Zeke and Goff Sign Record Contracts - Where's the Wealth Inequality Outrage? (1 Viewer)

[joffer]

to be honest, the Bobby Bonilla thing still pisses me off a little

 

[[scooter]]

So assuming that an athletes entire income is "pure"...why aren't we outraged that the annual salary of Demarcus Lawrence (pre Zeke deal) is 42 times more than the lowest paid Cowboy ($500K)?

I completely get the obvious difference in quality of work product...but somehow when a CEO makes 42 times more than a worker bee that it invariably gets cast as "exploitation of others?"

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/dallas-cowboys/contracts/

Perhaps the lack of outrage is rooted in the fact that the lowest-paid Cowboy has more control over his financial destiny than the lowest-paid factory workers.

 

[TobiasFunke]

So assuming that an athletes entire income is "pure"...why aren't we outraged that the annual salary of Demarcus Lawrence (pre Zeke deal) is 42 times more than the lowest paid Cowboy ($500K)?

I completely get the obvious difference in quality of work product...but somehow when a CEO makes 42 times more than a worker bee that it invariably gets cast as "exploitation of others?"

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/dallas-cowboys/contracts/

There are three pages of posts here explaining to you that the outrage has very little to do with just "wealth inequality" and that there are a host of other reasons behind most liberal criticism of billionaires.

The fact that you keep ignoring that and asking the same silly question with the same erroneous, repeatedly debunked premise makes me think @Gr00vus was right and you're just trolling. Either way there's clearly nothing to be gained from explaining it to your for the 14th time if you missed it the first 13 times.

 

[timschochet]

With regard to wealth inequality:

I hate the phrase. I hate that we use it, because I don't think it addresses the real problem. I strongly believe that most people, if they're doing well, don't really care if somebody else is a billionaire. Usually the attitude is: more power to them.  When they start to care is when they themselves are not doing well, and they see no future or opportunity in sight.

So take the people of the midwest, some who voted for Trump, some who support Bernie: they've seen a lot of their jobs lost through automation and trade deals, and they're not sure that the "American dream" is going to be there for them. THAT is what they're concerned about. They don't want to be "equal" with the millionaires and billionaires, they just want to be comfortable and secure with the knowledge that they don't have to stress out about their future.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

But lay off the “child please” thing. 

Really, wtf actually says this?

 

[timschochet]

I completely get the obvious difference in quality of work product...but somehow when a CEO makes 42 times more than a worker bee that it invariably gets cast as "exploitation of others?"

Some people here keep acting like you are a troll. Maybe you are, I have no idea. But since you raise interesting questions (IMO), I'm going to respond anyhow.

I think the resentment comes in when the CEO fires 50 people and then takes a 50 million dollar salary. It's not a good look, wouldn't you agree?

 

[caustic]

So assuming that an athletes entire income is "pure"...why aren't we outraged that the annual salary of Demarcus Lawrence (pre Zeke deal) is 42 times more than the lowest paid Cowboy ($500K)?

I completely get the obvious difference in quality of work product...but somehow when a CEO makes 42 times more than a worker bee that it invariably gets cast as "exploitation of others?"

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/dallas-cowboys/contracts/

Yes - the difference between those scenarios is that the CEO's income depends on her company's profits which depend on the productivity of the company's rank-and-file laborers. The leftist argument is that the laborers should be given a greater share of profits that they had a hand in creating, and it's exploitative when executives sit at the top and hoard all this value, keeping it away from the workers.

Demarcus Lawrence is not an executive, and his compensation is entirely independent of the lowest-paid Cowboys players' performance. He is one of the rank-and-file laborers who has to bargain for more compensation from his boss.

 

[tonydead]

3. It's not bizarre at all.  I explained it fully and accurately. Without LeBron there would be no LeBron playing basketball to enjoy, no Heat or Cavs titles to bring incredible joy to millions of fans in those cities. Do you honestly think there wouldn't be centralized online shopping without Bezos?  That nobody would mine oil sands and run refineries without the Koch Brothers? Come on.

The Heat had a title before Lebron.     And someone wins one championship every single year.  Lebron will be replaced just like Mike was, and Larry Bird was et al.  You can make the argument that Besos and Gates are similar, yes.  That someone else might have done what they did if they wouldn't have, maybe.  But to say they are as replaceable as a basketball player is just dumb.  

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Demarcus Lawrence is not an executive, and his compensation is entirely independent of the lowest-paid Cowboys players. He is one of the rank-and-file laborers who has to bargain for more compensation from his boss.

