Should professional athletes have their salaries cut back in this tough economy?

[banquo's_bumble_puppy]

Should professional athletes have their salaries cut back in this tough economy?

[Tucson_Tim]

Why single out one group? There are many other high-paying professions.

[Argos]

As long as they´re not on taxpayer money I don´t care how much they get.

[Fazor]

I voted "No - Other". Their high-salaries come from team revenue, which comes from the fans. I don't see how cutting their salary would help the economy; it'd only put more money in the owner's and/or league's pockets. Sure, they could lower ticket or merch prices; but it's their business. If people are paying it then it's their money to spend.

If we quit buying tickets (most stats I see suggest sales are way down) and merchendise, then they will react accordingly. In the long run, if the economy stays like it is, I think we will start to see lower salaries*. It's a natural process though; no need to superficially impose a salary cut.

*I by no means follow sports signings and contracts and such closely, but I have seen what I percieve to be a reluctance for teams to sign big, long-term deals. Of course there's exceptions (Yankees, big suprise.) But I don't see the number of huge contracts that we saw even in the early 2000's. Again, I don't follow that closely so I could be wrong.

[korjik]

I voted "No - Other". Their high-salaries come from team revenue, which comes from the fans. I don't see how cutting their salary would help the economy; it'd only put more money in the owner's and/or league's pockets. Sure, they could lower ticket or merch prices; but it's their business. If people are paying it then it's their money to spend.

If we quit buying tickets (most stats I see suggest sales are way down) and merchendise, then they will react accordingly. In the long run, if the economy stays like it is, I think we will start to see lower salaries*. It's a natural process though; no need to superficially impose a salary cut.

*I by no means follow sports signings and contracts and such closely, but I have seen what I percieve to be a reluctance for teams to sign big, long-term deals. Of course there's exceptions (Yankees, big suprise.) But I don't see the number of huge contracts that we saw even in the early 2000's. Again, I don't follow that closely so I could be wrong.

What?!?! You expect the free market to determine salaries?!? What kind of socialist are you? :D

[banquo's_bumble_puppy]

okay...not just this one group....movie actors, etc...

[Tucson_Tim]

okay...not just this one group....movie actors, etc...

I know what you meant me lad. ;) Probably the same reasoning can be applied to them.

I think Argos said it for me - as long as tax money is not involved, I may not approve, but there's not much that I can (or should) do.

[Fazor]

okay...not just this one group....movie actors, etc...

Again, how does their money hurt the economy? Where does cutting their salaries help us?

Are you asking if they should be forced to take some of that money and give it out to the rest of the population? That goes against everything we're currently founded on.

How do you decide who deserves huge salaries and who doesn't? That's not a rhetorical question. If actors, athletes, whatever don't deserve the money, stop going to the movies, stop buying dvds, stop watching sports, etc.

By doing so, you're the one providing their money.

[Trebuchet]

"Other"
We really needed a "They're overpaid but if they can get someone to give it to them, that's their right" option.

On the other hand, they are paid by teams receiving massive taxpayer subsidies in the form of stadium construction. So maybe they aren't so far off from CEO's getting bailouts and taking enormous bonuses.

[Fazor]

On the other hand, they are paid by teams receiving massive taxpayer subsidies in the form of stadium construction. So maybe they aren't so far off from CEO's getting bailouts and taking enormous bonuses.
That's one thing I hate. Tax money for stadiums. They'd counter with "But by building stadiums, we're bringing revenue to the city and thus helpling it."

I'm not an economist and couldn't argue. But still, with those kinds of profits, shouldn't they build their own building?

[BigDon]

Other.

[tony873004]

Their compensation should be determined by their contracts. They should receive whatever their employers agreed to pay them. If their employers would like to tighten their purse strings while negotiating future contracts during this weak economy, that's their business decision to make.

[BigDon]

I have an Idea! Whenever the economy gets tough, we'll just scrap the principles on which it was founded! This will give Zimbabwe a crack at those lunar bases with a level playing field.

[Fazor]

I have an Idea! Whenever the economy gets tough, we'll just scrap the principles on which it was founded! This will give Zimbabwe a crack at those lunar bases with a level playing field.
:lol:
It's like the addages thread. "When things get tough, the tough ... switch teams!"

[MAPNUT]

Other. The question is not whether their salaries should be cut, but how they can be. I'm sure sports attendance is going to be hurt by the recession. Historically, unemployed people have soothed their troubled souls by going to ball games, but there used to be cheap seats. No more. Even in recent years people have been compensating for high ticket prices by going to more minor league games. Now even corporations and the rich will have to be cutting back on their purchases of sky boxes. Revenue is bound to fall off. Players with multi-year astronomical contracts will have to be paid, or somehow persuaded to re-negotiate. Players' unions will never agree to across-the-board cuts; there may be strikes. And there will still be competition for the best players. We need an expert on athlete contracts to address the "how" question.

[BigDon]

How 'bout "why?"

[Fazor]

How 'bout "why?"
I asked both how and why. Do I get bonus points? :)

[BigDon]

I'll give you two.

[Fazor]

Sweet! Do I make it to the lightning round? Wait...this is BAUT. I imagine a 'lightning round' would entail copious amounts of electricity coursing through my body. I think I'll just withdrawl from competition instead.

[Swift]

Actually, this is sort of happening in baseball this season. Except for the Yankees, who seem to operate in a different reality, this has been a relatively conservative off-season, as far as free-agent contracts, and some big name players, such as Manny Ramirez, are currently without contracts, because they are asking too much.

Most teams are realizing that attendance, and the big money items like corporate luxury suites, are going to be down this year, and seem to be adjusting accordingly.

[Fazor]

That's what I was basing my observations on Swift (The MLB market). I'm guessing it will hold true for the NFL too, but we're in that period of rest after the season, where contracts and drafts are kinda on the backburner. Maybe true for NBA, but who cares about those guys anyway? :)

[Palome]

I'm not an economist and couldn't argue.

I find that a commendable attitude that is, sad to say, not shared by many people. It seems a rather strange human quirk that the less people know, the more time they spend on the soap box dispensing wisdom they do not possess :(

Are you asking if they should be forced to take some of that money and give it out to the rest of the population?

I'd like to know the answer to that question as well.

There are hundreds of millions of people who live on less than two dollars a day, who have to walk miles for clean drinking water, who have no electricity, no opportunity for education, and so on. Banquo's Bumble Puppy, do you have all of these things? If you do, should you have your salary cut back in this tough economy?

[Swift]

Hi Palome, welcome to BAUT.

[mugaliens]

If you think they're paid too much, vote with your activities. Watch reruns instead of going to the ball games or watching them on TV.

Comparing their salaries to those of the starving masses does nothing except obfuscate the issue. The only reason atheletes earn as much as they do is because sports fans are willing to pay that much for the tickets, they're willing to buy products advertised during the games, drink the beer, and collect their favorite sports paraphenalia.

It's simple market economics, nothing more. If the masses didn't demand (and pay for) the sports, the money (revenue) wouldn't be available to pay the players.

[Neverfly]

What is this; an ant colony?

[BigDon]

Hey Nev, the Queen wants to talk to you...

[Neverfly]

Hey Nev, the Queen wants to talk to you...

Take a message.

[Jens]

What about the issue of stadium subsidies, however? It seems that there is a case of taxpayer money going into athletes' wallets. Shouldn't that be up to the free market as well?

[BigDon]

Take a message.

The Queen says, "Whiff, odor, stink, whiff, pheromone, stink, whiff!"

I dunno Nev, she smells serious!

[Whirlpool]

In these times , everyone should partake the burden .

[davidlpf]

Well I always thought professional athletes were over paid, just now more so.

[Neverfly]

The Queen says, "Whiff, odor, stink, whiff, pheromone, stink, whiff!"

I dunno Nev, she smells serious!

Paint some stripes on Bender and let him do that talking.


The economy NEEDS spending. The last thing we should do is cut wages for those that can spend.

And what would be the point of knocking sports players wages? What purpose could that possibly serve?
Additionally, many wealthy people work less than professional athletes for their money.
Wealth is not usually attained by working your tail off- it's attained by having an idea or product that SELLS in large quantities. Whether it be books, an invention, software, an idea or a widget, those people that got rich because a lot of people BUY their product did not rob or steal from anyone.
People Buy into sports. They are glad to shell out their dollars to watch a professional athlete play a sport well.

Are they overpaid?
Why would they be?
They are no more overpaid than any other person that has a product that sells to a large crowd.

Is Oprah Winfrey over paid?
Is Bill Gates overpaid?
Shall we somehow dock their wages? If so- HOW? How could we justify doing so? If we did, what purpose would it serve?
What negative consequences would it inspire?

Any One of us have the same opportunity to get filthy rich too. Just come up with something that SELLS to the large crowd.

You don't dock others wages just because you're envious of their success. No matter what the economy is doing.


ETA: For the Record: I only knew there was a superbowl because customers tried scheduling me around it. I couldn't tell you who was playing or who won and I don't care. I don't spend my money on sports because I don't give a rats two tails about sports. Notice I never participate in the sports threads on the board. I don't dislike pro sports, I just am not interested in it. I don't dislike sports in general, in fact I'm actually a pretty good quarterback when I get on a field. But I'd rather be on a field with a ball than sitting on a couch watching someone ELSE play.
So what I expressed here is clearly not the product of my undying support for pro sports.

[mfumbesi]

I thought the market already determined their salaries.
The demise/looming demise of AIG is truly bad news for Manchester United F.C.

[MAPNUT]

Big Don, I thought the answer to "Why" is obvious - sports revenues are going to be down.

