed ... there should be a steady, guaranteed profit margin always. And yet ... that does not happen.

 

[skiingfast]

Disney should be able to set prices so that a specific profit were guaranteed all the time. No layoffs, no cost-cutting, no special incentives needed ... there should be a steady, guaranteed profit margin always. And yet ... that does not happen.

It does set prices, haven't you noticed this? When it doesn't want to raise prices it cuts costs. All to guarantee that specific profit that the shareholders expect. This is what all businesses do. It's that simple and needs no discussion because the facts won't change.

 

[nytimez]

Actually ... that's not QUITE what I said. What I said was that the amount someone pays for a Disney vacation doesn't equal what it costs Disney to provide that vacation.

Based on your POV, Disney wouldn't have to cut costs when the economy was lean. Your position is that if you're paying $2000 for 7 days for one person, that's all it's costing Disney to provide that vacation to you. Your share of Disney expenses for those seven days is $2000. And, probably, it costs them less than that because they're making a profit.

If that's the case, then it shouldn't matter if there are 60 people in the park or 60,000 people in the park. If everyone showing up at Disney is paying at least as much as it costs Disney to provide them with their vacation, then attendance wouldn't matter. But Disney could certainly not survive if there were only 60 people in the park every day.

Disney puts on fireworks every night. The fireworks cost the same amount no matter how many people are there to see them. Disney doesn't adjust how many fireworks are in "Wishes" based on attendance. My ticket costs the same amount no matter how full the park is. I don't get charged more to get in when there are fewer people; they don't up the ticket price on a slow day so that they can balance against the cost of fireworks that night.

I'll agree that there's a profit margin to merchandise and resorts that can help offset ticket sales. But if every person walking onto property was providing enough income to pay for their share of the salaries, entertainment, operations and attractions every day, Disney should be able to set prices so that a specific profit were guaranteed all the time. No layoffs, no cost-cutting, no special incentives needed ... there should be a steady, guaranteed profit margin always. And yet ... that does not happen.

No, that's not what I said. If Disney attendance fell that rapidly, the parks would be out of business. But I think this conversation has run its course, I won't try to explain it anymore -- if you want to believe Disney is issuing a steady stream of new stock offerings to pay for the costs of Disney World operations, go right ahead. I won't stand in your way.

 

[pilferk]

I have a 2 bedroom apartment, and pay about $280 a month in electric (March-October). Having to run the heat only sometimes over the winter makes for a much lower bill (about $200 a month).

So, compared to a pretty energy efficient (according to our power company, CL&P), 3 BR home, ..you're talking almost $1000 difference in utility costs per year.

I find that noteable.

Another thing to consider in FL is commutes. If you work at Disney, you can't afford to live near Disney. Houses in the 4-corners areas used to sell for about $120k. They went through the roof for a while, but now you still can't get into a resale in that area for less than $200k (unless you luck out on a foreclosure). New homes are about the same price, or more.

We live in a more reasonable area of CT. My 2000+ sq foot, 3BR home built about 8 years ago appraises for 200k, even after our market has come down. MOST similar homes, close to population centers, appraise between 300k and 350k. Our housing costs are significantly higher than Florida's.

In addition, for most professionals, you're commuting to Hartford (or nearby suburb like Avon), New Haven (or nearby suburb), or the Gold Coast/NYC area. My commute, while atypical, is about 1hr and 15 minutes ONE WAY. The average commute in CT, according to our DOT, is about 35-40 minutes.

2-bedroom apartments in the area average $800-$1200 a month. There are some cheaper, but they tend to be in less-than-desirable areas (no big deal if you don't have a lot to steal).

Add about $300 a month to those rents, unless you're in a HUD/rent assist.

I lucked out with an apartment that costs $470 a month, but then again I'm about 35 miles south of Disney now.

You couldn't find a 2BR for that price anywhere but in a rent assistied area, or projects in Hartford. That's not lucky, around here, that would be "winning the powerball lottery".

I'm not sure why we're even still debating this. Empirically, by independant agencies, Florida's COL is dead in the middle of the pack. CT is top 4.

What's left to argue, really?

 

[pilferk]

Yikes! I have a 2-bedroom apartment near Ocoee and pay about $88 a month in electric. It can be as low as $55 in the winter. I seldom go over $100, even in mid-August. Of course ... if you're paying $470/mo rent, you're likely in a much older apartment (with less efficient AC/utilities). My rent is twice yours, but I'm less than 15 miles away, so a significantly shorter commute. Not sure who has the better deal, overall.

Man, I wish I had your utility bills, and not mine.

 

[WDSearcher]

It does set prices, haven't you noticed this? When it doesn't want to raise prices it cuts costs. All to guarantee that specific profit that the shareholders expect. This is what all businesses do. It's that simple and needs no discussion because the facts won't change.

But then why does the profit percentage change quarter to quarter? If Disney has as much control as you say, then why can they not guarantee their shareholders 10% (or whatever percent) profit every quarter?

Disney does not "guarantee that specific profit that the shareholders expect." They do what they can to post a profit every time, but it is never guaranteed.

 

[WDSearcher]

No, that's not what I said. If Disney attendance fell that rapidly, the parks would be out of business. But I think this conversation has run its course, I won't try to explain it anymore -- if you want to believe Disney is issuing a steady stream of new stock offerings to pay for the costs of Disney World operations, go right ahead. I won't stand in your way.

Oh ... you're stuck on THAT. Okay. I used a bad example. I knew what I wanted to say, but didn't say it well. We're both arguing points of different conversations. My bad.

 

[ConcKahuna]

Add about $300 a month to those rents, unless you're in a HUD/rent assist.

I would like to add that nearly all apartment complexes anywhere near Disney that are in that price range are income-restricted, so if you make more than $9/hr per person you cannot get approval to live there. They are specifically marketing the entry-level WDW CM.