Redistribution of wealth

There are a limited number of people that are capable of successfully playing quarterback in the NFL -- just like there are a limited number of people that are capable of successfully running a Fortune 100 company. Originally Posted by pjorourke

I disagree with this. I think there are lots of people capable, which is witnessed by the somewhat revolving door at leadership positions. The limitation is on the number. By your definition, there are only a limited number of quarterback positions in the NFL, or Fortune 100 CEO positions, and they can be filled by only that limited number. Doesn't mean others aren't qualified or capable. Just that the number is limited.

The two ranking liberals made a good point - "fairly" is not an definitive term, it is an opinion. Let me restate. Under a capitalist system, which produces more aggregate wealth, the poor will be less poor.

As for Doove's quarterback, the price is rational as explained by our old friend supply and demand. There are a limited number of people that are capable of successfully playing quarterback in the NFL -- just like there are a limited number of people that are capable of successfully running a Fortune 100 company. There are lots of people capable of being a soldier in Afghanistan (our just happen to be better trained and equipped than most other armies.) Originally Posted by pjorourke

Agreed. BUT.................

The quarterback would make much less were we not for public assisted stadium deals and I think we can all agree that there would be even less demand for soldiers were we not trying to spread a liberal agenda of trying to save the world by having our troop everywhere.

Bottom line the QB would make less and the soldiers could make more, not because their demand went up but because it went down all because we had changed our attitude in welfare for the rich and saving the world.

I disagree with this. I think there are lots of people capable, which is witnessed by the somewhat revolving door at leadership positions. The limitation is on the number. By your definition, there are only a limited number of quarterback positions in the NFL, or Fortune 100 CEO positions, and they can be filled by only that limited number. Doesn't mean others aren't qualified or capable. Just that the number is limited. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Having met more Fortune 100 CEO than you have and seen the selection processes to pick one, you'll excuse me if I ignore your opinion. The skill set is just as limited as NFL caliber quarterbacks.

Agreed. BUT.................
Bottom line the QB would make less and the soldiers could make more, not because their demand went up but because it went down all because we had changed our attitude in welfare for the rich and saving the world. Originally Posted by WTF

http://www.220.ro/funny/Crazy-Yapping-Dog/VcwZnuGa66/

I disagree with this. I think there are lots of people capable, which is witnessed by the somewhat revolving door at leadership positions. The limitation is on the number. By your definition, there are only a limited number of quarterback positions in the NFL, or Fortune 100 CEO positions, and they can be filled by only that limited number. Doesn't mean others aren't qualified or capable. Just that the number is limited. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

No shit Charles.....by PJ's def, the President of the USA should make the most money in the world.

Does he think Obama the best OB? Did people on the left think Bush a decent OB leading this country?

It is funny how people that champion free market use the army and football as analogy. Two socialist run organizations. They have no competition and are funded in all or part by tax dollars.

Both are base their sucess on a system of sharing weath(football) and in the case of the military sharing set salaries based on pay grade. One private does not make more than another because he is a better shot.

in the case of the military sharing set salaries based on pay grade. One private does not make more than another because he is a better shot. Originally Posted by WTF

?????? In the Army (and in the other services) skill is rewarded with promotion; hence, a higher pay grade. The incompetent private is discharged, the competent private is promoted. Those that perform very well are promoted into the senior ranks and allowed to continue in the service until retirement. There is competition at every level all of the time. Superior performance is rewarded.

No shit Charles.....by PJ's def, the President of the USA should make the most money in the world. Originally Posted by WTF

Actually, that job is evidence that any fool can do it.

Obviously, the pay for that job is largely in perqs -- being the most powerful person in the world.

It is funny how people that champion free market use the army and football as analogy. Two socialist run organizations. They have no competition and are funded in all or part by tax dollars.

Those two organizations where brought up by Doove -- one of our resident socialists.

?????? In the Army (and in the other services) skill is rewarded with promotion; hence, a higher pay grade. The incompetent private is discharged, the competent private is promoted. Those that perform very well are promoted into the senior ranks and allowed to continue in the service until retirement. There is competition at every level all of the time. Superior performance is rewarded. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

IB....read what I said. I said all pay grades make basically the same. Privates make Private pay...... There is no superstar private, blowing the other privates pay grade to hell.

To my bigger point. They are all under a central command. They sacrifice for the betterment of the unit as a whole, not the individual.

Are you trying to argue that the military is a free market based group if individuals?

Seriously, I thought we had gotten past the point of silly nit picking. Did you not understand my point?

If not just say so and I will gladly try and explain.

Having met more Fortune 100 CEO than you have and seen the selection processes to pick one, you'll excuse me if I ignore your opinion. The skill set is just as limited as NFL caliber quarterbacks. Originally Posted by pjorourke

You are missing the point PJ. It is not the skill set we are talking about (though I think you are overinflating that point too) it is the priority we place on that skill set.

I do not for a minute think some CEO has a better skill set than a 4 star General, yet the pay differential is huge.

So I am not buying your argument.

Shit I have had more Blowjobs by beautiful women than any 10 men combined but I do not discount the BJ skills of a ugly chick. That is WTF you are doing. You're having trouble seeing the forest for the tree's, or in you case some ass wipe CEO.

Having met more Fortune 100 CEO than you have Originally Posted by pjorourke

And you know this how....?

seen the selection processes to pick one, you'll excuse me if I ignore your opinion. The skill set is just as limited as NFL caliber quarterbacks. Originally Posted by pjorourke

I didn't make any assertions about selection process or skill set. Can't you read? I just pointed out that the position were, by definition, limited as to number. Doesn't at all mean there aren't others who are "capable" of successfully QBing/running the institutions ID'd by you. A lot of folks might be capable, it's just that there are only so many slots that can be filled.

