Robert,
I suggest you come down to earth. Perhaps the fellows collecting garbage (and making 3x your salary) were at least 3x smarter than you. At least they figured out the game.
As for being impressed that you could sign DD250s don't be. No one who really understand wants to. I never signed one. I always had one of my managers or someone like you with a big ego do that. Got to preserve plausible deniability ya know.
Phil
Robert wrote:
Robert,
I suggest you come down to earth. Perhaps the fellows collecting garbage (and making 3x your salary) were at least 3x smarter than you. At least they figured out the game.
As for being impressed that you could sign DD250s don't be. No one who really understand wants to. I never signed one. I always had one of my managers or someone like you with a big ego do that. Got to preserve plausible deniability ya know.
Phil
Robert wrote:
I used to agree with this until I saw what the typical team grosses. The players SHOULD get a large cut of the money, as they are "The Show" that fills the seats.
The flip side is that the team owners keep more money.
Since the law of supply and demand isn't exactly driving ticket, souvenirs, and stadium snack prices down, why should the owners get to keep it all?
They deserve it, because people freely pay to see them play. If we didn't pay, they wouldn't draw the salaries that they do. No one _has_ to go to the ball game.
Barry
Brian Henderson responds:
Yeah, well...in both cases, probably 90% of their manufacturing capacity is off shore now. No one is stopping them. Plenty has been said, but nothing can be done.
Charlie Self
"Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things." Dan Quayle, 11/30/88
Yes, but those pooor, pooor owners need to have the cities build them stadiums - or they take their toys and leave.
Renata
Uh, Barry, the need to pay those salaries is _exactly_ what's driving those ticket, souvenir and snack prices up. The broadcast pool is getting a bit shallow lately.
Every time someone says that the pros are "the best," and "we want to watch the best," I ask myself what they mean. If there is only one "best" running back or tight end or linebacker, why do we bother with the others?
Not to mention we watch HS and College games, too. It's competition that counts.
Finally, should you care to stop and think, the owners must be able to get more for their invested dollar in baseball than in sugar-cookie production, or they will invest in bakeries. When that paper factory of a stock market was galloping like a bull, it must have been tough to get someone to risk a buck on baseball. Other than politicians, of course, addicted to OPM....
Neither, most people just live in apartments and will never own a home in California.
Maybe that just demonstrates that people are being ripped off in professional sports?
negotiations
Way to go charlie. Watch for the rats. If the so called engineer was so smart he should have taken a job as a garbageman at 3 times the engneer rate. Some of these guys think because they have professional after their name the think they know everything. They design 1000' buildings. But they sure as hell would not set foot out on an I beam or even know how to put it together. That is why it takes all trades to build.
And don't think you doctor or lawyer is not in a union. Not a union as you know it but by the name HMO.
Lawyers? They go by the trade name of 1/3 thank you.
Life it tough deal with your own problems you will have more time to solve them.
Oh and how about school bus drivers? Would you be willing to pay $1.00 per child per day for a safe bus ride to and from school? Bet it doen't cost that now .
That's what they're saying, without wanting to acknowledge it. Of course, another obvious question is if you think that is reasonable for the workers, why not for management? Heck, I'd offer to run one of the major auto companies for what, say, a mere million/year? So you don't even have to outsource it ;-)
And forgetting 3rd world executive pay, pay for top executives in the U.S. is way out of line compared to Europe & Japan. Does anyone really think GM or Ford is better managed than Honda or Toyota?
Executive pay is no more a free market situation than union pay. Is anyone really worth $100 million or more a year (obviously, most CEOs never get close to that)? Realistically, any of the direct reports to a CEO could probably run the company just as well. If the stockholders offerred the job to the low bidder among that group you'd see pay nosedive overnight. In most companies, pay scales in management are set up in bands related to responsibilities. No different than union seniority. With one big exception is that most managers will get an additional bonus based on some performance somewhere.
More socialism. Damn commies!
tt
I don't agree. For every hard worker being rewarded, I see another who gets shafted. For every lazy worker I see being disciplined, I see twenty being promoted.
tt
What I am saying is, we should not be taking advantage of people who have next to nothing, and continue to exploit them, just so we can save a couple of dollars on the goods we buy. Their children are not in schools, they are working in the factory with their families, because their are no labor laws, and paerents aren't paid enough to support a family. There are still very few doctors, no dentists, and no retirement system, besides working until you die. The price of goods ought to include the realistic price of producing them, and using coerced labor should not be part of that equation.
This is the same argument that was used to defend slavery. "Sure, we don't pay them anything, they have no education, and the barest of benefits to keep them from dying, but imagine where they would be without our help!"
We can do better, and should.
tt
Be careful with the word "bonus", which implies something above and beyond.
When performance based pay was instituted at some companies, the base pay was _cut_, with the *bonus* added back in, for a zero base.
I treat my *bonus* as part of my pay, and fully expect ALL of it, if I meet and exceed my goals. Some companies have now tied part of the
*bonus* to overall company performance. Therefore, if another department tanks, an economy depressing major world event happens, or some unexpected crazy regulatory ruling is issued , I get paid less. This is regardless of the fact that my department has nothing whatsoever to do with the problems.My take on pay based on unattainable goals is that it's simply another way to prevent the company from paying me what I expect. As expected, my pay goes down, the CEO's goes up. This is regardless of the fact that every indicator that a CEO's pay could be tied to, like overall performance, stock price, etc... are down!
My new favorite are "retention bonuses" for top executives. They get millions not to leave.
Barry
While I tend to agree with you on most of your comments, I think you're wrong on the car thing. Personally, I never buy strictly on price (though do look for value, best bang for the buck, etc.), and don't think the American manufacturers have achieved the quality of some of the foreign makes. Probably because they don't feel the need to for reasons such as folks will buy American just because it's American, they'll get bailed out by the government if things get too bad, etc. Seems the American manufacturers ahven't really tried to produce the BEST product but ride on the coattails such as I mentioned above.
I'm never touching another American vehicle, barring a change in their philosophy. Had my experience with Ford who treats their customers like $hit. No thank you.
Renata
Unless your mayor wants the team (like DC) and is willing to spend your tax dollars, thank you very much...
Renata
Same experience, same conclusion. I remain persuadable, but I'll never buy another American automobile until there's ample evidence that they aren't generally built like crap.
It's not the moral duty of the consumer to pay extra for an article to keep American workers afloat. Rather, it's the moral duty of the worker (who has a family to support, etc. -- just like the consumer) to find himself a as secure and remunerative a job as he can. That means being prepared to retrain, relocate, and adapt to stay abreast of the job market. Nobody has a "right" to a living cranking out widgets when because of cost or quality those widgets are no longer in demand.
Cheers, Abe
Hear, hear. Nothing more irritating than having to pay taxes to build sports facilities. Well, not much anyway.
Cheers, Abe
That's not my experience. Besides, what's being overlooked here are two essential ingredients for success besides hard work: smarts and willingness to take risks. Unfortunately, less intelligent persons are fairly severely penalized in life: they make bad choices, can't compete in job performance (except in strictly manual jobs) with their more gifted colleagues, etc. etc. Hard work is rarely enough to overcome the handicap of stupidity, and a lot of people are stupid.
Those willing to take risks are likewise more likely to succeed than the risk-averse. This is as true generally in life as it is true in investing. Just the way it is.
Cheers, Abe
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.