Rich NBA People

[TheYoungCommie]

A bunch of overpaid athletes if you ask me.


DISCUSS

[tuwix]

And what is to discuss? It is a fact. The only thing worth to notice is how well they are organized. If all workers organized themselves against employers so well, we'd socialism very long time ago.

[Bardo]

yes.

[F9]

Look, its a multibillion industry, the athletes and the coaches are practically the workers in this industry.Who are we supposed to support as taking the biggest part of those incomes?Should the salaries of the athletes been lowered, thats what you are saying?That would mean then that the actual people who work to produce what we know as NBA and attract those sponsors, those fans, those merchandise sales etc would be exploited, despite the fact that their salaries will still be considered way above the average.And even further, the bosses would be benefit from even greater incomes. So who do you support, the athletes, or the bosses and the Association?

[Luís Henrique]

They are a bunch of overpaid athletes, yes. Are they the problem? I don't think so. Lowering their wages would bring us closer to socialism, or even merely to a less unequal distribution of wealth? I doubt it very much. Are they the guys who are suppressing our struggles, and preventing our success? Hell no.

Presto, discussed.

So...?

Luís Henrique

[Eleutheromaniac]

That would mean then that the actual people who work to produce what we know as NBA and attract those sponsors, those fans, those merchandise sales etc would be exploited, despite the fact that their salaries will still be considered way above the average.

I feel the same. If people are willing to pay x amount of money for a certain product, the (actual) producer should be entitled to the full fruits of their labor. Sure some athletes make $100,000,000 annually, and surely that is an obscene amount. But remember that the greedy ownership that sits on their asses all day and pays them said wage are billionaires.

[Klaatu]

This would not be a problem if we had a Standardized Wage System in place. Athletes would be paid according to their value to society. This would be about one-fourth of the way up the pay scale (those with the greatest value are paid the highest, for example, doctors and teachers)

And by the way, there would certainly be no billionaire owners, after The Socialist Revolution takes place.

[F9]

wage system?in communism?:eek:

from each according his abilities, to each according his needs, thats communism.You just describe a new approach to capitalism

ps:If you want to discuss this though, open a new thread, and send me a pm about it, this is not the place for this discussion.Actually therae should be around 1000 threads about this but anw.

[helot]

This would not be a problem if we had a Standardized Wage System in place. Athletes would be paid according to their value to society. This would be about one-fourth of the way up the pay scale (those with the greatest value are paid the highest, for example, doctors and teachers)


And by the way, there would certainly be no billionaire owners, after The Socialist Revolution takes place.

Are you telling me you can calculate that? Please do show me how you could claim that, for example, a teacher produces more value than those that maintain the sewage systems or the roads. I'd go further... prove to me how doctors provide more value to society than sanitation workers.


For the record, i'm not arguing those that maintain the sewage systems produce more value to society as such (i think its a pointless question) im saying its impossible to calculate.

Real bourgeois thinking tbh. But we know that if an engineer or a scientist or a doctor earns ten or a hundred times more than a labourer it is not because of their "value to society" or the "cost of production" but because of a monopoly of education or a monopoly of industry. Why should a student who has spent their youth in a university really have a right to a wage ten times higher than those that built the damn thing or those that clean it?

[Klaatu]

wage system?in communism?:eek:

from each according his abilities, to each according his needs, thats communism.You just describe a new approach to capitalism


I am speaking of a transitional phase here. I think we must traverse through a period of wage "compression" so to speak, before we evolve into a wageless system. (It is my understanding that Marx himself thought so too.)


Are you telling me you can calculate that? Please do show me how you could claim that, for example, a teacher produces more value than those that maintain the sewage systems or the roads. I'd go further... prove to me how doctors provide more value to society than sanitation workers.


For the record, i'm not arguing those that maintain the sewage systems produce more value to society as such (i think its a pointless question) im saying its impossible to calculate.

It is not "impossible to calculate."



Real bourgeois thinking tbh. But we know that if an engineer or a scientist or a doctor earns ten or a hundred times more than a labourer it is not because of their "value to society" or the "cost of production" but because of a monopoly of education or a monopoly of industry. Why should a student who has spent their youth in a university really have a right to a wage ten times higher than those that built the damn thing or those that clean it?This is definitely not "bourgeois thinking." I never stated that a doctor ought to earn "a hundred times more" than anyone else. The ratio would have to be determined be a popular vote.

