wiegie Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 "The very same people who remind us over and over that a person's income is no measure of his or her intrinsic worth, are the ones who complain the loudest over this country's "priorities" when it comes to salaries. But if we are already agreed that a person's salary has no relation to moral worth or social importance, then why is the teacher (or nurse, fire fighter, etc.) entitled to more money than the professional athlete?" 1352689[/snapback] actually, this was the dumbest statement from my link The problem with it is that the "complainers" argued that under a free market system a person's income is not a measure of his/her intrinsic worth... but it does not necessary follow that under every other alternative system of income allocation that income has to be unrelated to a person's intrinsic worth. (of course then you have the problem of trying to figure out what a person's intrinsic worth really is, but that was not the point that the author of the article was trying to make) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Maybe because the labor dispute in question is over employees who will almost certainly never have to work again after a short "working" life of 5 years or so demanding even more while us 40-year working stiffs you mention put up with what we're given or find something else to do? 1352933[/snapback] The contents of Ralph Wilson's morning poo is worth more than me and you combined. Why doesn't anyone complain about the inequity of that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 The contents of Ralph Wilson's morning poo is worth more than me and you combined. Why doesn't anyone complain about the inequity of that? 1352939[/snapback] You miss the point. It is not a complaint about the equity of it - Wiegies water diamond paradox explains the reasoning for the massive wages very well and further, I have no problem with players being paid enormous sums, afer all they are not stealing it, the owners are forking over voluntarily. I am mainly expressing contempt for a group of the already extremely rich scratching around for a sliver more, especially when there is already a mechanism in place to raise the salary cap annually by far more than inflation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiss Cheezhead Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 I am mainly expressing contempt for a group of the already extremely rich scratching around for a sliver more, especially when there is already a mechanism in place to raise the salary cap annually by far more than inflation. 1353003[/snapback] You think the owners aren't doing the same thing? They're even richer and they've hoarded more money than they should have for years now. They should appreciate that fact and do the right thing now that it's time to "collectively bargain" again. The salary cap raises more than inflation because NFL revenues increase by more than inflation every year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 You think the owners aren't doing the same thing? They're even richer and they've hoarded more money than they should have for years now. They should appreciate that fact and do the right thing now that it's time to "collectively bargain" again. The salary cap raises more than inflation because NFL revenues increase by more than inflation every year. 1353008[/snapback] In which case, players wages overall rise by that same amount more than inflation. Given that over 90% of the American workforce have been either stagnating or going backwards for 30 years, it's difficult to sympathize much with an occupation that is not only inflation-proofed but also wants to take even more of a pie that it already takes well over half of. How many industries guarantee a 56% proportion of revenue to the workforce? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guggs Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Again, why do they even have a deadline? It just keeps getting pushed back. Get rid of the deadline because it does not even really exist! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Again, why do they even have a deadline? It just keeps getting pushed back. Get rid of the deadline because it does not even really exist! 1353626[/snapback] Moving it back pisses off fans. Eventually that may matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Moving it back pisses off fans. Eventually that may matter. 1353631[/snapback] Since when has the NFL given a rats ass about the fans? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
policyvote Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 (edited) I never EVER understand why working stiffs like the vast majority of us would ever EVER side for the owners in any labor dispute. 1352927[/snapback] Well, for one thing, this isn't a players vs. owners dispute, it's a owners vs. owners dispute--Head Puppet Of the NFL Gene Upshaw's hilarious "hardball" dog-and-pony-show notwithstanding. This deal was always going to be done as soon as the owners came to an agreement on how to share the money amongst themselves. Secondly, I side with the often side with the owners in labor disputes because I understand the reality of business--and more often than not, labor unions seem to exist solely for the pupose of biting the hand that feeds them, especially pro sports unions. Prime example: the NHL. Faced with the reality that NHL TV ratings are roughly comparable to WBNA TV ratings, NHL merchandise sales are in the toilet, and half the teams in the league can't outdraw local high school football, players stab themselves in the heart and sit out an entire season. Why? Because the owners must be lying. They must be cooking the books. In their minds, it was simply not possible that the well was drying up, that interesting was waning, that years of overexpansion and trap hockey had killed the sport. Since I like hockey and want to see more of it, I sided 100% with the owners, since they ultimately decide whether or not there will be more hockey, and they were making the fairly reasonable request that they be certain not to take a bath if they decide the way I want them to. Peace policy Edited March 6, 2006 by policyvote Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 I never EVER understand why working stiffs like the vast majority of us would ever EVER side for the owners in any labor dispute. 1352927[/snapback] Maybe because it's multi millionaire athletes VS multi millionaire owners. At least most of the owners have had a job sometime in their lives. In addition it's Upshaw using to media to push his own agenda and not what most of the players want. Matt Birk was right. Do you feel you as a worker you relate to players who are millionaires right out of college? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Score 1 Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 In addition it's Upshaw using to media to push his own agenda and not what most of the players want. 1353686[/snapback] So you're saying the players don't want a better contract that will earn them more money? Why do I find this hard to believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.