• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

125,000 Disney employees to receive $1,000 cash bonus due to tax reform

I didn't introduce the idea that anyone was very profitable, I'm just waiting for you define it. I view profitability on a yearly basis, you have now switch to profitability improvement year over year.
No, you are arguing for the sake of arguing. You are arguing semantics which I'm not interested in participating in. If you believe that profits aren't healthy, or companies aren't "very profitable" then by all means operate your life using that mentality. Quantitatively profit margins are the highest they've been, they've increased 22% over the high since the crash so I'll stick to with "very profitable"


A profit margin 4 points above sector average to me is not "very profitable", particularly in a fickle sector such as consumer discretionary.
You should post that in the AliHajiSheik stock picker thread and tell everyone to sell Disney.

I'm not sure how comparing Disney to their sector has anything to do with this thread and the debate Harshaw and I were having.
 
Right. Trump and the GOP gave trillions in tax cuts to the rich and corporations just so those corporations will throw a few crumbs to their employees -- not to enrich the stockholders, that overwhelmingly benefit from the tax-cut.

The reality is that the tight job market is causing corporations to offer their employees higher wages. it's pure fiction to attribute it to the tax cut.

Prove it.
 
obama bull market

170913145140-bull-market-sp-500-780x439.jpg

Republican Congress bull market...
 
Seems as though you're saying that there has to be a certain level of pay, to a certain level of living, or it's by definition "underpaying." Am I wrong?

Still a bit wrong but you are getting closer. The level of pay offered alone, not in conjunction with taxpayer funds only given to some applicants or workers, must be enough to attract and retain qualified labor. Otherwise it is not a free market wage. If I am getting $10K "free" (from the "safety net") then obviously I am going to be more able to underbid you for that job since you would have to get about $4/hour more (based on a full-time job) to net the same income from it as I do.
 
No, you are arguing for the sake of arguing. You are arguing semantics which I'm not interested in participating in. If you believe that profits aren't healthy, or companies aren't "very profitable" then by all means operate your life using that mentality. Quantitatively profit margins are the highest they've been, they've increased 22% over the high since the crash so I'll stick to with "very profitable"



You should post that in the AliHajiSheik stock picker thread and tell everyone to sell Disney.

I'm not sure how comparing Disney to their sector has anything to do with this thread and the debate Harshaw and I were having.

I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, although this is a debate site. After all these posts, you finally answered my initial question. You are choosing to compare Disney to itself to indicate your view of their profitability, I disagree with that characterization, but I at least understand your point.

Many think that if a company earned $1B in a year that they are very profitable which isn't enough information to make such a judgment.

Thank you.
 
Still a bit wrong but you are getting closer. The level of pay offered alone, not in conjunction with taxpayer funds only given to some applicants or workers, must be enough to attract and retain qualified labor. Otherwise it is not a free market wage. If I am getting $10K "free" (from the "safety net") then obviously I am going to be more able to underbid you for that job since you would have to get about $4/hour more (based on a full-time job) to net the same income from it as I do.

Well, if what you're arguing is that the labor market is distorted by the government, then I can agree with that, on multiple levels.
 
Well, if what you're arguing is that the labor market is distorted by the government, then I can agree with that, on multiple levels.

Bingo. That was my entire point. Two main levels are the "safety net" (as currently implemented) and adding more immigrant competition.
 
I don't know too many folks who can pay LA rental rates making that crap pay. The age were employers under value employees needs to end.

First: It's a starting wage, entry level, not intended to be a living wage. I suppose you think they should start at $20 or $20 with no experience. Maybe the State should provide them the difference in pay so they can live where ever they want in a four bedroom condo, that would be great wouldn't it? Why work your way up if you don't have to?
 
First: It's a starting wage, entry level, not intended to be a living wage. I suppose you think they should start at $20 or $20 with no experience. Maybe the State should provide them the difference in pay so they can live where ever they want in a four bedroom condo, that would be great wouldn't it? Why work your way up if you don't have to?

Your assuming way too much for me to even consider your first question. Care to try again with out assuming? I don't need YOU to put words in my mouth. Later
 
I prefer one who DOES the part, not just acts like he's doing something.

Problem is, Trump cant act the part, can he? I am former military, we value integrity, your boy has zero, and only has himself to blame.
 
You lefties need to realize about 70% of all businesses have a profit margin between 2 and 3%, the highest profit margins (in mobile devices and pharmaceuticals) are 20-30%. Disney, Walmart and such are making 5-10%. You don't realize wages are a relatively insignificant cost, there are utilities, insurance, licensing, regulatory compliance, capital investment, it's amortization and depreciation, advertising, real property costs... I go to the liquor store for some smokes, the merchant tell me cash only if less than $10 -the fee he has to pay for a debit card transaction eats into his profit margin. If he's making 2% on $10 (what he wants for a pack of cigarettes), that's just 2 dimes. If I have to pay in cash, it must be because Visa is charging this merchant too much for him to profitably sell me smokes on my card. I don't know what credit card charges are, I know the merchant has a worker running the register, that the place is illuminated, I suppose he pays rent or property tax, I expect he's got some insurance, it's a liquor store so there must be some licensing fees and like any business he's got some taxes to pay, plus wages, there's maintenance, he's got refrigerators, has to pay some fee for an illuminated sign, I'm sure there's some cost for security (they've got cameras) and whatever worker healthcare costs.

To sensibly criticize a business owner for the wages he pays one ought to consider their role in the employer's costs. In a hospitality business like Disney's, which is primarily service-oriented, labor is more important, but it is far from the highest cost. Businesses compete, if their greatest cost (which I expect is regulatory compliance and insurance) were reduced, they could boost wages.

In this case it appears a reduction in taxes has improved the margin enough to offer millions of workers $1k bonuses.
 
Back
Top Bottom