Football Stars Make 2,150 times More Than the Average Worker

[auditor0007]

I'm not trying to call anyone out here because I think those concerned about CEO pay have nothing but good intentions. However..

Peyton Manning - a guy who throws a leather football around for entertainment, 6 months out of the year - makes about $43 million annually. This is about 2,150 times more than the stadium worker earning $20,000/year, busting his ass up and down the stairs in the heat for minimum wage pay (and dealing with all the drunk idiots in between).

How come I’ve never heard the phrase, does “Peyton work 2,150 times harder than the hot dog guy”? Why are (some) people only upset when it is the CEO of a 900,000 employee company making that $15 million? If anything, I’d be much more ticked about the Peyton situation, given that he – again – only throws a football around for 6 months out of the year in front of a bunch of drunk people.

This thread is just an exploration into the idea of a potential double-standard here...

First off, Manning makes around $18 million per year for throwing a football around. The rest comes from investments and businesses that he owns. The entertainment industry is what it is, and there are a number of people who make a ton of money. The thing is that we all choose to pay those salaries by supporting the teams we love. Same holds true with those in Hollywood. If we choose to pay $10 to see them in a movie, then we are the ones supporting those high earnings.

The problem with the argument is that too many believe it's all about how much the rich earn, when the truth is it's really about how little everyone else is earning. I really do not get upset at all that Peyton Manning makes $18 million per year for throwing a football around, but do you know what does upset me about Peyton Manning? What upsets me is that he, like so many others, won't pay his workers at Papa John's a decent wage and he'll do as much as he can to make certain he doesn't have to offer them health insurance. Now, I could be wrong about Peyton and his Papa John franchises, but being that he is such good friends with Papa John's owner John Schnatter, it is reasonable to believe he thinks along the same lines.

Again, it's not so much about how much the wealthy earn as it is the fact that wages for regular American workers have been suppressed over the years, and that has led to the very wealthy attaining even more wealth. If the very wealthy were as wealthy as they are today and everyone else's wages had increased at relatively the same rate, we would not be having this discussion.

 

[Jarhead]

I think its a matter of reframing the way we view our workforce. We can't be of the mindset that $ = the amount of effort you give. It happens on both sides of the equation.

I disagree.

The greater an effort you give, the more likely your differential will stand out and therefore you are more likely to get a promotion as business owners prefer those with a good work ethic in higher positions.

A CEO that is hired at enormous salaries, has earned such respect by his/her past experiences and achievements....and such are always due, in part, to their work ethic.

Effort DOES convert to dollars.....sometimes it takes time....but the two very much go together.

Yes effort does convert to dollars, but does a CEO work 2000x times harder than the average employee. I'm talking about effort, not value.

In typical company, the CEO does not make 2000 times that of an employee. With the exception of some of the mega firms, most CEO's make well inside of a million.

But in all cases, the average employee has two concerns...doing their job right and getting to work on time.

A CEO has to worry about those two things as well....EACH EMPLOYEE DOING THEIR JOB RIGHT AND EACH EMPOLOYEE GETTING TO WORK ON TIME.......as well as forecasting, regulations, sales, hiring, profits, losses, operating costs, lawsuits, competition, when to invest more money ion the company, etc.

When I owned my companies, I was working while not working....I would be up at night thinking about how I am going to deal with that situation tomorrow. I would cancel a vacation due to an unforeseen issue that arose.....I would deal with depression when I had to lay off....

Yes, I believe a CEO puts more effort in that an average employee...

And for those employees that put in more effort than the CEO?

They get promotions.

 

[manifold]

The OP analogy is only valid if you compare Peyton Manning's salary to that of the average NFL player.

Don't agree. The OP was all about recognizing that Peyton is paid for his talents (something most can understand), just like a CEO.

Peyton is a football star just like a CEO of a fortune 500 company is a business star. Most CEOs (especially when you're talking small companies with less than 50 employees) don't make 400x the amount of the average employees. This number is skewed by a few gigantic, monstrous organizations at the top.

Ok, fair enough.

ftr, I'm fine with CEO's getting paid whatever they can command on the open market.

(understanding it's a different topic) my biggest beef with political/economic policy has always been the fact that income from capital gains is taxed so much lower than income from actual work. If capital gains were taxed the same as income, the deficit would disappear tomorrow.

