SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)
-   General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)
-   -   A new and possible more just pay system is in the working (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=159148)

Sailor Steve 12-14-09 02:29 PM

Sports figures. They used to be the pawns of the owners. They were lucky if they made enough to live on. Back in 1919 the players of the Chicago White Sox were so badly treated that they took money from gamblers to lose the World Series, which they were guaranteed to win. This is fabulously portrayed in the book and movie Eight Men Out.

Today the owner needs to fill his seats, and winners do that. Is player X worth $20 million per year? Maybe not to you or me, but to the owner he obviously is or he wouldn't get that much.

The same is true of actors and musicians. If I play at a local club and get $50, that's what I'm worth. But if everybody suddenly wants my record and I make $2 million, am I not worth that? Who decides?

A new movie is being made. The producers and director think that Johnny Depp will be perfect for the role, and make them a lot more money. Depp says he wants $15 million just to show up. The powers-that-be say "No! Too much!" Depp agrees to a lesser amount, or they find somebody else. On the other hand they say "Yeah, we need him, and he's worth it!"

Is he worth it? Who decides? The filmmakers, or some lawmaker?

Legally-mandated wage caps sound good on paper, but the only way to enforce them is to pass laws, and that means that you give yourself the power to force others to do what you think is right, and that's tyranny all over again.

Torvald Von Mansee 12-14-09 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteamWake (Post 1219207)
Yes its true you too can be an millionare if you have enough capitol :03:

Or you get it the old fashioned way, by inheriting it.

Snestorm 12-14-09 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird (Post 1219227)
That's the point.

Also, what Letum said.

Agreed.

Snestorm 12-14-09 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve (Post 1219242)
Sports figures. They used to be the pawns of the owners. They were lucky if they made enough to live on. Back in 1919 the players of the Chicago White Sox were so badly treated that they took money from gamblers to lose the World Series, which they were guaranteed to win. This is fabulously portrayed in the book and movie Eight Men Out.

Today the owner needs to fill his seats, and winners do that. Is player X worth $20 million per year? Maybe not to you or me, but to the owner he obviously is or he wouldn't get that much.

The same is true of actors and musicians. If I play at a local club and get $50, that's what I'm worth. But if everybody suddenly wants my record and I make $2 million, am I not worth that? Who decides?

A new movie is being made. The producers and director think that Johnny Depp will be perfect for the role, and make them a lot more money. Depp says he wants $15 million just to show up. The powers-that-be say "No! Too much!" Depp agrees to a lesser amount, or they find somebody else. On the other hand they say "Yeah, we need him, and he's worth it!"

Is he worth it? Who decides? The filmmakers, or some lawmaker?

Legally-mandated wage caps sound good on paper, but the only way to enforce them is to pass laws, and that means that you give yourself the power to force others to do what you think is right, and that's tyranny all over again.

Entertainment, which includes sports, falls into the category of Marketability.

August 12-14-09 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Letum (Post 1219190)
You can be Jo Idiot in a job that anyone could do and still be a millionaire if you own enough capital and employ someone who isn't a utter idiot to tend to it.

"A fool and his money are soon parted" would seem to cover that situation quite nicely.

MothBalls 12-15-09 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve (Post 1219242)
Sports figures. They used to be the pawns of the owners. They were lucky if they made enough to live on. Back in 1919 the players of the Chicago White Sox were so badly treated that they took money from gamblers to lose the World Series, which they were guaranteed to win. This is fabulously portrayed in the book and movie Eight Men Out.

Today the owner needs to fill his seats, and winners do that. Is player X worth $20 million per year? Maybe not to you or me, but to the owner he obviously is or he wouldn't get that much.

The same is true of actors and musicians. If I play at a local club and get $50, that's what I'm worth. But if everybody suddenly wants my record and I make $2 million, am I not worth that? Who decides?

A new movie is being made. The producers and director think that Johnny Depp will be perfect for the role, and make them a lot more money. Depp says he wants $15 million just to show up. The powers-that-be say "No! Too much!" Depp agrees to a lesser amount, or they find somebody else. On the other hand they say "Yeah, we need him, and he's worth it!"