Also relevant is that the players collectively bargained for the minimum salary. 

FWIW, the CEO pay gap far exceeds 42 times the lowest paid worker. It’s actually gone down a bit, but it has been over 300 times the lowest paid worker. And there are substantial critiques of the practice from the left and right seeing as how it arguably decreases shareholder value (tax issues make it complicated).  

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

And actually much CEO compensation is not tied to profits. 

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Also, LeBron James makes no more from playing basketball than John Wall. Because that was the compensation system the players agreed to in collective bargaining. 

 

[tonydead]

Some people here keep acting like you are a troll. Maybe you are, I have no idea. But since you raise interesting questions (IMO), I'm going to respond anyhow.

I think the resentment comes in when the CEO fires 50 people and then takes a 50 million dollar salary. It's not a good look, wouldn't you agree?

What did they get fired for?

 

[timschochet]

What did they get fired for?

I guess I meant laid off. 

 

[PhantomJB]

Some people here keep acting like you are a troll. Maybe you are, I have no idea. But since you raise interesting questions (IMO), I'm going to respond anyhow.

I think the resentment comes in when the CEO fires 50 people and then takes a 50 million dollar salary. It's not a good look, wouldn't you agree?

Potentially. Usually a CEO's wealth comes primarily from stock options...so if he (or she) fires 50 people ostensibly he has created shareholder value in the process (obviously not to the families of the fired employees).

If I'm a populist politician representing factory workers earning $40K...and I see people making gazillions playing sports and singing songs...I just think there's something wrong with that worthy of just as much criticism as the nebulous CEO exploitation argument. Clearly that offends people, I guess.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The Heat had a title before Lebron.     And someone wins one championship every single year.  Lebron will be replaced just like Mike was, and Larry Bird was et al.  You can make the argument that Besos and Gate are similar, yes.  That someone else might have done what they did if they wouldn't have, maybe.  But to say they are as replaceable as a basketball player is just dumb.  

The fact that you somehow read my post as saying those two franchises had never and would never win a title without him, rather than the obviously intended meaning (that the championship teams he played for wouldn't have won those title without him) is ... not a great look for you.

 

[Stealthycat]

Does the GOP favor or disfavor labor unions?

every state is different on unions IIRC as well as companies/businesses etc

 

[TobiasFunke]

Potentially. Usually a CEO's wealth comes primarily from stock options...so if he (or she) fires 50 people ostensibly he has created shareholder value in the process (obviously not to the families of the fired employees).

If I'm a populist politician representing factory workers earning $40K...and I see people making gazillions playing sports and singing songs...I just think there's something wrong with that worthy of just as much criticism as the nebulous CEO exploitation argument. Clearly that offends people, I guess.

If only someone would take the time to explain to you why they're different!  I'm sure you'd listen carefully and with an open mind, and your confusion would clear up right away.

 

[eurotrashman]

Perhaps. But the common refrain seems to be "millionaires and billionaires" so that implies individuals to me.

maybe this is your problem?

 

[apalmer]

So assuming that an athletes entire income is "pure"...why aren't we outraged that the annual salary of Demarcus Lawrence (pre Zeke deal) is 42 times more than the lowest paid Cowboy ($500K)?

I completely get the obvious difference in quality of work product...but somehow when a CEO makes 42 times more than a worker bee that it invariably gets cast as "exploitation of others?"

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/dallas-cowboys/contracts/

Because Demarcus Lawrence doesn't get to control the salary of the lowest paid Cowboy?

 

[The Commish]

...the money they make is sick - but its part of a free capitalist market .... 

No it is not!  The money they make is because of the monopoly the owners (and players) have carved out in the market.  If instead of 32 NFL teams there was 100 teams carving up roughly the same pro football pie that is currently the NFL then there would be less money for each team to spread around. 

Dude....collective bargaining and unions are TOTALLY "free capitalist"  and the GOP loves them!!!  Where you been?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

No it is not!  The money they make is because of the monopoly the owners (and players) have carved out in the market.  If instead of 32 NFL teams there was 100 teams carving up roughly the same pro football pie that is currently the NFL then there would be less money for each team to spread around.  

The NFL is not exactly a situation of free market (and unionized as well)

Which was my point.  And neither are monopolies that are created by the "necessary evil" of "intellectual property" which distorts the markets where the actors, musicians, and others operate. 

 

[The Commish]

The part that struck me about the OP is who is saying "millionaires and billionaires except for athletes"??  I've never heard that.  Why wouldn't they be part of the "millionaires" in that refrain?