[banquo's_bumble_puppy]

How much money does anyone realistically need to live comfortably? What is your $$$$ comfort level? Let's say you are worth $50 billion. Are you going to spend that $50 billion? On what and how? Do rich people stay rich by spending to boost the economy? Everyone seems to want the bling and have expectations of having bigger bling and better bling than the next guy. That may be why the world is in the mess it is in. Is greed good? Maybe to a point. Maybe people just need to simplify their lives a bit. Have high expectations but within reason.

[Argos]

How much money does anyone realistically need to live comfortably? What is your $$$$ comfort level?

I remember reading a study that found out that, above a certain amount of money [I don´t recall how much], increased income doesn't seem to make people happier. So, it seems there is a limit.

As for stadium subsidies, they are granted because the people approve them [and even demand them]. Stadiums have always been built by governments [Greece, Rome - "panem et circences"]. In defense of such subsidies one could say that stadiums can be also used for amateur sports.

[Fazor]

How much money does anyone realistically need to live comfortably? What is your $$$$ comfort level? Let's say you are worth $50 billion. Are you going to spend that $50 billion? On what and how? Do rich people stay rich by spending to boost the economy? Everyone seems to want the bling and have expectations of having bigger bling and better bling than the next guy. That may be why the world is in the mess it is in. Is greed good? Maybe to a point. Maybe people just need to simplify their lives a bit. Have high expectations but within reason.

Again, are you suggesting we should put a maximum cap on what you're allowed to make? That's not a new idea, but you can look around at other countries and see if it's really made them a better place or not.

You don't seem to understand what's been said repeatedly; these people make this rediculous amount of money because the rest of us pay them. Does it seem fair that a kid who's born with physical gifts that I don't have can go out and play a game, and make more money than I'll probably ever see in my life? Well, based on free market and the amount of money we fans pay to watch...then I guess yes, it is fair.

It'd be nice if out of shape untalented guys got paid millions to do whatever we end up doing; sadly people just don't seem to enjoy watching me sit at a desk and sell insurance for 8 hours a day.

[Palome]

How much money does anyone realistically need to live comfortably? What is your $$$$ comfort level?

I don't know. What's yours? Is it many times higher than what a few billion people in the world live on? Does half the world think you're rich?

Is greed good? Maybe to a point. Maybe people just need to simplify their lives a bit. Have high expectations but within reason.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the point to which greed is good is not lower than the point you're at.

What's within reason? Who decides? Are you willing to live within what villagers in Africa or India think is within reason? Or will you be deciding for others what is within reason?

[Argos]

Is it many times higher than what a few billion people in the world live on? Does half the world think you're rich?

If you have a house [to live], a fridge, a TV set, microwave, a car and an Internet connection, you´re richer than 90% of the world.

[Doodler]

Athletes? No. If they can bilk the owners into signing the contract, more money to them.

Should teams get public financed stadiums? THERE'S the multimillion dollar question, BBP.

[Fazor]

Should teams get public financed stadiums? THERE'S the multimillion dollar question, BBP.

Yep. I agree. I don't like it, but they say it helps the city ... which it does, sort of. Creates jobs. City usually gets money from parking, tax on tickets/vendor sales, etc. But, while you're bringing that money in, do they taxpayers that financed you to build it in the first place get their money back? Because, lets face it, it's not like the team owners aren't benefiting aswell. Moreso than the host city ever does.

But even if the city gets their money back from the added benefit, do the taxpayers ever get their money back? (no). At least, as far as I know, no city's ever said "Hey, it's five years since this new stadium was built, and it's bringing in some nice money! So, we're going to lower everyone's taxes next year!!"

Lets be real; we know how it works. City imposes tax to help pay for stadium. Stadium brings in money, helping city. City keeps extra money from stadium, in addition to the taxes they were already making. City benefits. Stadium benefits. Taxpayers footed the bill.

So the argument then becomes, do the cities taxpayers benefit from the city having that extra money? That depends on your city and how well you think they spend their money.

[nauthiz]

That's one thing I hate. Tax money for stadiums. They'd counter with "But by building stadiums, we're bringing revenue to the city and thus helpling it."

I'm not an economist and couldn't argue. But still, with those kinds of profits, shouldn't they build their own building?

That reasoning would really only begin to compel me for a stadium like Wrigley Field that's right in the city and doesn't have a parking lot. Then you get fans hanging out in the city before and after games, patronizing the local businesses.

With the stadiums that are being built nowadays, though, fans just tend to drive straight into the parking lot, have a tailgate party using food they brought from home, and then head straight back to where they came from as soon as the game lets out. That's not contributing to the city beyond the sales tax on the money they spend in the stadium. If that's enough justification, then why doesn't the government give sweetheart deals to everybody who wants to build any sort of business that's open to the public?

[Spock Jenkins]

If a city wants to attract 10,000 - 50,000 plus people into their downtown (or whatever) district everytime a game is played, should they be forbidden from doing so?

Tax incentives to build stadiums attract sports fans to the areas around the stadium to get dinner before the game, go to the bars after the game, buy team or city related merchandise, pay for parking, etc. Due to the added business, new restaurants, stores, bars, etc. get built in the areas around the stadiums. Many times people will buy older, formerly run down buildings and revitalize them because of this.

Our area has seen it's downtown revitilized in a huge way since we built an arena downtown 15 years ago. It houses a minor league hockey team and at one time, an arena football team (could start again). But it's much more than just that. It's concerts, the circus, pro wrestling, boxing, moto-cross, etc. More hotels have gone up. Vacant buildings have been converted to offices and condos. The previously mentioned restaurants and bars have opened. People go downtown to shop and eat now even when there isn't any event going on at the arena because there are good places to go.

People that work for the team and for the other businesses that go up need places to live. They pay property taxes and income taxes and sales taxes. Visitors pay sales taxes and stay in hotels. Parking was mentioned.

It's the cities that want to be able to offer this, and the team owners would be foolish to say no. The cities need to conduct a bit of cost benefit analysis when they decide how much to contribute to the construction - but ultimately it's in there best interest.

What happens when the owners pay the entire thing? The Palace of Auburn Hills gets built 45 minutes from downtown Detroit. The owner finds a nice big piece of land they can get for a reasonable price and a lower property tax rate, puts a huge parking lot on site that they receive all the revenue from, and draws concerts and visitors away from Downtown Detroit. Now, I'm not saying Bill Davison (owner) did a bad thing - but Detroit could have benefitted from the last six years of deep playoff runs and sellout crowds the Pistons have drawn. 21,000 plus people in an area 41 nights of the year plus playoff games? Detroit would like those people spending money there instead of way out in Auburn Hills.

Not to mention city income taxes paid by all those multi-million dollar athletes for money earned while working in the city.

[nauthiz]

How much money does anyone realistically need to live comfortably? What is your $$$$ comfort level? Let's say you are worth $50 billion. Are you going to spend that $50 billion? On what and how? Do rich people stay rich by spending to boost the economy? Everyone seems to want the bling and have expectations of having bigger bling and better bling than the next guy. That may be why the world is in the mess it is in. Is greed good? Maybe to a point. Maybe people just need to simplify their lives a bit. Have high expectations but within reason.

I don't have any direct control over what sports execs and stars make. Nor does it make sense that i should cap it. After the money makes it into the team's coffers it needs to come out somehow. Otherwise, it would just collect in a dark room somewhere contributing absolutely nothing to the economy. Going to see a game would be the economic equivalent of large crowds of people getting together to set fire to millions of dollars in cash practically every night of the year.

The large salaries give that money a way to continue existing and doing something useful in the economy. Considering how quickly your average professional athlete can burn through his salary, I doubt there's a more efficient way to re-disperse the cash. The executives and coaches certainly aren't passing it on to other people anywhere near that quickly. So don't hate on large athletic salaries, if you look at it in terms of economics rather than just moralizing about it you'll see it really is a very effective way of mitigating a potential drain on the GDP.


Now if you're wanting to talk about why in the world so many people are willing to pay the prices that sports teams charge for merchandise and tickets, then you'd be cooking.

[Spock Jenkins]

Regarding the OP. Athletes are paid what the market will support. The question, in my mind, is if we have a progressive tax system in the US (we do), what is the point of putting the top tier in place at roughly $250,000? Why not have an over $1MM tier that would be a higher burden yet? This wouldn't stop the owners from paying to attract athletes, but it would generate additional funds for the treasury. That is, of course, assuming that people don't make arrangements to insure that their compensation is paid in forms other than cash to keep it below the top tier. Deferred comp plans, Team ownership shares, etc.

The money is being generated. The athletes are the only reason it's being generated. They should get paid accordingly.

Capping someones salary in the name of "fairness" doesn't address what to do with the revenues that are generated. It also doesn't address the notion that people will be less inclined to produce if they are told they won't be able to keep any of the rewards of their production above $X.

[Fazor]

Sure Spock, anything can make sense when you use facts and examples to support it.

The other thing to consider is, how much is the stadium tax, really? I mean, on a per-person basis.

Columbus has also used stadiums to spark a revitalization of it's downtown area (the 10% of it that's not OSU's campus, anyway). So far, it appears to be working. While the Blue Jackets aren't exactly the most exciting team in the NHL; the stadium and the area around it are much nicer now than before they were there. Additionally, the "Short North" area, which isn't particularly connected with the Arena district, has seen a big improvement due to influx of people from the suburbs getting in the habit of going into the city for recreation.

The water-front district is suppose to be improving aswell, but I haven't been there since I quite working downtown (I'm a hillbilly, don't need no fancy city folk to be happy). Just this year, they've opened a new baseball stadium for our AA team in the Arena district to further boost it's utility. I'm sad to see the old park go (been going to games there since I was old enough to remember) but I'm interested to see the new digs.

