Author
|
Topic: Lock Outs?
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 29 September 2004 01:39 PM
quote: It seems to me that progressive folk should be in full agreement with any wage slaves who are locked out by greedy employers.
Hahahahaha. Those poor wage slaves. Down to their last $10,000,000 I'll bet. Maybe we should pass the hat, or organize a food and clothing drive or something, eh? Christmas is just around the corner, and there's no reason that a player's child should have to do without!
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 29 September 2004 01:51 PM
I know this is backtracking on a post I made a month or two ago, but...While I don't think there's any danger of players' kids having to hit the food banks this winter, I side with the players in the NHL labour dispute. It's true they make millions of dollars already. It's true that it's a difference between making a few million dollars, and a few million dollars plus another million or whatever. But the fact is, it's the players that are doing the work. It's the players who are generating the millions (perhaps billions? I don't know what the NHL industry as a whole is worth) of dollars. There is no reason why they should be capped so that the owners can make even more profit. Let's not forget, the owners aren't exactly sympathetic figures either here - they're making millions and millions of dollars on the backs of these hockey players. We can talk about how sad it is that something like professional hockey generates such huge industry profits while other workers who do more "useful" work do not have a hope in hell of earning that much. But as long as the industry is making those millions and millions of dollars on ad revenues and the like, then the workers who are making that possible (in this case, the players) are just as entitled to a huge cut of the action and the huge profits as the owners are. Why isn't Magoo bellyaching about "owner greed" and making fun of the owners for locking the players out over money? Why isn't he sardonically condoling with the poor owners who are being supposedly robbed blind so that their poor little children will have to hit the food banks this year? Especially since it's the owners who are responsible for the hockey season being delayed and potentially cancelled due to the fact that THEY'RE locking the PLAYERS out.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 29 September 2004 01:57 PM
Y'know, I could send them some recipes that can stretch their food dollar some — like adding some breadcrumbs to their lobsters, for example — but that's just a bandaid solution. What we really need to do is down tools, drop our other plans, and focus on supporting these wage slaves in their courageous plight. quote: Why isn't Magoo bellyaching about "owner greed" and making fun of the owners for locking the players out over money?
I'm not bellyaching. I'm mocking. Mocking the idea that any of us should stop for even a moment to give a shit over the financial plight of spoiled multi-millionaires. Had the thread been a clarion call to support the "poor" owners I would have just as happily mocked that too. In a war between millionaires, nobody ever really loses.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 29 September 2004 03:41 PM
I don't disagree that it's fair. It's also fair that Bill Gates should get every legal tax break that's available to him. But if it turns out that he's been accidentally overpaying taxes when he shouldn't have then I wouldn't expect most babblers to give a tinker's damn, fair or not, right or not. In principle, sure. If pressed, why not? But would any start a thread about it?And maybe Dief's having a funny on us by referring to the players as "wage slaves", but if not then surely you can see where some mocking was called for. Hehe. "Wage slaves". I hereby volunteer myself for slavery.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fern hill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3582
|
posted 29 September 2004 03:50 PM
Like Michelle, I'm with the players on this -- and I was before the lockout too. Thing is -- the owners won't fully disclose their finances. They say, "we're losing money, your salaries have to be capped, but no, we can't show you any proof, you have to trust us on this." Yeah.If anybody's got a "plight" over this, its the poor fans. I can't afford to go to games. I don't have cable. So through the long cold dark winter, what I look forward to is CBC's Hockey Night in Canada. Greedy *^*^(7%@!! owners have deprived me of that.