 

[Jarhead]

I'm not trying to call anyone out here because I think those concerned about CEO pay have nothing but good intentions. However..

Peyton Manning - a guy who throws a leather football around for entertainment, 6 months out of the year - makes about $43 million annually. This is about 2,150 times more than the stadium worker earning $20,000/year, busting his ass up and down the stairs in the heat for minimum wage pay (and dealing with all the drunk idiots in between).

How come I’ve never heard the phrase, does “Peyton work 2,150 times harder than the hot dog guy”? Why are (some) people only upset when it is the CEO of a 900,000 employee company making that $15 million? If anything, I’d be much more ticked about the Peyton situation, given that he – again – only throws a football around for 6 months out of the year in front of a bunch of drunk people.

This thread is just an exploration into the idea of a potential double-standard here...

First off, Manning makes around $18 million per year for throwing a football around. The rest comes from investments and businesses that he owns. The entertainment industry is what it is, and there are a number of people who make a ton of money. The thing is that we all choose to pay those salaries by supporting the teams we love. Same holds true with those in Hollywood. If we choose to pay $10 to see them in a movie, then we are the ones supporting those high earnings.

The problem with the argument is that too many believe it's all about how much the rich earn, when the truth is it's really about how little everyone else is earning. I really do not get upset at all that Peyton Manning makes $18 million per year for throwing a football around, but do you know what does upset me about Peyton Manning? What upsets me is that he, like so many others, won't pay his workers at Papa John's a decent wage and he'll do as much as he can to make certain he doesn't have to offer them health insurance. Now, I could be wrong about Peyton and his Papa John franchises, but being that he is such good friends with Papa John's owner John Schnatter, it is reasonable to believe he thinks along the same lines.

Again, it's not so much about how much the wealthy earn as it is the fact that wages for regular American workers have been suppressed over the years, and that has led to the very wealthy attaining even more wealth. If the very wealthy were as wealthy as they are today and everyone else's wages had increased at relatively the same rate, we would not be having this discussion.

But if Manning was making say.....1 million a year....then the workers at the stadium could make more money...

So I am not sure why the same "anger" is not directed towards ALL those that make the big bucks.....but instead, just the CEO's.

 

[KevinWestern]

First off, Manning makes around $18 million per year for throwing a football around. The rest comes from investments and businesses that he owns. The entertainment industry is what it is, and there are a number of people who make a ton of money. The thing is that we all choose to pay those salaries by supporting the teams we love. Same holds true with those in Hollywood. If we choose to pay $10 to see them in a movie, then we are the ones supporting those high earnings.

Yes, that's true however I could have framed up the same argument with the premise that Peyton makes $18 million a year. Secondly, he's part of the entertainment world so we should look at this holistically and say that Peyton makes $43 million/year and this is X times more than what the average "entertainment industry" worker makes.

And isn't it true that if you choose to buy a Tyson meat product you're supporting the high earnings of the CEO?

The problem with the argument is that too many believe it's all about how much the rich earn, when the truth is it's really about how little everyone else is earning. I really do not get upset at all that Peyton Manning makes $18 million per year for throwing a football around, but do you know what does upset me about Peyton Manning? What upsets me is that he, like so many others, won't pay his workers at Papa John's a decent wage and he'll do as much as he can to make certain he doesn't have to offer them health insurance. Now, I could be wrong about Peyton and his Papa John franchises, but being that he is such good friends with Papa John's owner John Schnatter, it is reasonable to believe he thinks along the same lines.

I'd never say it's a bad thing if a CEO is dedicated to making sure his employees have more benefits than less, however..

What incentive is there for Papa John/Peyton to pay for healthcare for their employees when they have people lining up to work at the wages + benefits that are already offered? You know what I mean? If people stopped applying to Papa Johns over the benefit issue, they'd be forced to comply - no doubt - but as of right now, what sort of force will drive them to make this decision?

This reminds me of people being upset about Walmart; if WE stop SHOPPING there, the corporation will be forced to comply with whatever demands/wants we might ask them to provide. But to complain AND shop there at the same time are two contradicting actions.

 

[RDD_1210]

I think its a matter of reframing the way we view our workforce. We can't be of the mindset that $ = the amount of effort you give. It happens on both sides of the equation.

But I think the goal of any organization, though, is to pay its workers a salary based on the value they contribute vs "how hard they work". Right?