[BigDon]

How much money does anyone realistically need to live comfortably? What is your $$$$ comfort level? Let's say you are worth $50 billion. Are you going to spend that $50 billion? On what and how? Do rich people stay rich by spending to boost the economy? Everyone seems to want the bling and have expectations of having bigger bling and better bling than the next guy. That may be why the world is in the mess it is in. Is greed good? Maybe to a point. Maybe people just need to simplify their lives a bit. Have high expectations but within reason.

You're talking about the people who own the businesses that employ everybody else, right?

And if those businesses continue to make a profit into the third or forth generation of that person's family this is wrong to you?

What failed goverment models didn't you get in the last 30 years?

We are in off topic babbling you are under NO obligation to answer any of the above questions.

[raptorthang]

Unfortunately the approach to bailing out the economy has been to prop up dying industries, reward bad management, excuse personal bad choices, etc.

I'm actually quite heartened by some of the answers in this thread. Especially the 'why'. The government has been running around in hysterical frenzy to do 'something' even if the leaders have no friggin idea how it's going to help anything.

Professional athletes should have salaries cut because...? It helps the economy?... or it somehow is a philosophical feel-goodness ? Why would a basketball player making 5 million a year be better than him making 10 million? What does that do for the economy?

The economy is in the same shape as it was when the manure hit the fan. The principal difference is that the per capita debt of every taxpayer has increased several thousand dollars and zilch has actually been accomplished. GM will go into bankruptcy a year or so later...those who can't pay their mortgages will have even higher payments...the U.S. government will be in even great debt to the Chinese.

Butt out of athlete's salaries and, within reason, most everything else in the free market and water will reach its natural level.

[Chunky]

i think athletes should stop playing until the crisis is over.

[BigDon]

I believe you think that.

[Neverfly]

Sure Spock, anything can make sense when you use facts and examples to support it.


That is sooo quotable...

[EricM407]

If a city wants to attract 10,000 - 50,000 plus people into their downtown (or whatever) district everytime a game is played, should they be forbidden from doing so?

I don't know. Is this a legitimate function of government? I'm sure there are many nice things government could tax us and then go and do, but that doesn't necessarily mean they should be doing them.

Tax incentives to build stadiums attract sports fans to the areas around the stadium to get dinner before the game, go to the bars after the game, buy team or city related merchandise, pay for parking, etc. Due to the added business, new restaurants, stores, bars, etc. get built in the areas around the stadiums. Many times people will buy older, formerly run down buildings and revitalize them because of this.

An an example of how none of this is necessarily true, I offer Truman Sports Complex in Kansas City, where the Chiefs and Royals have their stadiums.

They've been there for over 30 years, and there's been no development around there. When they show the wide view shots from the blimp during games, it's really pathetic. There's a Denny's, a smallish cheap hotel, and a gas station next to god knows how many acres of parking lot. Parking fees go to the team owners, btw.

As nauthiz pointed out, people bring their food with them, they tailgate, they watch the game, they get in their cars, and they leave. We're situated on a state line, and the majority of attendees are from out of state, so all of those purchases you listed above don't even occur in MO, much less this city or county.

But the local governments paid for the stadiums, and they pay millions a year in maintenance costs. They also have to put a lot of law enforcement to work on overtime every time there's a game for crowd control and drunk driving enforcement. I guarantee you costs exceed any revenues those stadiums bring.

It's the cities that want to be able to offer this, and the team owners would be foolish to say no.

Wait a minute. Many cities have been coerced with threats of teams moving, and many teams have moved to get better deals. Our last campaign for sports welfare featured many commercials which implied that the Chiefs would go somewere else if they didn't get what they want, and so it passed.

Not to mention city income taxes paid by all those multi-million dollar athletes for money earned while working in the city.

Many (most?) cities don't have an income tax. Kansas City does, and guess what? None of those athletes pay it.

[Swift]

Many (most?) cities don't have an income tax. Kansas City does, and guess what? None of those athletes pay it.
Most of the cities in Northeast Ohio do and the athletes pay it. There have been some inter-city fights in cases where the stadium is in one city, and the headquarters or the practice field is in another, such as with the Cleveland Browns, as to which city gets the money.

[Spock Jenkins]

I don't know. Is this a legitimate function of government? I'm sure there are many nice things government could tax us and then go and do, but that doesn't necessarily mean they should be doing them.

Local government, absolutely. Local governments are not unlike many businesses in that the city will die if they don’t compete with other localities. It’s not like a country were people aren’t as free to move ten miles if they don’t like the way things are being done. They’re competing for residents and tax base.

An an example of how none of this is necessarily true, I offer Truman Sports Complex in Kansas City, where the Chiefs and Royals have their stadiums.

People do things wrong in every endeavor. It doesn’t mean doing nothing is the correct answer either. The Pontiac Silverdome was not managed well, now they have a big empty eyesore in the middle of Pontiac that the local government financed. You win some, you lose some.

Wait a minute. Many cities have been coerced with threats of teams moving, and many teams have moved to get better deals. Our last campaign for sports welfare featured many commercials which implied that the Chiefs would go somewhere else if they didn't get what they want, and so it passed.

If it’s such a bad deal and they don’t want to pay – let them leave. Seattle did. It would seem to bring something to the table if they signed off on the deal. Maybe they were incorrect in their cost benefit analysis – but it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have the right to try.

Many (most?) cities don't have an income tax. Kansas City does, and guess what? None of those athletes pay it.

Again – sounds like your issue is with that specific local government, not the concept of local governments being allowed to make local decisions. Many times these decisions are put to a public vote to allow residents to decide if they are willing to pay a special assessment to support such a project. To me, that is exactly what local governments are for.

[EricM407]

Again – sounds like your issue is with that specific local government, not the concept of local governments being allowed to make local decisions.

When those decisions tax me or deprive me of my property for things that aren't even remotely legitimate governmental functions, yes, I have a problem with the concept that government should have the authority to make those decisions. But I've noticed that many people who have a similar opinion are willing to cast that opinion aside when it comes to sports, for some reason.

Many times these decisions are put to a public vote to allow residents to decide if they are willing to pay a special assessment to support such a project.

Yes, but there's an emotional aspect to this sports fandom that tends to make people irrational, and the irrational ones tend to outnumber those who actually look closely at the cost-benefit analyses of the proposals, to say nothing of the vastly greater amount of money one side of these campaigns always has. Surely you can think of a few things that it would be unwise to put to a vote and let the majority have their way with.

[Spock Jenkins]

Surely you can think of a few things that it would be unwise to put to a vote and let the majority have their way with.

Certainly. However, when it comes to my tax bill and what it's paying for, I'd rather have it put to a vote than be left in the hands of the city council. At least then I feel like I've had my say, even if I disagree with the final outcome. Worse case scenario - I can always vote with my feet. Nice thing about local governments is that there are many options within a few miles drive.

I also see your point regarding sports. Like I said, Seattle let the Sonics go. They didn't see the benefit.

Bottom line for me, is that I think local governments should be allowed to take measures to compete for industries, businesses, and residents. The way they do this is in part by controlling the cost of doing business in their community. Being a fun place to live and visit is a factor of competing for both businesses and residents. Even if the sports team costs a lot to have - it's hard to measure the total impact on the community.

[Swift]

Folks, might I suggest we knock off the debate on taxation and sports teams. At least in the US this tends to be a very political issue. It has been polite so far, but I'm not convinced it is allowed on this forum. And I would rather not close the thread, in case people still want to talk about salaries.

[closetgeek]

[QUOTE=Palome;1427222]I find that a commendable attitude that is, sad to say, not shared by many people. It seems a rather strange human quirk that the less people know, the more time they spend on the soap box dispensing wisdom they do not possess :(

Heya Palome, welcome. It's basic human understanding; the less you actually know about something, the more you think you do.

I voted other because I agree with the predominant view. They make what they make because the fans are willing to pay what they pay. Like every other bubble, it will probably eventually pop without intervention.

[Spock Jenkins]

[QUOTE]...Like every other bubble, it will probably eventually pop without intervention.

Then we'll need an athlete bailout. Afterall:

"We might make a lot of money, but we also spend a lot of money."
- Patrick Ewing (representing the NBA players union in contract negotiations)

"I have a family to feed."
- Latrell Sprewell turning down a three year $21MM offer from the T-Wolves.

[BigDon]

[QUOTE=closetgeek;1431474]

"I have a family to feed."
- Latrell Sprewell turning down a three year $21MM offer from the T-Wolves.

If I have a skill that I feel could draw down MORE than $21MM from somewhere else, why on Earth would I settle for less? To satisfy somebody elses sence of fairness?

I am neither a fan of basketball OR Sprewell but the man has the right to make as much money as he can playing basketball, while he can play basketball. He isn't an accountant or a IT tech or an actor. He is an athelete, competeing against other atheletes. Age alone will put him out of business in ten years.

(Not accusing Spock of anything, just swiping his quote. :))

[dodecahedron]

Pay athletes enough to have a home and family in addition to covering reasonable travel expenses. So what if someone has to stay at a Quality Inn or fly coach. They're being paid to PLAY A GAME. It's their (strong adjectival expletive starting with F) dream. Heck, it's anyone's dream to earn a living playing a game. I know it's an old chestnut but teachers and scientists deserve to be paid more than an athlete or a celebrity. Surely if these people truly enjoyed their jobs they'd still do it regardless of their income.

$400,000 a year is too much. 1/4 that should be fine. I live pretty well making 6% of the President's yearly income then again I have no debt just monthly bills. Let the athlete's wives work and their kids find a job after school to learn responsibility and humility.

On the same note I think it would've been cool if Obama suspended his own salary until the worst of the economic crisis had passed. The man has room, board, healthcare and transportation. It'd be purely symbolic but it'd mean a lot more than those dopes in Detroit saying they're going to have a salary of $1/year when the lion's share of their income comes from stocks and other investments.

