A new and possible more just pay system is in the working

[Sailor Steve]

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]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Yes its true you too can be an millionare if you have enough capitol

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

Originally Posted by Skybird

That's the point.

Also, what Letum said.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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]

Originally Posted by Letum

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]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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]

Originally Posted by MothBalls

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]

Originally Posted by MothBalls

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.

Since we disagree, I think we should start seeing other people.

But...but...you promised!

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by August

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.

[Sailor Steve]

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

[nikimcbee]

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]

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

[August]

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.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by August

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.

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]

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