 

[tonydead]

I guess I meant laid off. 

Why were they laid off?

 

[bigbottom]

every state is different on unions IIRC as well as companies/businesses etc

State laws with respect to unions are only different on the margins (specifically with respect to closed shop rules).  Laws regarding labor unions exist mostly at the federal level. In any event, I think most would agree that NFL players as a general matter benefit from union membership (particularly those with the least power).  Also as a general matter, though certainly not without exception, the GOP is less likely to support union membership and the rules that allow unions to achieve and maintain bargaining power, than do Democrats, at least at the federal level. The above is one factor that would run against the proposition that all NFL players should support the GOP. 

 

[tonydead]

The fact that you somehow read my post as saying those two franchises had never and would never win a title without him, rather than the obviously intended meaning (that the championship teams he played for wouldn't have won those title without him) is ... not a great look for you.

   Yet you were trying to say Lebron is a lot less replaceable than Besos.  You're comparing basketball championships to one of the most successful and innovative companies on the planet.  

 

[John Blutarsky]

   Yet you were trying to say Lebron is a lot less replaceable than Besos.  You're comparing basketball championships to one of the most successful and innovative companies on the planet.  

It's what Tobias does here...always condescending.

 

[TobiasFunke]

   Yet you were trying to say Lebron is a lot less replaceable than Besos.  You're comparing basketball championships to one of the most successful and innovative companies on the planet.  

No, I'm comparing relative value over replacement for consumers and the public in an effort to explain (in part) why liberals are contemptuous of one man's billions but not another man's millions.

Your second attempt at framing my arguments for me didn't go any better than the first. Maybe even worse. I'm sure that won't stop you from trying it again in the future, though.

 

[Don't Noonan]

It's what Tobias does here...always condescending.

No, I'm comparing relative value over replacement for consumers and the public in an effort to explain (in part) why liberals are contemptuous of one man's billions but not another man's millions.

Your second attempt at framing my arguments for me didn't go any better than the first. Maybe even worse. I'm sure that won't stop you from trying it again in the future, though.

. @John Blutarsky nailed it

 

[msommer]

Which was my point.  And neither are monopolies that are created by the "necessary evil" of "intellectual property" which distorts the markets where the actors, musicians, and others operate. 

Yes. I was agreeing with you.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Yes. I was agreeing with you.

My bad!

 

[PhantomJB]

Personally I don’t think liberals should be outraged by any salaries, full stop. Bernie, Warren, and other leftists play this game of demonizing corporate executives and Wall Street. It’s a populist game; it’s awful. Hillary didn’t play it. I don’t think Biden does either. This is a key difference between liberalism and leftism. 

At the end of the day I believe this sums it up. 

From a wealth inequality standpoint there is just as much fundamentally wrong with Jared Goff making $134 million for playing a game as there is for CEO's making what they make. Full stop. 

But I agree that refraining from criticizing any legally-obtained salaries >>> selectively criticizing (or exempting from criticism) the wealth obtained in certain industries/individuals. The latter is undeniably occurring...and the reason for it is sheer political expediency.

p.s. For all the troll-accusers and personal attackers, don't worry I'm still voting Democratic in the next election.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Just for grins, I just checked Warren's and Bernie's websites.  Neither proposes any cap on CEO compensation (as has been done in other places).  None of the tax plans seem to treat LeBron James or Goff any different than Jeff Bezos.  The largest threat to CEO compensation is Warren's proposal to mandate that a corporation's workers elect 40% of the Board of Directors.  

So again, I think you're finding hypocrisy in arguments that nobody is making.  When Sanders or Warren say that income equality is bad, they are not exempting athletes, or doctors, or lawyers, or movie stars.  They're proposing for every one of them that meets the income threshold to pay more in taxes.  

 

[eurotrashman]

At the end of the day I believe this sums it up. 

From a wealth inequality standpoint there is just as much fundamentally wrong with Jared Goff making $134 million for playing a game as there is for CEO's making what they make. Full stop. 

No...no there's not.  Does Jared Goff have a responsibility to shareholders and employees of the organization?