Is he worth it? Who decides? The filmmakers, or some lawmaker?

Legally-mandated wage caps sound good on paper, but the only way to enforce them is to pass laws, and that means that you give yourself the power to force others to do what you think is right, and that's tyranny all over again.

I agree with everything you're saying. It makes perfect sense, if your a capitalist. My point is that there is a fundamental flaw in any society that places a higher value on entertainment than ourselves. It just shows where our priorities are and how our entire system works.

Some of the most important jobs in the US are some of the lowest paying. If you look at the wages for teachers, police, the military, fire and EMS services and compare them to the outrageous salaries paid to sports figures and performers, that's where I think there is a flaw. It's easy to see the difference and why there is one. One group is paid from public money, the other from private money.

I doubt we'll see eye to eye on this issue. Since we disagree, I think we should start seeing other people.

August 12-15-09 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MothBalls (Post 1219668)
Some of the most important jobs in the US are some of the lowest paying. If you look at the wages for teachers, police, the military, fire and EMS services and compare them to the outrageous salaries paid to sports figures and performers, that's where I think there is a flaw. It's easy to see the difference and why there is one. One group is paid from public money, the other from private money.

Imagine what your tax bill would be if we payed every cop, teacher, soldier, sailor, airman, fireman and EMS tech in the nation what they pay Johnny Depp.

Sailor Steve 12-15-09 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MothBalls (Post 1219668)
It's easy to see the difference and why there is one. One group is paid from public money, the other from private money.

Very true. Unfortunately increasing the public money means increasing the money taken from the public. The left (in the US anyway) says that government is the solution, and the right says that government is the problem. And the real answer is beyond any of us to resolve. Fairness vs freedom? Equality vs individuality? I don't know if those are even the right questions, let alone any of the answers. And I don't trust most of the people who claim they do.

Quote:

Since we disagree, I think we should start seeing other people.
But...but...you promised!:cry:

Onkel Neal 12-15-09 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 1219175)
Pay has always been based on how many people can do a particular job.

The Banker makes more than the toilet cleaner because he has the education and smarts to work with large amounts of money without screwing it up. How many cleaning ladies would you trust with your savings?

The baseball star is paid a lot because very few people can hit a big league fastball.

Now while it'd be nice to cut high paying salaries in half you're never gonna see a well paid janitor because he's just too easily replaced.

Agreed. Now, if we can only find a system that revokes these high paid guys' savings when they screw up, I will be happy. :cool:

Sailor Steve 12-15-09 04:43 PM

Good point. When the cleaning lady screws up we don't give her a bonus and tell her to name her own price.

nikimcbee 12-15-09 04:52 PM

Quote:

They reportedly destroy £7 of value for every £1 they earn.
Yeah, wait until the interest rates go up.
What a dumb study. If their looking for drags on society, how about they do a study on lawyers and gov't employees.

I have no sympathy for the gov't class.

Wolfehunter 12-15-09 06:21 PM

When are you guys going to realize your slaves? Pay your masters... :haha:

August 12-15-09 08:14 PM

This goes against my normal libertarian leanings but maybe we need a national salary cap. A limit to the total amount of compensation any one person can receive in a year.

Hey, it's worked pretty well for the NFL. :DL

Letum 12-16-09 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 1220076)
This goes against my normal libertarian leanings but maybe we need a national salary cap. A limit to the total amount of compensation any one person can receive in a year.

Hey, it's worked pretty well for the NFL. :DL

I'm no economist, so take all this with a pinch of salt...

I don't like caps.
There should still be wage competition for high earners.

Exponential wage tax would be better.

Something like this: (totally made up numbers)

Wage - Tax
1m - 30%
2m - 35%
3m - 45%
4m - 60%
[...]
20m - 98%
30m - 98.5%
[...]
10,000m - 99.995%
Etc.

That way you can still pay someone 1000m, it's just gonna be very inefficient.
The other advantage over caps is extra tax revenue.

AVGWarhawk 12-16-09 04:35 PM

I think we should just go back to the barter system. :up:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:33 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.