Why in God's name do politicians get paid so much?

[MrFun]

Back to my question . . . . .

[nationalist]

Originally posted by MrFun
Back to my question . . . . .

No, the President makes something like $230,000/year

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by nationalist


No, the President makes something like $230,000/year

$233,000 to run the free world? Sounds like his salary is set by someone like Speer

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


$233,000 to run the free world? Sounds like his salary is set by someone like Speer

Nope, I think its set be Congress Hey, at least you get interns...

[MrFun]

Originally posted by nationalist


No, the President makes something like $230,000/year

ok --- thanks

[chequita guevara]

Remember, the elected people in Washingtong have to maintain a home in or near DC and a home in their home district. They also ave a lot of expensese politicking. Congress only make about five times the average wage in America. It's nowhere near as obscene as what CEOs make, which I last remember at 89 times the average wage (and that was a decade ago).

[Alexander's Horse]

Only Speer could unite us in defence of politicians

[nationalist]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Remember, the elected people in Washingtong have to maintain a home in or near DC and a home in their home district. They also ave a lot of expensese politicking. Congress only make about five times the average wage in America. It's nowhere near as obscene as what CEOs make, which I last remember at 89 times the average wage (and that was a decade ago).

Che- what do you think about the obscene amounts that pro athletes and entertainers make? Some make more than CEOs.

[chequita guevara]

Pro-atheletes and entertainers probably don't get paid as much as they should be paid under capitalism, given the demand for their services. They actually only get a paltry amount of the income they generate. Most goes to owners and producers and corporations. If someone's gonna get the money, I'd rather it be the people who do the work.

In a more egalitarian society, I'd like to hope that more emphasis would be paid to local smaller teams, like the minors. I'd also like to see a World Series that includes more than just the US and Canada.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Pro-atheletes and entertainers probably don't get paid as much as they should be paid under capitalism, given the demand for their services. They actually only get a paltry amount of the income they generate. Most goes to owners and producers and corporations. If someone's gonna get the money, I'd rather it be the people who do the work.

I still think that they make too much money. A typical family of 4 can't afford to go to the ballpark anymore due to the inflated salaries of athletes. There is certainly much demand for their services, but the particular I think that the huge amounts of money that they make could go to more useful things. Perhaps setting caps so admissions to games are only around $10 per person or something. Tax owners greatly so they can't take advantage of exploiting their players. Use that money to support education or something. Just an idea.

I'd also like to see a World Series that includes more than just the US and Canada.

Most of the best players from around the world to come and play in the U.S./ Canada. I would like to see Japan involved in the World Series.

[chequita guevara]

I think they could probably open a franchise in the Dominican Republic and Cuba, as well as Japan. Baseball was exported to nearly all the Carribenan countries during the early part of the 1900s, when we occupied most of them for decades.

If you're advocating a major change to the way the game system works, then I agree with you. But it isn't the ball aplyers that are causing the prices to rise, it's the owners. It is after the owners raise prices that the players demand an increase in their saleries, since they are the one's generating the money.

And while an average family can't afford to go to the games, capitalism is not about equality. It's about profit. Prices will rise as high as the market will bear. That's fair under the rules of the game. That's not what frosts me so much as owners holding communities hostage and getting them to pay for new parks and give them concessions reciepts, etc. If I don't want to go to a ball game, I shouldn't be forced to pay for a new park.

[nationalist]

Che,

Greedy players and owners are the reason why there will never be a professional franchise in the Carribean. No one there could afford tickets. At least in America we have Yuppies who can buy tickets to drink $10 beer and talk on the cell phone instead of watching the game. Owners and players are both at fault. Players demand high salaries, owners pay them by raising admission prices, players demand more money, owners pay them more, each time keeping a good percentage for themselves.

[chequita guevara]

You've got the cycle backwards, but the effect is still the same. You need to look back to the '70s, when ball players weren't making that much money, and the owners were making money hand over fist. It was especially bad if you consider other sports besides baseball, because those sports have a tendency to wreck an athelete's body. Anyway, the players got tired of seeing all the money go to the owners, so they struck to get a bigger share of the pie. The owners passed the buck to the fans, and took an ever bigger chunk.

As long as people are willing to pay the price, the system is fair. It may price you out of the market, but hey, that's capitalism.

How about something radical? Municply owned teams, like Green Bay. Prices are low, the team will never leave, and it can pay it players comparably to the rest of the league. It'll never happen again, though, until Congress removes their monopolies.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You've got the cycle backwards, but the effect is still the same. You need to look back to the '70s, when ball players weren't making that much money, and the owners were making money hand over fist. It was especially bad if you consider other sports besides baseball, because those sports have a tendency to wreck an athelete's body. Anyway, the players got tired of seeing all the money go to the owners, so they struck to get a bigger share of the pie. The owners passed the buck to the fans, and took an ever bigger chunk.

Either way, it still sucks. That may be why I enjoyed the movie Basketball so much.

How about something radical? Municply owned teams, like Green Bay. Prices are low, the team will never leave, and it can pay it players comparably to the rest of the league. It'll never happen again, though, until Congress removes their monopolies.

I like that idea. It could help out my Pittsburg Pirates (even though they've actually been doing alright this season. I'm just waiting until they fall apart )

[Imran Siddiqui]

Only Speer could unite us in defence of politicians

It'll never happen again, though, until Congress removes their monopolies.

You mean anti-trust exemption? That is only for Baseball, and that is the only reason that no team has moved in MLB since the Washington Senators moved to Minnesota and became the Twins .

Congress can't really do anything about the other sports leagues, and they really can't be subject to anti-trust laws, since their behavior isn't a contract in restraint of trade.