[BigDon]

They're being paid to PLAY A GAME.
.

No, they are being paid to entertain you. Like actors, musicians and ballerinas.

All actors do is read lines. All heart surgeons do is carve peoples chests open. All sculptors do is chip rocks...Put a sneer on anything and it sounds bad. Basic D&D refereeing 101.

I could go on.

Dode, do you have a clue as to how much the team owners make on thier teams? Here's a hint: It's enough to pay those huge saleries and still keep the owners happy. Doesn't THAT at least cause a few ideas to bang around in your head?

Did you think the owners were paying the players out of the own pockets at a loss?

[dodecahedron]

I am neither a fan of basketball OR Sprewell but the man has the right to make as much money as he can playing basketball, while he can play basketball. He isn't an accountant or a IT tech or an actor. He is an athelete, competeing against other atheletes. Age alone will put him out of business in ten years.

So you're saying that athletes know they're essentially useless and need to hedge their bets against age and injury because they've done nothing to diversify their education or skillset to contribute to society and humanity beyond throwing a ball through a hoop or knocking another man down because he's holding an inflated bladder?

[Removed] Entitled, overpaid and coddled by his handlers because he plays a game. His remark about 21m not being enough makes me rage something fierce. Thank goodness for their seedy accountants who end up taking these goons to the cleaners leaving them with nothing once they receive that game-ending injury or get put out to pasture.

[BigDon]

So you're saying that athletes know they're essentially useless and need to hedge their bets against age and injury because they've done nothing to diversify their education or skillset to contribute to society and humanity beyond throwing a ball through a hoop or knocking another man down because he's holding an inflated bladder?

Sprewell is an (removed too). Entitled, overpaid and coddled by his handlers because he plays a game. His remark about 21m not being enough makes me rage something fierce. Thank goodness for their seedy accountants who end up taking these goons to the cleaners leaving them with nothing once they receive that game-ending injury or get put out to pasture.


Would you like a water chaser for all that venom? And here are some sunglasses, the green light from your eyes is near distracting me.

Wow dude! Neither Sprewell nor yourself are "Sims". He really exists somewhere as a human being, with an atheletic talent. Your hostility is right on the edge of pathological. (to me) Were you pantsed by the basketball team in highschool?

[Spock Jenkins]

[QUOTE=Spock Jenkins;1431503]

If I have a skill that I feel could draw down MORE than $21MM from somewhere else, why on Earth would I settle for less? To satisfy somebody elses sence of fairness?

I am neither a fan of basketball OR Sprewell but the man has the right to make as much money as he can playing basketball, while he can play basketball. He isn't an accountant or a IT tech or an actor. He is an athelete, competeing against other atheletes. Age alone will put him out of business in ten years.

(Not accusing Spock of anything, just swiping his quote. :))

Being a sports fan, I know he over-estimated his value and hasn't played (or coached or commentated) since. Not sure how that $0 contract is feeding his family compared to the $21MM, but I do know his home was forclosed, his boat repo'd, and I understand he's declared bankruptcy.

I just want to add that my quotes were more based on the comical justification the athletes give for thei salaries, not to begrudge anyone their paycheck. They need a media coach as much as a team coach.

"Okay team, if anyone asks about your salary, here's your talking points. Nobody feels bad for Bentley owners in a labor dispute."

[Moose]

Dodecahedron, we do not engage in name calling, even against third parties, and certainly not using strong language. Please find a more polite way to express strong disapproval.

[SeanF]

Thank goodness for their seedy accountants who end up taking these goons to the cleaners leaving them with nothing once they receive that game-ending injury or get put out to pasture.
Because while the athletes don't deserve the money, the "seedy accountants" do? ;)

[Francisco]

Pay athletes enough to have a home and family in addition to covering reasonable travel expenses.

How do you propose to implement this vision of social justice.

$400,000 a year is too much. 1/4 that should be fine. I live pretty well making 6% of the President's yearly income then again I have no debt just monthly bills. Let the athlete's wives work and their kids find a job after school to learn responsibility and humility.

I have a vision of villagers in the third world saying, $24,000 a year is too much. Let dodecahedron and his/her kids walk several miles a day to collect clean water, like we do, to learn responsibility and humility.

[sarongsong]

Should professional athletes have their salaries cut back in this tough economy?Just the Yankees---and baseball Commissioner Bud Selig ($17M/yr.) http://www.bautforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Swift]

Selig makes $17 million a year :eek: . Wow, talk about a waste of money!

[BigDon]

What is it with this younger generation and socialism? Did they miss that part of school that shows that doesn't work?

[Doodler]

What is it with this younger generation and socialism? Did they miss that part of school that shows that doesn't work?


Unless its an entire continent propped up by trade with a massive capitalist machine.

I guess they expect China to do for us what the US did for Western Europe...

[Swift]

Guys, I understand the points and how the conversation has turned in that direction, but I advice steering away from economic/political discussions, especially if they don't involve athletes

[Gruesome]

I've been lurking on this thread for a few days now. I voted "No - They deserve it", and am apparently the only one who did so. I've refrained from responding in that timeframe because I figured if I flew off the handle then I would be banned.

Calmer heads have prevailed and I now feel calm and comfortable enough to respond both to the OP and the moderators.

To the OP.....How would you prefer this question be resolved? Who would you prefer decide the salaries of sports figures? I feel I must demand answers to these questions, otherwise I must put you into the category of posters who claim NASA faked the moon landings, yet refuse to follow up.

To the Moderators....Why do you allow such posts? The poll is entirely economic/political in nature and is undoubtedly going to lead to trouble. Either lock the thread or ban the poster (I would recommend both), otherwise I'm going to post my agreement with BigDon and my language will not be so diplomatic.

Forewarned is forearmed.

[sarongsong]

So who's going to tell the athletes? http://www.bautforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gifShould professional athletes have their salaries cut back in this tough economy?

This poll will close on 04-February-2010 at 06:49 PM

Yes.....................10.00%
No.......................2.50%
Performance-based 20.00%
Other..................67.50%"Hey Scotty! (http://www.playwinningpoker.com/wsop/wsop4.html)---leave 75% of that $1,989,120 prize money on the table!" :lol:

If it's "this tough economy" the problem, why not go after those who caused it?---it certainly wasn't the athletes.

[tdvance]

There are a lot of posts, and I've not read them all and might be duplicating--but I chose "other"--basically, the answer is: if those who pay the athletes can afford to do so, they may. If the economy keeps them from doing so, they may have to do some cutting, but the state of the economy should be trumped by the state of your own personal economy--if you can afford to pay it, it doesn't matter if the economic numbers say that "on average, you can't afford to pay it". Not paying what you can afford (and in this "can I afford it" decision, I assume you consider saving or not saving according to likelihood of needing the cash later) doesn't really help the economy, after all (though truly, paying what you can afford is a net loss on the economy).

[Swift]

To the Moderators....Why do you allow such posts? The poll is entirely economic/political in nature and is undoubtedly going to lead to trouble. Either lock the thread or ban the poster (I would recommend both), otherwise I'm going to post my agreement with BigDon and my language will not be so diplomatic.

Forewarned is forearmed.
The original post was within the rules of the board. There are no rules, for example, governing the discussion of economics on this board. And we prefer to allow discusssions, since that is what the membership wants, as long as they stay within the rules. Since then we have acted to keep the thread within the rules.

If you believe any post or thread is in violation of those rules, please use the "Report post" red triangle to report it - don't debate rules violations in the thread.

And be forewarned, if you post something that is too "undiplomatic", the moderators will take action against you. If you can not debate things diplomatically, don't debate them.

[blueshift]

Things are simply not all cut and dry. Even the political and economic views can all be thrown on their heads but this is not a political board so I can make an effort to shed the light in different areas. The law of conservation of energy seems to have a counterpart in the social world we live in.

The more energy that goes to someone is exchanged for the energy they lost.The more money one has is exchanged for freedom one gave up. Michael Jordan can't walk ten feet through the streets of Chicago without body guards or being mobbed by fans. The same goes for all public figures. Many players might think they want all the fame until they get right near it and realize their emotional state demands more privacy than such a life will provide them.

There are a number of athletes who do possess the capabilites that many in major league baseball have and have opted NOT to pursue the dream that many assume ALL must want. The money and fame is not for everyone. The number of baseball players who opted out simply never made the news. Many left during their minor league careers and many others refused to sign contracts at all. It went unnoticed. Amateur baseball does not get the press coverage that amateur basketball and football do.

Players in football and basketball that gave up their careers in their prime did receive publicity in the 60s: Dave Meggesey, George Sauer, Pete Gent and others walked away from football. Bill Walton left basketball. He returned later. Many did leave baseball but did not get publicity.

One was comical.

Were any of you impressed with Josh Hamilton's HR derby show at Yankee Stadium last year at the All Star break? I saw a fellow from Northbrook, Illinois top that several times over in the 1960s.

Butch Larsen nailed over 70 consecutive pitches out of the yard on a number of occasions. His team mates used to position themselves behind the outfield fence when he took batting practice. But Butch simply liked food more than baseball.

I heard it this way from one of the parents:

He was left off by team mates at a smorgasbord in Bloomington, Illinois in 1966 at 11:00 am. He was told to be at batting practice by 4:30pm with the state championship game time at 6:30pm. By 5:00 Butch still had not shown up and a few of his team mates looked at one another and said, "You don't think he's still there, do you?" The coach overheard and looked at them in horror, "You left him off WHERE? You gotta be kidding me! Go back and get him you idiots!"