From: away | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275
|
posted 29 September 2004 04:37 PM
I read that the average wage of players in the NHL is $1.8 million annually. But the top salary per team averages 8 million annually, so when you look at the journeyman players, they're making...Less than millions, certainly. A few hundred thousand, perhaps? Yet they devote their lives to the sport - to the point where they're not good for much else in terms of an education or skill set. And they're likely physically damaged by the end of what is generally a 4 or 5 year career. Perhaps the NHL needs what most of the corporate world needs: a flattening of disparity. Limit the amount the top players can be paid to a multiple of the lowest salaries paid; say 10 times. If the journeyman players are making $800K, then the top player can have his 8 million. I'd love to see the NHL players set this example for their corporate owners. Indeed, they should make such an agreement conditional on the owners using the same formulas themselves, applicable to the compensation of the other employees of the organization.
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy Shanks
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3076
|
posted 29 September 2004 05:12 PM
I agree.When you look at the average player making 1.8 mill it looks like he hit the motherlode. Except: The average player has a career of less then 5 years. If taxes don't eat up a big chunk, things like agent fees, insurance, hanger-ons, and the perception you're a big-shot NHLer sure puts the screws on you financially. Not to mention the long-lost cousins and aunts who want a piece of the pie. Among the rest of us, who wouldn't take a taxable 8 million dollar payday. However, you had to take it all before you were 25, you had to probably have some sort of injury that caused you, over time, serious trouble, and you had to have little or no education past grade 12. Great deal. Just to note, the life expactancy for the average NFL player (which in many ways is comparable) is around 15 years less then the average citizen. And of all the boxers who have made tons of money over the years, only Bernard Hopkins stands out as someone who has put some bucks away. He's ridiculed for still living in a small apartment in Philadelphia after finally having a large payday against Oscar de la Hoya. He should be like Iron Mike I guess and spend $250,000 a year on housing his pigeons. So, sure, while the average star makes huge bucks and has a great career, the average player has a little harder time I expect. [ 29 September 2004: Message edited by: Tommy Shanks ]
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064
|
posted 29 September 2004 05:47 PM
quote: I read that the average wage of players in the NHL is $1.8 million annually. But the top salary per team averages 8 million annually, so when you look at the journeyman players, they're making...Less than millions, certainly. A few hundred thousand, perhaps?
Yes, people often talk about the average (i.e. mean) salary in this or that line of work, which can be highly misleading because easily skewed by a few big numbers. The median is a better measure. According to this page, the NHL median is just over $1 million. In US dollars, of course.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600
|
posted 29 September 2004 07:33 PM
Y'know, this is one of those informational-asymmetry problems that get economists so worked up. It's clear that hockey players deserve pretty much all the revenues: the owners provide icetime and a place for fans to perch their butts; the players do the rest (props to the officials, of course).The players know this, and they don't want to kill the goose that signs their cheques. But as fern hill and others have pointed out, the players have almost no reason to believe owners' cries of poverty. Some genious needs to think up a way to cut the owners out of the equation without removing the aspect of meaningful on-ice competition.
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
beverly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5064
|
posted 29 September 2004 08:30 PM
quote: Possibly not in labour and consumption.
No its in news. I posted it the day the lock out was announced by that mealy mouthed little ..... I hate Garay Bettman, I hate Gary Bettman, I hate Gary Bettman..... That's what this whole ordeal has been reduced to for me. And no they are not wage slave, but on the otherhand, if anyone wasn't being paid what they should be, then we would be pissed off. So does it matter if its $22 an hour or $100,000 or 1. whatever mil????? If you're worth it you're worth it. Of course, I think we should also pay teachers, nurses etc etc what they are worth too, but if a player is a Kipper and can get that salary - so be it.
From: In my Apartment!!!! | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372
|
posted 02 October 2004 04:22 PM
My sympathy for the players is admittedly limited, because they make so much money. I'm curious if they, as downtrodden wage slaves, are using that money to help other downtrodden folk?Leaving that aside, players have a chance of injury. Sure, and even with a salary cap they would be well compensated for it. Oilfield workers, factory workers, loggers, fishers all have a chance of injury and death as well. Not such good pay though. It is a difficult issue, and I think most people can agree that the NHL lockout is the exception in labour disputes, and not the rule... Using it as an example to argue inconsistency in the left is silly.
From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|