Do you have a degree in anything? Do you have any idea of how much work is involved in obtaining one? Doctors put in a lot of years of work studying (yes, getting a college education is in fact a lot of work) So don't you think that, on the premise that they have put in all that extra effort, (along with considerable dedication) they deserve to get paid a bit more than a sanitation worker? Surely there is value in the sanitation worker's work; without them the streets would be full of filth. And it is a shit job (and I have worked my share of shit jobs) but I also know about the tremendous amount of work that goes into getting a college education. That being said, it sure does make sense that a doctor can get paid a bit more than the rest of us (not a lot more, but a bit more) --- after all, a doctor can save your life --- that's worth something to me.

[Sam_b]

I really don't think these 'statement + discuss' stuff should really be in learning, it's pretty contentless. I'm moving this to Sports in case it picks up.

[Sam_b]

Also, although I don't condone the NBA system or whatever, at least there is a salary cap in place which you don't see in a lot of other sports. It's still too high, but it exists nonetheless.

Also: how about those Spurs last night huh.

[Klaatu]

And what is to discuss? It is a fact. The only thing worth to notice is how well they are organized. If all workers organized themselves against employers so well, we'd socialism very long time ago.

This is a good point. Too bad that the workers (players) are not the owners of their own teams. Isn't that a tenet of Socialism? (workers owning the means of production --- in this case, the 'production' is entertainment?) :)

[Ocean Seal]

Look, its a multibillion industry, the athletes and the coaches are practically the workers in this industry.Who are we supposed to support as taking the biggest part of those incomes?Should the salaries of the athletes been lowered, thats what you are saying?That would mean then that the actual people who work to produce what we know as NBA and attract those sponsors, those fans, those merchandise sales etc would be exploited, despite the fact that their salaries will still be considered way above the average.And even further, the bosses would be benefit from even greater incomes. So who do you support, the athletes, or the bosses and the Association?

I disagree with that assessment. Nba players aren't exploited not because they are rich, because the nba doesn't function like a capitalist enterprise. It is the hobby of rich fol l s to own an nba team. You aren't making money unless you resell the team.

[Klaatu]

Is it possible that, assuming the players themselves owned their own teams, ticket prices would come down drastically? This would be due to the fact that there would no longer be billionaire owners there to vacuum up all that money. Just wondering. ;)

[helot]

I am speaking of a transitional phase here. I think we must traverse through a period of wage "compression" so to speak, before we evolve into a wageless system. (It is my understanding that Marx himself thought so too.)

As opposed to, you know, the communisation of supplies i.e. the giving of rations.




It is not "impossible to calculate." Then you'd be wrong. Production is so interconnected and social. When you've get several workers engaging in different tasks all necessary for the production of this or that product you cannot determine who contributed the most. Further, you cannot even determine that it is truly their work because the system of production and distribution necessitates the work of others. A surgeon is never going to perform life-saving surgery if there is no buildings, no roads, no paramedics, no food, no clothing, no cleaning etc etc ad nauseum.

Surgery and roadworks cannot be compared, they are incomparables. Services rendered to society, whatever form they take, cannot be measured in money. There can be no exact measure of value. Measuring work by its results leads us to absurdity and measuring by hours spent also leads to absurdity.



This is definitely not "bourgeois thinking."

I think by definition trying to come up with ways to retain the wages system is bourgeois.



I never stated that a doctor ought to earn "a hundred times more" than anyone else. The ratio would have to be determined be a popular vote.

No you didn't but the number's irrelevant. The issue is that you seek to retain the wages system.




Do you have a degree in anything? Do you have any idea of how much work is involved in obtaining one? Doctors put in a lot of years of work studying (yes, getting a college education is in fact a lot of work) So don't you think that, on the premise that they have put in all that extra effort, (along with considerable dedication) they deserve to get paid a bit more than a sanitation worker? So you're telling me that a student, by being a student, puts in more effort than a worker and thus because of this "extra effort" they're entitled to more of all that is produced by all than someone who has spent their life slaving away in the factory or in the mines?



Surely there is value in the sanitation worker's work; without them the streets would be full of filth. And it is a shit job (and I have worked my share of shit jobs) but I also know about the tremendous amount of work that goes into getting a college education.

Is it not a tremendous amount of work to build and maintain sewage systems or something?




That being said, it sure does make sense that a doctor can get paid a bit more than the rest of us (not a lot more, but a bit more) --- after all, a doctor can save your life --- that's worth something to me.

If "saving lives" is worth something to you then why are you ignoring that a well maintained sewage system reduces the spread of disease and makes us all less likely to need a doctor?


But we must look at this in context and i think we both know the context here, during the revolution and until production is properly reorganised. From this context we can see that from what you're advocating it will be those who are privileged that continue to be privileged due to a monopolisation of education and industry in present society. You are advocating that, from the get go, the workers must console themselves to a pittance while their "betters" live in luxury. Such things revolt us today, can it really be endured in a society that started out by proclaiming equality?

Deny it all you want but you're seeking a revolution that protects privilege.