So back they went. Sure enough there he was, plates piled up on each side of him and the waitresses and the owner were trying to not to heave while watching him from the kitchen. The players pulled him right out of the chair and dragged him out as he grabbed cupcakes on his way out, stuffing them into his pockets.

In the top of the 1st he belted out two home runs as the Glenbrook North Spartans scored 15 times in that innning and went on to win the state championship.

Scouts warned him that he had to make a choice: baseball or the stomach. His speed on foot was too slow and they were signing nothing but speedsters in those days.

Butch decided on his gullet.

Dave Shotkowski, a former Brave, told me that he knew a lot of players in the minors who took their bonuses and paid off their family mortgages. They felt their parents made all the big efforts to drive them to batting lessons and camps and they respected the sweat their family members put out to help them develope skills. You don't hear about them because they did not want the publicity or the hero label. They just liked training and many loved the minor league circuit because of the small town atmosphere and small crowds that went with it.

Should their salaries be cut? Who cares? I don't pay any of them.

I'm sure glad I was never a major league baseball player. What a wasted life that would have been. It's neat to practice and talk about once in a while... but for a living?

[eugenek]

It'd be nice if out of shape untalented guys got paid millions to do whatever we end up doing; sadly people just don't seem to enjoy watching me sit at a desk and sell insurance for 8 hours a day.

This is probably your fault or, at least, your people's fault.

I went to my local insurance office with my seat cushion prepared to enjoy the show. There were no concession stands. Am I expected to bring my own peanuts and mountain dew? I don't think I can go eight hours without something to drink. The seating was odd. I couldn't find anything that looked like spectator seating. All seating I could see appeared to be in the field of play. I'm just not that confident in my skills. I don't want to look like an idiot out there. So, I found a wall to lean up against. Geez, I have to stand for eight hours?

Apparently, there is a time limit involved too. I say apparently because I didn't actually see any signage to that fact. It might have been at the ticket office but I couldn't find that either. Whoever laid this out really didn't make it convenient. Anyways, I was quickly asked to leave by several of the players. Eventually, the local police showed up and hauled me away in handcuffs.

So, can you see why most people don't enjoy watching people sell insurance?

[crosscountry]

As long as they´re not on taxpayer money I don´t care how much they get.


It might be relative to how the teams do financially. Owners pay them based on ticket sales and endorsements. I don't like the salaries, but there should be no law directing that.

[BigDon]

Gruesome, I realize now, is quite correct.

Technically, anytime you talk about regulating somebody else's money, it's very political.

This thread doesn't belong on this forum.

[Chuck]

Athletes are highly paid because there's a high demand for professional sports. Instead of regulating them, people who think they're overpaid should compete with them. Not everyone can compete athletically, but anyone can start a new business by starting a corporation to offer some new sport, sell stock, hire athletes, sell tickets, and divert some of this big money into their own pockets. When someone is making big money by satisfying a consumer demand it should be seen as an opportunity to make money, not as a reason for regulation.

[blueshift]

Actually, in countries where the salaries of doctors are lower than they are here is due to manipulating supply by opening the doors to all qualified medical students. By flooding the market with doctors one lowers the cost of medicine and doctor wages. By flooding the market with baseball players you lower their income. Baseball academies are producing more and more hitters with sounder hitting mechanics than the players of the past had and they are producing more to the point where there is no shortage of power hitters any longer. Good base stealing speed is lacking right now.

[tdvance]

There are plenty of potential baseball players in the market, though--it's the very best that draw the big crowds and thus the big money. In baseball, "qualified" is a very high bar. It's actually that way in a lot of the entertainment industry. Musicians, for example--there are tons at the small-band low-wage level (and gigatons at the "I'll play for free" level), and the competition is fierce. Nevertheless, people will pay to crowd into a large venue to see a very small number at the top--and those get rich playing music. It's not insufficient supply of musicians, it's insufficient supply at the quality demanded by consumers.

[HenrikOlsen]

Except music now seems to pull massive crows to see rank amateurs with a smattering of talent and none of the hard work behind them just because they've been artificially blown up as famous by some "talent show" on TV.
Be happy you don't have that for baseball.

[Chuck]

Celebrity baseball! Thanks for the idea! I'll be rich!

[HenrikOlsen]

Base-X or X-Ball?

[BigDon]

(Snip) X-Ball?

A formal event, for divorcees! Thanks for the idea! I'll be rich!

[blueshift]

The problem with this thread might have been the way the OP was worded. "During these tough economic times" is not necessarily what has been implied by some here and might deal with another view we haven't brought up.

Another way of looking at the entertainment industry is this: What message do we send to our youth concerning the work ethic when we pay our court jesters millions and allow lottos to exist while laborers can barely afford mobile homes? Is it any wonder they turn to crime?

Work in an economic system involves socially necessary labor. Work in physics involves displacement. Since the question is an economic one then what necessity is entertainment? Did they pursue their careers to develope and nurture the nation's intellect or did they pursue their careers to avoid work?

[BigDon]

The problem with this thread might have been the way the OP was worded. "During these tough economic times" is not necessarily what has been implied by some here and might deal with another view we haven't brought up.

Another way of looking at the entertainment industry is this: What message do we send to our youth concerning the work ethic when we pay our court jesters millions and allow lottos to exist while laborers can barely afford mobile homes? Is it any wonder they turn to crime?

Work in an economic system involves socially necessary labor. Work in physics involves displacement. Since the question is an economic one then what necessity is entertainment? Did they pursue their careers to develope and nurture the nation's intellect or did they pursue their careers to avoid work?


What part of being a competetive athelete doesn't involve work?

[tdvance]

I think some who rises to the top of any honest profession deserves credit! And it certainly requires some kind of work ethic--for many, well above and beyond what most of us ever do. It's like an ad I once saw in a magazine: "[xxx] practiced Euphonium 3 hours a day every day throughout high school. Now that he's at Julliard, it's 11 hours a day." (And I can't even remember what the ad was for!).

Wait till the guy becomes pro--then he'll *really* get serious about his Euphonium :)

[SeanF]

Work in an economic system involves socially necessary labor.
Define "socially necessary." Is it what you think is necessary, or what society as a whole thinks is necessary? If it's the latter, then there's nothing to do - when society determines that professional sports are no longer necessary, they'll go away.

Or, more accurately, when society determines that pro athletes are worth less (that's two words there!), they'll get paid less.

[blueshift]

Define "socially necessary." Is it what you think is necessary, or what society as a whole thinks is necessary? If it's the latter, then there's nothing to do - when society determines that professional sports are no longer necessary, they'll go away.

Or, more accurately, when society determines that pro athletes are worth less (that's two words there!), they'll get paid less.What is socially necessary is food, clothing and shelter and a means to repair and maintain that along with a communication system and transportation to help carry that out and researching that deals with these necessities. Life support. Fire prevention. Mail delivery. Carpentry. Farming. Manufacture. Medicine. Telecommunications. Energy. Science research. Professional athletes do none of that.

They may sweat and practice for hours on end. It is all unnecessary just as a laborer spending too much excess time re-wiping dust from a finished auto is doing unnecessary labor.

If professional athletes were necessary then no country could exist without them. Take away food, clothing and shelter and any nation falls.

[blueshift]

What part of being a competetive athelete doesn't involve work?Sweat does not = work. I can walk clear around the world but won't do anything socially necessary. In fact, I will depend upon those that do on my way. Someone will have to make my shoes and clothing and provide shelters for me to stay in on my journey. Someone will have to make televisions and computers and cell phones for me to find examples of others who did it better (and to get some inspirations) and I'll need someone to bind books for me to further any research that the other items mentioned above did not provide. Water may be scarce in some areas. So I'll need to know the best roads and which ones washed out, etc.

I always wanted to ask some "self-made person", "Did it give you much pain when you gave birth to yourself?

Al Kaline was very disturbed about the way he made a living and was blunt about it. Ted Williams knew that when his country called him for duty that he'd better go, considering how little he contributed the rest of the time. No other country at that time was dumb enough to fork out that kind of money for running around bases and hitting a ball.

[hhEb09'1]

What is socially necessary is food, clothing and shelter and a means to repair and maintain that along with a communication system and transportation to help carry that out and researching that deals with these necessities. Life support. Fire prevention. Mail delivery. Carpentry. Farming. Manufacture. Medicine. Telecommunications. Energy. Science research. Professional athletes do none of that.

They may sweat and practice for hours on end. It is all unnecessary just as a laborer spending too much excess time re-wiping dust from a finished auto is doing unnecessary labor.

If professional athletes were necessary then no country could exist without them. Take away food, clothing and shelter and any nation falls.What happened to those nations fifty years ago without modern communication systems?

[geonuc]

Work in an economic system involves socially necessary labor. Work in physics involves displacement. Since the question is an economic one then what necessity is entertainment? Did they pursue their careers to develope and nurture the nation's intellect or did they pursue their careers to avoid work?
Are there no options other than those two? I don't subscribe to your definition of work. I don't know how I'd define it in an economic sense, but not that way.

[BigDon]

Sweat does not = work. I can walk clear around the world but won't do anything socially necessary. In fact, I will depend upon those that do on my way. Someone will have to make my shoes and clothing and provide shelters for me to stay in on my journey. Someone will have to make televisions and computers and cell phones for me to find examples of others who did it better (and to get some inspirations) and I'll need someone to bind books for me to further any research that the other items mentioned above did not provide. Water may be scarce in some areas. So I'll need to know the best roads and which ones washed out, etc.

I always wanted to ask some "self-made person", "Did it give you much pain when you gave birth to yourself?

Al Kaline was very disturbed about the way he made a living and was blunt about it. Ted Williams knew that when his country called him for duty that he'd better go, considering how little he contributed the rest of the time. No other country at that time was dumb enough to fork out that kind of money for running around bases and hitting a ball.

