A funny thought
 

If you subscribe to the theory of "the greatest good for the greatest number" then how can you think pro athletes/movie stars/musicians are overpaid?

Re: A funny thought
 

Because what is "good" for society is highly subjective and endlessly debatable.

Re: A funny thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
Because what is "good" for society is highly subjective and endlessly debatable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really see how that's relevant. Even the most cursory examination of sports athletes would reveal that they do a very small amount of good for a very large number of people.

Re: A funny thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because what is "good" for society is highly subjective and endlessly debatable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really see how that's relevant. Even the most cursory examination of sports athletes would reveal that they do a very small amount of good for a very large number of people.

[/ QUOTE ]
Someone could take the position that, although they do a small amount of good for a large amount of people, the money they are paid could provide more good for more people spent elsewhere. Thus, one could see them as being both "good" and "overpaid."

Re: A funny thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because what is "good" for society is highly subjective and endlessly debatable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really see how that's relevant. Even the most cursory examination of sports athletes would reveal that they do a very small amount of good for a very large number of people.

[/ QUOTE ]

You asked if they were overpaid. The propriety of their level of payment requires a judgment to be made about the value of the "good" they provide. Every person will place a different value on that "good" depending on one's individual perspective. Your perspective seems to be that athletes do a little good for a lot of people. Others may differ. I dont see what is so unstandard about this.

Re: A funny thought
 

UMMM...

1) Diminishing marginal utility.
2) The vast majority of highly paid pro athletes would be willing to still be athletes at one/tenth or less of their current wage.

Really obvious.

Re: A funny thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you subscribe to the theory of "the greatest good for the greatest number" then how can you think pro athletes/movie stars/musicians are overpaid?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because they are an easy scapegoat if one wants to appeal to the poor during an election year.

Re: A funny thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
UMMM...

1) Diminishing marginal utility.
2) The vast majority of highly paid pro athletes would be willing to still be athletes at one/tenth or less of their current wage.

Really obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]\

So boycott pro sports until ticket price drop to 25% of where they are, and cut the athletes pay.

Any discussion of entertainers "pay" vs other "jobs" or societal "good" is ridiculous. If fans are willing to pay the prices, where should the money go..charity?

Re: A funny thought
 

I'm thinking along the lines of: use it on public goods (etc.) so taxes aren't as high on the less fortunate; a rather progressive tax system.

Not saying that government will do this but it could.

Re: A funny thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you subscribe to the theory of "the greatest good for the greatest number"

[/ QUOTE ]

That's so 19th Century.

Re: A funny thought
 

Ed,

That's 24th century and straight out of Mr. Spock's mouth at least in paraphrase:

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

Re: A funny thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm thinking along the lines of: use it on public goods (etc.) so taxes aren't as high on the less fortunate; a rather progressive tax system.

Not saying that government will do this but it could.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, if John Doe who makes $27,000/yr spends his money voluntarily on a pro sports product or service (entertainment), the govt should step in and take it from the entertainer/athlete and return it to the less fortunate like John Doe.

Makes sense if you abhor freedom and want to treat citizens as children. Utopia indeed.

Re: A funny thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
2) The vast majority of highly paid pro athletes would be willing to still be athletes at one/tenth or less of their current wage.


[/ QUOTE ]

Mostly because they are already at that high of a level, and they have few other marketable skills.
In the long run though lower pay will result in fewer people spending their lives at competitive sports and the quality of the product will drop. 1-2 million a year may still seem like plenty to you, but when there is a 1000-1 ration of people who make it to those who play for years with no more finacial incntive than a partial ride to college, you will see less interest overall.

Re: A funny thought
 

This comment is absurd. The reason they 'voluntarily' spend it on that product to that extent is because not enough people had the luck and privilege to be born with that kind of talent; otherwise it wouldn't cost that much to go to a game (supply, demand). That is, the reason that it costs so much to go to sporting events, and that some people pay while other play, is ENTIRELY BECAUSE OF NON VOLUNTARY REASONS. Nobody would have choosen to be without the talents of a Jordan or a Pujols or a Favre if they had the choice.

You may think the distribution of income, wealth and property and therefore happiness and freedom should be based entirely on luck and privilege but I don't.

THis is about equalization of power and human happiness.

I love freedom. I think people should be equally free.

Re: A funny thought
 

That would be great, since they would then focus on trying to do something else that was productive, rather than spending all that time and effort on a 1000-1 shot.

The very talented high school players (and the vast majority of great pro athletes are great athletes before they are pros) would still flock to professional sports. Those with less talent would stop taking those very unlikely to pay off risks, and spend their time and energy more productively.

Re: A funny thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
This comment is absurd. The reason they 'voluntarily' spend it on that product to that extent is because not enough people had the luck and privilege to be born with that kind of talent; otherwise it wouldn't cost that much to go to a game (supply, demand). That is, the reason that it costs so much to go to sporting events, and that some people pay while other play, is ENTIRELY BECAUSE OF NON VOLUNTARY REASONS. Nobody would have choosen to be without the talents of a Jordan or a Pujols or a Favre if they had the choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? We are all born with different talents, different desires, different work ethics, different dreams, different pain thresholds, different attractions, and on and on and on. The uniqueness of every individual is what differentiates humankind from all other species.

[ QUOTE ]
You may think the distribution of income, wealth and property and therefore happiness and freedom should be based entirely on luck and privilege but I don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

So many things wrong with this statement. First off, the distribution of income/wealth/property is not based entirely on luck and privilege, but also on work ethic, drive, and any number of other things. And second, happiness and freedom are NOT derived from wealth. Happiness is a state of mind, and freedom is derived from the very nature of what it means to be human.

[ QUOTE ]
THis is about equalization of power and human happiness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you be happy if everyone were equally powerless and miserable? Because that would indeed be equal, and in fact that is the situation that socialist states inevitably create.

[ QUOTE ]
I love freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you are willing to do away with it at the toss of a hat. You love freedom like you love the Dutch prostitute you lost your virginity to.

[ QUOTE ]
I think people should be equally free.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF? If no one had any freedom people would then be equally free. But that would suck, no? Equality is such an irrelevant point. People should be free, period.

Re: A funny thought
 

Obviously a country that can afford to spend $200 Billion a year on sports doesnt have a poverty problem.