Pay attention instead of drive-by reading and posting.

Chucky, I can tell that from your world view -- I doubt you know 1 Fortune CEO

Also, you are confusing demand and supply. There are only 100 Fortune 100 CEO slots -- that is demand (although arguably there are Fortune 101-500 companies who want a 100 level CEO in order to get into that league). There are very few people capable of operating at that level. Top tier head huinters can tell you that. Probably not more than 500 at any point in time. If you think otherwise, you just don't understand the job.

You are missing the point PJ. It is not the skill set we are talking about (though I think you are overinflating that point too) it is the priority we place on that skill set.

I do not for a minute think some CEO has a better skill set than a 4 star General, yet the pay differential is huge.

So I am not buying your argument. Originally Posted by WTF

You are confusing demand with value placed on the job.

Yes, 4 star Generals have exceptional executive skills. They are generally the best and brightest we have working in that field. I have met/worked with a number of them over the years and am always impressed. But it is also not a job where demand and supply is out of balance. There are a limited number of these 4 star jobs -- about 50 total between all of the services (thats the demand) but the supply keeps being refreshed by the up or out system. Four stars also typically last less than 4-5 years at that level. The pay is also set by statute, not economics.

As for Doove's quarterback, the price is rational as explained by our old friend supply and demand. There are a limited number of people that are capable of successfully playing quarterback in the NFL -- just like there are a limited number of people that are capable of successfully running a Fortune 100 company. There are lots of people capable of being a soldier in Afghanistan (our just happen to be better trained and equipped than most other armies.) Originally Posted by pjorourke

Supply and demand? Not really. There are 32 starting QB's in the NFL. Yet, there are only 10 starting goalies in the National Lacrosse League. It would seem the rules of supply and demand would lead to Lacrosse goalies making more than QB's, no? Regardless, that's not the point i wish to make.

On second thought, it sorta is. The reason for the difference is because towards the NFL is where the money flows. Let's say Tom Brady only made $60,000/yr rather than $15M (or whatever it is he actually makes). The difference, the $14.94M would only go to the person who signs his check, because, like i say, that's where the money flows. So if there's enough cash flow there for Tom Brady to take a cut of $15M, then all the power to him. But let us at least acknowledge the luck involved in his case that he's the best QB in the world, rather than the best Lacrosse Goalie in the world (or the best teacher, or the best police officer, or the best soldier) in which case being the best in the world at something would only net him peanuts - due to circumstances entirely out of his control.

So is capitalism fair in spelling out a salary structure? To the extent that it's more fair than me sitting here deciding what everyone should make, yeah, i suppose. But does capitalism display any true sense of rational values when a QB can make 500X what a teacher makes? I hardly think so. Supply and demand or not.

Capitalism doesn't reward hard work so much as it picks and chooses which hard work it's going to reward. And the people who are on the fortunate end of the scale really, really, really need to get knocked down a few pegs and understand that their good fortune is based as much on luck as it is on anything they've done. If that belief makes me a socialist, PJ, then i'm a socialist.

So is capitalism fair in spelling out a salary structure? To the extent that it's more fair than me sitting here deciding what everyone should make, yeah, i suppose. But does capitalism display any true sense of rational values when a QB can make 500X what a teacher makes? I hardly think so. Supply and demand or not. Originally Posted by Doove

As you noted in my post, "fair" is your values, not an objective term we can discuss.

Society values what it does. Its neither right nor wrong, it just is.

The QB's salary is rational in the sense that a good one can help the team win and thus put more butts in seats generating more revenue for the owner to pay the salary. That is rational from an economic perspective.

One reason that teachers are paid like shit is that they want it that way -- equal. If we were willing to pay star teachers what they were worth, the first ones to bitch would be other teachers who weren't stars. The system as structured, like all bureaucracies, values mediocrity. Do I think it should? Hell no. But that is what it is and thus rational.

Chucky, I can tell that from your world view -- I doubt you know 1.

Also, you are confusing demand and supply. There are only 100 Fortune 100 CEO slots -- that is demand (although arguably there are Fortune 101-500 companies who want a 100 level CEO in order to get into that league). There are very few people capable of operating at that level. Top tier head huinters can tell you that. Probably not more than 500 at any point in time. If you think otherwise, you don't understand the job. Originally Posted by pjorourke

PJ, it's the same concept as QBs. There are 32 NFL teams, hence, (for the most part) 32 first string QBs. But each team maintains 1-2 backups. And, theoretically, they are all capable (your term) of QBing the team. I dare say there might be more if you were to cast your net to arena ball. Still, there are just 32 slots.

The same is true of F100/500. The level of person that job takes is very high, I'll grant that. In some case, it's based merely on ownership interest, which is kind of begging the question. But it's hard for me to believe that in the entire world only 100 people are capable (again, your word) of successfully filling the positions.

I tend to believe that a lot of institutions are stabilized by themselves. For instance, if your assertion was correct the F100 business that lost their CEO thru death/disability would collapse. But as a matter of fact, nothing is further from the truth. Very few of these businesses would collapse (one may be Apple, but who knows).

But as far as being the only 100 in the world who can hold those jobs...I have my doubts. I think the pool of talented people in the world is much larger than you do, and I also think a company's ability to find and vet those people is fairly significant.