Nice work of taking a false dichotomy, and then trying to run for a touch down with it. :clap:

This ought to be in a debating team's lesson plan!

[SeanF]

What is socially necessary is food, clothing and shelter and a means to repair and maintain that along with a communication system and transportation to help carry that out and researching that deals with these necessities. Life support. Fire prevention. Mail delivery. Carpentry. Farming. Manufacture. Medicine. Telecommunications. Energy. Science research. Professional athletes do none of that.
I asked whether you get to define what's "socially necessary" or if society gets to define it. You didn't explicitly answer the question, but the implicit answer here is that you think you get to define it.

And - more importantly - you don't think art or entertainment is necessary to a society.

Not worth arguing with you about.

[tdvance]

What is socially necessary is food, clothing and shelter and a means to repair and maintain that along with a communication system and transportation to help carry that out and researching that deals with these necessities. Life support. Fire prevention. Mail delivery. Carpentry. Farming. Manufacture. Medicine. Telecommunications. Energy. Science research. Professional athletes do none of that.

They may sweat and practice for hours on end. It is all unnecessary just as a laborer spending too much excess time re-wiping dust from a finished auto is doing unnecessary labor.

If professional athletes were necessary then no country could exist without them. Take away food, clothing and shelter and any nation falls.

You know, I wouldn't want to live where where only that which someone else decides is necessary is available. A person who has no need for sports can simply not pay to attend sporting events. Way, way too much of people wanting too much say on how other people's money gets spent.

[blueshift]

I asked whether you get to define what's "socially necessary" or if society gets to define it. You didn't explicitly answer the question, but the implicit answer here is that you think you get to define it.

And - more importantly - you don't think art or entertainment is necessary to a society.

Not worth arguing with you about.The national debt defines it, not me or you. Survival defines it, not me or you. Art and entertainment is not necessary. I write poetry but I do not deserve money for that. Exercise is great for human health but there is only a necessity that women work out and not men. It is they who need to be the healthiest to give birth, not men. The reason the populace doesn't work out because they don't need to for survival. I do it out of choice and self-discipline, not out of cultural input.

The question I raised has still been ignored by you and others. "How do we convince our youth concerning a work ethic when the LOTTO (something I did mention and you ignored) and our court jesters are paid millions while work is rewarded with a wage so meager that mobile homes are unaffordable?"

[blueshift]

You know, I wouldn't want to live where where only that which someone else decides is necessary is available. A person who has no need for sports can simply not pay to attend sporting events. Way, way too much of people wanting too much say on how other people's money gets spent.The issue isn't quite that, although my tax money is going to their stadiums. In fact, I have insisted to many that a capitalist does not have wealth, he or she circulates it. Feudalism held onto wealth, trying to find meaning in it and even many commoners hold the same value when they pass on some of their worthless crap when they die. I don't care if my kids take the primary mirror out of my telescope and roll it down Golf Road when I die.

The issue I brought up deals with the way this thread could have been reworded, considering some of the viewpoints that were brought up. I raised a cultural question and pointed to the economics of the OP. My earlier post on Feb 15 pointed to supply and demand and how manipulating supply and demand will drop the athletes' salaries.

[BigDon]

Stop spouting Marxist psychobabble nobody agrees with and you might get a straight answer.

[blueshift]

What happened to those nations fifty years ago without modern communication systems?I think you misread the post. Modern communications is a good thing and necessary. Or do you think that baseball players built and designed modern communication systems?

[BigDon]

"How do we convince our youth concerning a work ethic when the LOTTO (something I did mention and you ignored) and our court jesters are paid millions while work is rewarded with a wage so meager that mobile homes are unaffordable?"

Your question isn't answerable because it starts from a flawed premise.

What do you know about our youth's work ethic and our effort to teach same? That isn't based on hate, cynicism and prejudice you so freely seem to throw around?

[blueshift]

Stop spouting Marxist psychobabble nobody agrees with and you might get a straight answer.Planned economies failed and I don't support them due to mechanical reasonings. Anything that disagrees with you is not necessarily an advocate of some other failed reasoning. We don't have just two choices or the ones dumped upon us from the past. I don't need to remind you that this is not a politcal thread at all. I simply rearranged someone's failed attempts to wish to regulate the wages of athletes and pointed to a cultural issue. I have no desire to regulate any wages.

You should re-read your opening sentence. Even if I were spouting Marxist psychobabble, are you insisting that I should first check to see if someone agrees with me before uttering free speech? Sounds Aristotelian.

[blueshift]

Your question isn't answerable because it starts from a flawed premise.What is flawed about the issue of the Lotto? Are you really insisting that winning a million by taking a chance is at all connected to the work ethic? The other point I raised is that athletes are court jesters. They are. A court jester functioned to provide entertainment. Many of them sweat big bullets, especially if they were about to be beheaded for not performing all that well.

What do you know about our youth's work ethic and our effort to teach same?I take them to school every day and am asked to give classes. I raised my son alone who has chosen to live his adulthood with his father.His half-siblings send me fathers' day cards and ask for my advice constantly. They ignore their biological parents. Though I admit that their hero-worship of me I find annoying. That isn't based on hate, cynicism and prejudice you so freely seem to throw around?Now where did I mention hate, cynicism and prejudice? You brought up those words, I didn't.

[BigDon]

Myself, I don't and won't play the lotto. It's ruined the financing of every education system it's ever been hooked to, and that isn't something I can overlook.

Your replies are reasonable, but your question as written isn't answerable by me.

Blue, I'm going to chill for a bit.

[Jens]

I don't know, I think the pubilc financing of stadiums is the key issue. Because presumably, the money that taxpapers pay for the stadiums allows the players to receive higher salaries than they would otherwise. So players are getting salaries above the market value of their work because of subsidies.

[SeanF]

The national debt defines it, not me or you.
You need to explain this more fully. I don't understand your point here.

Survival defines it, not me or you. Art and entertainment is not necessary.
Survival of an individual, or survival of the society? How many societies can you name from human past that survived without art or entertainment? That seems to be a pretty good demonstration of their necessity.

I write poetry but I do not deserve money for that.
Maybe you need to write better poetry. ;)

Seriously, though, if lots of people are willing to pay Maya Angelou for her poetry, whose place is it to say she doesn't "deserve" it? That is the question you have still not answered.

The question I raised has still been ignored by you and others. "How do we convince our youth concerning a work ethic when the LOTTO (something I did mention and you ignored) and our court jesters are paid millions while work is rewarded with a wage so meager that mobile homes are unaffordable?"
Quite frankly, the number of lottery winners and professional athletes is - as a percentage of the population - quite small. They are the exception that proves the rule, which means that they can easily be used to reinforce the work ethic. Besides, every time you turn around there's a story about some famous athlete or artist or lottery winner who's ruined their life. How is that not something helpful toward instilling a work ethic in your kids?

I think you misread the post. Modern communications is a good thing and necessary. Or do you think that baseball players built and designed modern communication systems?
I think he's disagreeing with your assertion that modern communication systems are necessary, given that numerous societies survived for millenia without them.

[Spock Jenkins]

I don't know, I think the pubilc financing of stadiums is the key issue. Because presumably, the money that taxpapers pay for the stadiums allows the players to receive higher salaries than they would otherwise. So players are getting salaries above the market value of their work because of subsidies.

Any modest benefit gained from the one time expense to the owners is not that significant an impact on the long term direction of players salaries. That's driven primarily by revenue from ticket sales, merchandise sales, TV contracts, endorsements, etc. If your premise were true, the Detroit Pistons (I use them as an example because I know that their owner self financed The Palace of Auburn Hills) could not pay near what other NBA teams pay to attract talent. However, other teams that did use public money still can't turn a profit because people don't buy tickets, they don't have many nationally televised games, and their players jersey's don't sell.

However, free money is free money. If I'm going to build a stadium, I'm taking the best deal going. If I'm going to buy a car, I don't care about the bottom line of the dealership. I'm going to shop around until I get the absolute best price. If dealership A really wants to be known as the number one seller of Model X - they may sell at a loss to attract another sale. If city A really wants to be known as the home of the Detroit Pistons, they are going to offer what they can to attract them.

…

Blueshift, whether or not sports or the arts or gambling are necessary to the survival of a civilization isn’t really a fair question. If you strip everything down to bare necessities, food, water, and shelter are it. Everything else is excess. Where you draw your lines as they pertain to excess are different from where other people do. You appear to state that all work should only be productive and benefit society as a whole. Show me a work environment where no fun is allowed and all evaluations are based strictly on widget counting, and I’ll show you a group of disgruntled employees. People need diversions. People need to achieve. People need to know that we’re capable of amazing things. Some people even need chance. Even if I personally can’t throw a ball 50 yards or dunk a basketball from the free throw line, it’s a lot of fun to watch somebody else do it. If I’m willing to pay to see that, who are you to stop me from doing so? Once the money is spent, who are you to say who should get to keep it? Even if I logically know that I will never win the Lotto – it’s fun to buy that one ticket a year on my birthday and pretend for a couple days until the drawing.

Games are as much a part of civilization as communication. Go back to the ancient Greeks or even further. Sport has always come about as civilizations develop. I would imagine the first time Og of the High Cave filled the Auroch’s bladder with air instead of water and gave it a good kick; it brought a smile to the clan. It may have even brought the West Cave over to meet the high cave for the first time.

As far as your comment about wealth just circulating, that’s based on the false premise that the pie is only so big. All we can do is slice it in different ways.

[blueshift]

Sean F and others here..Within each of us lies a contradiction. We all advocate one thing and, whether we like it or not we wind up seeding the opposite view in our actions. There are both capitalist and anti-capitalist reasons to support the players and there are socialist and anti-socialist reasons to do so as well. The arguments presented by many of you are old and worn out.