The increased focus on growing inequality has led to an increased focus on CEO pay. Corporate boards running America’s largest public firms are giving top executives outsize compensation packages. Average pay of CEOs at the top 350 firms in 2018 was $17.2 million—or $14.0 million using a more conservative measure. (Stock options make up a big part of CEO pay packages, and the conservative measure values the options when granted, versus when cashed in, or “realized.”) CEO compensation is very high relative to typical worker compensation (by a ratio of 278-to-1 or 221-to-1). In contrast, the CEO-to-typical-worker compensation ratio (options realized) was 20-to-1 in 1965 and 58-to-1 in 1989. CEOs are even making a lot more—about five times as much—as other earners in the top 0.1%. From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%.

https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/

But yes...it's just like athletes and actors making millions.

 

[McJose]

Weird take

 

[Doug B]

Are those guys involved in wealth extraction from the poor to the rich?

“Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore ... “

 

[squistion]

Weird take

Which one?

 

[supermike80]

Could also be that his sister is intellectually lazy and not thinking about the real problem and, therefore, is not representative of whatever group he's trying to paint with the broad brush today.

no brush.  I don't feel that's the standing of the liberal left.   I'm perfectly fine with people being upset that Bezos pays $15/hr slave wages while he has billions.

But to hate him just cause he has money and want to take it away, that's not right

 

[kface]

while i still enjoy the nfl i don't give any pro-sports a single cent of my money.  They are ripping us off hugely because people are so blind to the cultism of sport.  

 

[supermike80]

Just for grins, I just checked Warren's and Bernie's websites.  Neither proposes any cap on CEO compensation (as has been done in other places).  None of the tax plans seem to treat LeBron James or Goff any different than Jeff Bezos.  The largest threat to CEO compensation is Warren's proposal to mandate that a corporation's workers elect 40% of the Board of Directors.  

So again, I think you're finding hypocrisy in arguments that nobody is making.  When Sanders or Warren say that income equality is bad, they are not exempting athletes, or doctors, or lawyers, or movie stars.  They're proposing for every one of them that meets the income threshold to pay more in taxes.  

I agree.  I don't think any of the far left candidates want to limit income.  It was said before.  Better choice is to redistribute that income once it is earned.   That's more of the focus.

 

[GROOT]

Happy for them. Isn't the USA great?

 

[Gustavo Fring]

I've heard the cheerleaders are paid a fair wage.  

 

[McJose]

Which one?

yes

 

[AAABatteries]

Since you don't seem to understand what's being discussed when wealth inequality comes up maybe you shouldn't start threads about it.

 

[Van Dyman]

Could also be that his sister is intellectually lazy and not thinking about the real problem and, therefore, is not representative of whatever group he's trying to paint with the broad brush today.

no brush.  I don't feel that's the standing of the liberal left.   I'm perfectly fine with people being upset that Bezos pays $15/hr slave wages while he has billions.

But to hate him just cause he has money and want to take it away, that's not right

I have never met anyone who hated someone else only because that other person was rich. In fact, I've never even heard of that except for this one story about your sister. Believe whatever you want, but she's not representative of any larger group.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Moving to the Shark Tank. 

 

[supermike80]

I have never met anyone who hated someone else only because that other person was rich. In fact, I've never even heard of that except for this one story about your sister. Believe whatever you want, but she's not representative of any larger group.

Hate is a strong word.  She just feels they shouldn't have it.  And yeah, I mentioned I don't think it was representative.    I wasn't able to pin her down on why she felt it was bad other than her feeling no one in America should have enough money to buy a small country.    

Bizarre for sure.  

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Hate is a strong word.  She just feels they shouldn't have it.  And yeah, I mentioned I don't think it was representative.    I wasn't able to pin her down on why she felt it was bad other than her feeling no one in America should have enough money to buy a small country.    

Bizarre for sure.  

Oh, when you put it like that I think I agree with her.  I don't think I hate Bezos.  I mean, not a fan of the greed or some of his business practices but that thing with the Enquirer was pretty awesome.  With that said, I think he has too much money and a big chunk of it should be redistributed to help people that need it more.

 

[supermike80]

Oh, when you put it like that I think I agree with her.  I don't think I hate Bezos.  I mean, not a fan of the greed or some of his business practices but that thing with the Enquirer was pretty awesome.  With that said, I think he has too much money and a big chunk of it should be redistributed to help people that need it more.

Yep.  That's her take too

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Right but who gets to decide this and how much of his money should be taken away?  

Who gets to decide?  Members of Congress?  That's kind of their job.

How much money?  Certainly people can disagree with any specific numbers but I'm a fan of all three of these proposals to redistribute wealth and opportunity:

1) Bernie Sanders estate tax proposal

2) Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax proposal

3) AOC's proposal for a 70% marginal tax rate on very high incomes