Example: The players have the right to get as much as they can as the market allows. Supply and demand. I am not knocking that. It is what capitalism is all about.

However, it is also from the opposite perspective that they deserve that money. How? It was their labor union, the epitome of what it is to be a left-winger, that secured that and the refusal of the players to cross picket lines that insured that high pay.

All these contradictions lie within all of us. Me too. I was attempting to make better arguments for both perspectives and there are. This is not an attempt to being cinical but to advance things into newer areas. Yet this is not a political thread that many of you geared it toward before I took my gloves off.

My anger at the situation has to do with being a soldier and watching a veteran being refused to attend the great gathering in Grant Park organized by Ronald Reagan to welcome the Vietnam Vets home. He was refused the day off because another person wanted to take his kid to the Cubs opener. Baseball played a priority.
The vet actually had more seniority.

I will answer all the other questions here later raised by others.

[Spock Jenkins]

Example: The players have the right to get as much as they can as the market allows. Supply and demand. I am not knocking that. It is what capitalism is all about.

However, it is also from the opposite perspective that they deserve that money. How? It was their labor union, the epitome of what it is to be a left-winger, that secured that and the refusal of the players to cross picket lines that insured that high pay.

I disagree with your view that the labor union secured that high pay. The money has to be there to argue over. The teachers union isn't going to be able to negotiate $10MM / year because the money isn't there. They do negotiate on behalf of their clients for the best deal possible. But if it was unworkable, the leagues would shut down. Hockey faced this and instituted a salary cap that insured the viability of the league, at least for the near term. Salaries have come down quite a bit as a result of this, because the league wasn't sustainable before.

Supply - limited number of teams, limited number of players that good.

Demand - a whole bunch of people buying tickets and merchandise.

Union looks at the revenues and profits and says the owners wouldn't be making that much without the players. The players deserve more.

As far as your vietnam friend. At face value, it seems like a matter of messed up priorities on the part of the manager. However, there's always more to the story. Seniority is nice, but what was his attendence history like? What was his performance like? Did he have a habit of playing his veteren card to get favors?

I don't know the answers to any of that, and without access to his employee file, neither do you. I do know based on experience that just because somebody seems like a nice guy, doesn't mean that I would want to work with them. I also know that the more unreasonable the story seems, the more additional information I need to have an opinion.

[blueshift]

I disagree with your view that the labor union secured that high pay. The money has to be there to argue over. The teachers union isn't going to be able to negotiate $10MM / year because the money isn't there. They do negotiate on behalf of their clients for the best deal possible. But if it was unworkable, the leagues would shut down. Hockey faced this and instituted a salary cap that insured the viability of the league, at least for the near term. Salaries have come down quite a bit as a result of this, because the league wasn't sustainable before.

Supply - limited number of teams, limited number of players that good.

Demand - a whole bunch of people buying tickets and merchandise.

Union looks at the revenues and profits and says the owners wouldn't be making that much without the players. The players deserve more.

As far as your vietnam friend. At face value, it seems like a matter of messed up priorities on the part of the manager. However, there's always more to the story. Seniority is nice, but what was his attendence history like? What was his performance like? Did he have a habit of playing his veteren card to get favors?

I don't know the answers to any of that, and without access to his employee file, neither do you. I do know based on experience that just because somebody seems like a nice guy, doesn't mean that I would want to work with them. I also know that the more unreasonable the story seems, the more additional information I need to have an opinion.We'll skip the vet situation. There is a union contract that guaaranteed how that situation was to work out and it was violated.

Supply and demand is not the only clog in situations. Shawn Duncan can hit with anyone in baseball but is stuck in the Yankee farm system because the number of players with big contracts that play his position are preventing owners from giving him the opportunity. This might have been his break-in year except that Max Texiera was signed instead. The trouble is that he is a power hitting first baseman and the number of old players that still have a few years left are creating a clog. Their big pay is larger than his and the owners are not going to let someone go unless someone else takes him. The White Sox can't unload Thome and Konerko because they are too expensive and nobody wants them. He can't break in.

The intentions in other spheres operate just the same. We all have told our children to go out and get the best training possible to secure the best future possible. But what have we done in the process? By sending everyone to college and tech and trade schools, who is left to work on the assembly lines? Haven't we chased them away into other countries where, for now, the majority of widgets are made? So why is the national debt where it is presently? Did we really plot to make it that way? No. Money issues are one side of the story that has gobbled up too much press. The above reason has contributed as well.

What I am driving at is that life is a Catch-22. Finger-pointing is a waste of time. Baseball players exercise like crazy and look up in the stands to see fat America staring them in the face. Where are the future players to secure their retirements? They then drive past vacant lots that have no pick up games on them. In the 60s every lot was occupied. Basketball has become what baseball was and now even that is taking a dive here in Chicago streets.

So the players realize that the more they exercise, the more people just watch. The more that people just watch the less they exercise, dropping the number of prospects. Super -achievers nurture the existence of underachievers. The more a super mom does in the home the less her kids do on their own. The stronger someone in the group gets, the weaker someone else gets and the net result is no gain. I am not knocking that. It is just the way it is.

My conservative father could not understand why his oldest daughter turned into anything but what he is. I told him that by taking her into the north woods into cabins on vacations, she learned that lowering one's standard of living brings happiness. He and mother were always grumpy around our home. "Don't touch this! Don't touch that!" They were laid back up north on vacation. I ran into a different contradiction. I never asked any adult for advice and never needed it. I never wanted a pat on the head. So guess how my kids turned out? Since I loved raising them and found their mischief amusing and easy to correct, they still call me up for advice, making me feel that somehow I failed to nurture their independence.

Now take a look at the OP and notice that the poster was taking a view. He put up a second post and it seems obvious he was taking a view that he wanted elaborating on. Responses to that view took on a character that led to these exchanges and he has not participated. The more we said, the quieter he got.

One other thing. A better definition of "socially necessary labor" Scrubbing a runway with a tooth brush is socially unnecessary. Cleaning a runway with the most advanced tools available and the most skilled workers available is socially necessary. Poets, actors and baseball players do not fit in here and because they are not of necessity does not make them bad. The reason I don't want my poetry published is because I want my privacy. Too many like it. The majority of those that do probably aren't good critics of poetry but they make up the buyers' market. I would be embarassed to show up in front of some poets who live and breathe it while I walked off with all the cash and a "who cares?" attitude. Poetry was never an effort for me.

[Spock Jenkins]

Now take a look at the OP and notice that the poster was taking a view. He put up a second post and it seems obvious he was taking a view that he wanted elaborating on. Responses to that view took on a character that led to these exchanges and he has not participated. The more we said, the quieter he got.

I'll just address this. The OP starts a lot of threads and rarely participates in them beyond a sentence or two. He does bring up many interesting topics though.

[tdvance]

The issue isn't quite that, although my tax money is going to their stadiums. In fact, I have insisted to many that a capitalist does not have wealth, he or she circulates it. Feudalism held onto wealth, trying to find meaning in it and even many commoners hold the same value when they pass on some of their worthless crap when they die. I don't care if my kids take the primary mirror out of my telescope and roll it down Golf Road when I die.

The issue I brought up deals with the way this thread could have been reworded, considering some of the viewpoints that were brought up. I raised a cultural question and pointed to the economics of the OP. My earlier post on Feb 15 pointed to supply and demand and how manipulating supply and demand will drop the athletes' salaries.

You say "circulates", I say "creates".

Yes, cities pay for stadiums...but only because the revenue they get back is much, much more. Otherwise, cities wouldn't compete with each other so hard for hosting a team.

I am sure you could drop athlete's salaries by manipulating supply and demand: by somehow preventing people from going to see the game (which I disagree with for moral reasons) or by cloning the athletes (which is unlikely for technical reasons).

[tdvance]

I don't know, I think the pubilc financing of stadiums is the key issue. Because presumably, the money that taxpapers pay for the stadiums allows the players to receive higher salaries than they would otherwise. So players are getting salaries above the market value of their work because of subsidies.

That might be the case--I suspect though: 1. it's not much, when divided among the athletes, managers, and the franchise (which does have expenses) over the lifetime of the stadium, and 2. I mentioned why cities do this: get back more than they put in, so if the athletes get extra for that reason, I'm all for it! The only people who lose money are those paying for tickets, and I assume they are smart enough to decide for themselves that watching the game is worth the cost of the ticket or not!

[tdvance]

Survival of an individual, or survival of the society? How many societies can you name from human past that survived without art or entertainment? That seems to be a pretty good demonstration of their necessity.



To add to that--even before humans learned to write down history, there are cave paintings, some of them pretty good given the tools they had. And if that isn't art enough, I recall a recent study that cave paintings seem to be in acoustic "sweet spots" in caves--suggesting (admittedly not proving) they were for something analogous to a church service with singing. Even when people were lucky to live to 30 (or 1 for that matter), they made time for art.

[blueshift]

You say "circulates", I say "creates". We do not create energy, we convert it. All the equations in the world in Kepler's days were meaningless for moon flight to occur until an industrial working class and tools were around to synthesize it into reality. Plans without labor are useless and labor without plans is a waste.

Yes, cities pay for stadiums...but only because the revenue they get back is much, much more. Otherwise, cities wouldn't compete with each other so hard for hosting a team.

I am sure you could drop athlete's salaries by manipulating supply and demand: by somehow preventing people from going to see the game (which I disagree with for moral reasons) or by cloning the athletes (which is unlikely for technical reasons).No, the number can increase. The number of academies can produce enough players to overload them. The number of players coming in from foreign shores is larger and the number of former players in need of work will increase the number of coaches. That is not the only way. The next generation is not as involved with a sport that has been stuck in the past and shows no imagination like the other sports. The 3 point play and the way football has changed has helped those two sports. Baseball is too change resistant. Even the culture used to suffocate its youth by telling them that they will never be as good as yesterday's players while basketball kept insisting to its youth that they are better. And they are. One of the reasons that drug suspicion was raised in baseball has a lot to do with the disbelief that someone can exceed past heros. That doesn't mean that no one took any dope but this refusal to accept change in baseball it what makes it suffocating. Your very insistance that cloning would do the job shows a hint that you disbelieve players today are better than yesterday's. All of them are. A lot of old men need to let go.

[blueshift]

To add to that--even before humans learned to write down history, there are cave paintings, some of them pretty good given the tools they had. And if that isn't art enough, I recall a recent study that cave paintings seem to be in acoustic "sweet spots" in caves--suggesting (admittedly not proving) they were for something analogous to a church service with singing. Even when people were lucky to live to 30 (or 1 for that matter), they made time for art.Cave art was quite good and those artists did it out of enjoyment. They didn't get paid and they maintained their privacy that no one invaded to the degree you see today. Emily Dickenson had the right idea and I told my relatives not to publish anything until after I die. My son has Asperger's and he will need it. The press usually doesn't invade the private life of autistic humans. But I can't take that chance. My son would have been terrified if I played professional baseball or published my poetry. That is why astronomy is so neat. It provides a quiet atmosphere that fame fails to do.

[blueshift]

Any modest benefit gained from the one time expense to the owners is not that significant an impact on the long term direction of players salaries. That's driven primarily by revenue from ticket sales, merchandise sales, TV contracts, endorsements, etc. If your premise were true, the Detroit Pistons (I use them as an example because I know that their owner self financed The Palace of Auburn Hills) could not pay near what other NBA teams pay to attract talent. However, other teams that did use public money still can't turn a profit because people don't buy tickets, they don't have many nationally televised games, and their players jersey's don't sell.

However, free money is free money. If I'm going to build a stadium, I'm taking the best deal going. If I'm going to buy a car, I don't care about the bottom line of the dealership. I'm going to shop around until I get the absolute best price. If dealership A really wants to be known as the number one seller of Model X - they may sell at a loss to attract another sale. If city A really wants to be known as the home of the Detroit Pistons, they are going to offer what they can to attract them.



Blueshift, whether or not sports or the arts or gambling are necessary to the survival of a civilization isn’t really a fair question. If you strip everything down to bare necessities, food, water, and shelter are it. Everything else is excess. Where you draw your lines as they pertain to excess are different from where other people do. You appear to state that all work should only be productive and benefit society as a whole. Show me a work environment where no fun is allowed and all evaluations are based strictly on widget counting, and I’ll show you a group of disgruntled employees. People need diversions. People need to achieve.Invent a cure for cancer. People need to know that we’re capable of amazing things.They can build something that flies past Saturn. Some people even need chance. Even if I personally can’t throw a ball 50 yards or dunk a basketball from the free throw line, it’s a lot of fun to watch somebody else do it.Now we are getting somewhere. "Somebody else" can do it. What is the matter with you? The problem is that once you can do it, you won't be amazed any longer. If I’m willing to pay to see that, who are you to stop me from doing so? I'm not telling you to stop it. I am just tellling you that being a fan doesn't make any sense. It is like going to a restaurant and watching everybody else eat. But I am going to exercise my free speech just as the FDA does when it feels a recall is in order. I think the overemphasis on sports is a waste of time and that it promotes illiteracy. At times, our heads need a recall. Name one Fermilab tech that started out as a pro athlete or one carpenter. Athletics does not provide a methodology for good work habits right down to the way they "hustle". Hustling is being in a rush and being in a rush is what destroys any work project and takes away its poetic and musical sense.The grace of good work is a symphony in action. Once the money is spent, who are you to say who should get to keep it?An advertiser would take issue with you because the whole art of advertising is to manipulate how people spend their money. Even if I logically know that I will never win the Lotto – it’s fun to buy that one ticket a year on my birthday and pretend for a couple days until the drawing. ] Just don't complain about the lack of the work ethic amongst our youth. We've got the laziest culture on the planet and the most illiterate.

Games are as much a part of civilization as communication. Go back to the ancient Greeks or even further. Sport has always come about as civilizations develop. I would imagine the first time Og of the High Cave filled the Auroch’s bladder with air instead of water and gave it a good kick; it brought a smile to the clan. It may have even brought the West Cave over to meet the high cave for the first time.There is nothing wrong with exercise and games. Don't take any criticism of them as a desire to end their existence. The pay gap between them and the populace was no where near what it is today.

Just recognize that their importance is not crucial. U of Wisconsin shut off baseball over two decades ago. The university did not shut down. The football program exists but many wanted that shut down as well since a few football players raped some of the women. Nebraska has protected such thugs. Many from the ghettos have told their sons that the big time is for gang bangers because a banger loves all that attention. So they are taking their sons out of the pro player pool.

You might need baseball to watch. I don't. I was a participant and could play the game. The attitude I have is shared by a lot of players. A lot feel that fans are people whose fathers failed to do their jobs, leaving athletes to play substitute daddy. The fans are addicted to it like cocaine.

BTW, why do you bother with astronomy? Very few in my club respect sports at all. A few do but are a minority, a very tiny one.

As far as your comment about wealth just circulating, that’s based on the false premise that the pie is only so big. All we can do is slice it in different ways.How do you explain the stock market? Someone's gain is someone's loss. The feudal system failed for hoarding wealth and I was giving capitalism a complement by insisting that it circulates wealth. The minute a capitalist buys property he thinks of a way to resell it. The feudal lords didn't. The capitalist is doing the right thing. Without circulation, you get stuck with hoarding like the old Soviet union. They would tell the populace that surplus was needed and that increases in certain products were going to realize the surplus necessary for research. So the people reacted by buying up 5 years of tooth paste (or whatever other products were increasing) just before the new 5 year plan went into effect, killing off any possibility for tech development in certain areas. That is what was at the basis of their failures. Diamonds and gold were hoarded as well. Now if all that were released into circulation the exchange value of them would drop through the floor.

[blueshift]

I think its time to stick a fork in this one.

[Spock Jenkins]

"Somebody else" can do it. What is the matter with you? The problem is that once you can do it, you won't be amazed any longer. I'm not telling you to stop it. I am just tellling you that being a fan doesn't make any sense. It is like going to a restaurant and watching everybody else eat.

If you must know - I was born with a heart defect that limited my physical activity. No gym class, no sports, no lifting over twenty pounds. I had my valve replaced in high school. Since then, I can do more - but I still have to be careful. But that's not fair of me. You couldn't have know that.

Even if I could play, no amount of training and dedication would enable me to do some of the things Magic Johnson could do on the basketball court.

BTW - ever see these competitive eating tournaments? Yeah, I don't quite understand those either. But they do draw some crowds.

BTW, why do you bother with astronomy? Very few in my club respect sports at all. A few do but are a minority, a very tiny one.

Why not? Count me amongst the minority. How tiny our world is and how much there is out there to discover is amazing to me.

[Musashi]

There are things that I don't like so obviously a) they have no value and b) no one else should like them. We can close the thread now that I have handed down my all-encompassing edict.

[blueshift]

The question should come to this for clarity: How much diversion is too much? When does it get to the point where socially necessary work becomes a diversion from overdiversion?

Niels Bohr was influenced by Poul Moller's "Diary of a Danish Student". In that Moller described how human minds must go from being a participant to needing to interrupt that participation and becoming an audience temporarily, to get a broader view, revealing flaws that cannot be seen while participating. A painter will back up from her work for a moment or a cabinet maker will do the same. The athletes do this when they go and view films of the hitting mechanics, forcing them to realize the failure to adjust previously. All lines of skill buiding do the same.

Bohr would take this into the social arena in debates with Einstein. Einstein would propose how quantum mechanics could be shown to have a cause and effect and Bohr would not respond right away. Bohr's family was in audience. Bohr would then take Einstein for a walk while the family was to decipher the discussion and arrange all the facts in a manner that Bohr was not looking at. Upon returning, the family would wait until Einstein left and then gave their views. He would criticize them, now being an audience to the family's views and synthesize a response out of the good parts they had to offer. He would then spring the new conception of Einstein's thought experiment and falsify Einstein's view.

He always debated with delays that irritated Einstein.

Moller also mentioned that great empires fall when they fail to realize that when the time a society spends on being an audience outweighs the time of participation, that empire was entering a stage of collapse. Bohr saw Europe overindulged in culture and was calculating that disaster of the likes that the Third Reich proved to be was imminent. People were over consumed in their breads and circuses and work became a diversion from fantasy. It's an addiction. I can go for six months to a year without listening to any music. How much sports is an overload? There used to be breaks between sport seasons where there isn't any more. It's an overload that appears to avoid being alone with one's thoughts.

Consider those cavepersons raised by SeanF in an earlier post. How many hours each day did they spend making those paintings? Today one cannot even go into a workshop or office without hearing the radio blaring out music. The radio goes on the minute they enter their cars and the TV goes on the minute they go home and it even tucks them into bed.

Are they afraid to listen to the real beauty of music that a diesel freight train makes in the night or the soft beat of their heart or even the pitch of their own tinnitus? Why the constant playing to these distortions of beauty that exists.

[BigDon]

BTW - ever see these competitive eating tournaments? Yeah, I don't quite understand those either. But they do draw some crowds.

Hey Spock, did you ever see that Japanese guy who wins all those hotdog eating contests? Have you seen how much he can put down when he's not being timed?

The man weighs 135 pounds and can consume a weighed and measured 28 pounds of food at a sitting. Saw a documentary on that.