A guy with no computer coding education could genuinely and diligently work 70 hours a week trying to make the background of a webpage blue, but that wouldn't do anyone any good. Why not just hire the guy who can do it in 10 minutes?

Right. Value is different than effort. It's why I feel that labeling the working poor as "lazy" or moochers isn't fair because that's a reflection of effort not value.

 

[KevinWestern]

Right. Value is different than effort. It's why I feel that labeling the working poor as "lazy" or moochers isn't fair because that's a reflection of effort not value.

Well, correct me if I'm wrong but I don't tend to hear people on the right calling the working poor lazy. I think they generally direct their criticism towards people who are able bodied and don't work.

Whether or not that criticism is valid is a totally different discussion that is not for this thread

 

[thereisnospoon]

I'm not trying to call anyone out here because I think those concerned about CEO pay have nothing but good intentions. However..

Peyton Manning - a guy who throws a leather football around for entertainment, 6 months out of the year - makes about $43 million annually. This is about 2,150 times more than the stadium worker earning $20,000/year, busting his ass up and down the stairs in the heat for minimum wage pay (and dealing with all the drunk idiots in between).

How come I’ve never heard the phrase, does “Peyton work 2,150 times harder than the hot dog guy”? Why are (some) people only upset when it is the CEO of a 900,000 employee company making that $15 million? If anything, I’d be much more ticked about the Peyton situation, given that he – again – only throws a football around for 6 months out of the year in front of a bunch of drunk people.

This thread is just an exploration into the idea of a potential double-standard here...

Robinson Cano recently signed a deal to play baseball with the Seattle Mariners.
The deal pays him $250 million over 7 seasons.
Based on his career avg of 152 games per season, that works out to $234k per game. Cano's career avg is 4.1 plate appearances per game or $57k per appearance.
Each time Cano steps to the plate, he triples the avg wages of food vendor working in the stands.
Hollywood actors who get top billing are paid some twenty to tenty five million dollars per film. That does not include residuals and royalties...The credits showing the assistant to the assistant might make $500 per week.
No one on the political side of this ever argues these points.

 

[RDD_1210]

The fact is, that very few people get to be a professional football player or a CEO of a successful company. These jobs are few and far between. Does that mean everyone who doesn't achieve one of these jobs isn't a success or didn't work hard? Of course not. It also doesn't mean that the people who are in those positions are even the hardest workers in their organizations.

The problem is there seems to be a line of thinking in this country that if you're poor then you're probably lazy. I mean look at that rhetoric during the election and "47% of the country being moochers". That to me isn't fair as you can be busting your ass working hard and still just making enough to get by...if that. We need to disconnect the thought that high pay = high value = hard work. Once we do that, maybe we can start to figure out how we can adjust the system so that the people who do work hard, who aren't looking to mooch off the system but do genuinely need help can get that assistance from the rest of us who perhaps have caught a few breaks in life.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Now..On the other side of the coin, no one is going to pay for a ticket to watch a guy sell hot dogs.

 

[RDD_1210]

Right. Value is different than effort. It's why I feel that labeling the working poor as "lazy" or moochers isn't fair because that's a reflection of effort not value.

Well, correct me if I'm wrong but I don't tend to hear people on the right calling the working poor lazy. I think they generally direct their criticism towards people who are able bodied and don't work.

Whether or not that criticism is valid is a totally different discussion that is not for this thread

I wish that were true. But this is a perfect example of one of those sweeping generalizations I was talking about earlier.

I don't think the discussion is unrelated. I think it gets back to the mindset that we see CEOs and athletes making 2000x more money than the average person and we applaud them yet someone who works just as hard if not harder but makes peanuts is labeled as lazy.

 

[Defiant1]

I think its a matter of reframing the way we view our workforce. We can't be of the mindset that $ = the amount of effort you give. It happens on both sides of the equation.

I disagree.

The greater an effort you give, the more likely your differential will stand out and therefore you are more likely to get a promotion as business owners prefer those with a good work ethic in higher positions.

A CEO that is hired at enormous salaries, has earned such respect by his/her past experiences and achievements....and such are always due, in part, to their work ethic.

Effort DOES convert to dollars.....sometimes it takes time....but the two very much go together.

Yes effort does convert to dollars, but does a CEO work 2000x times harder than the average employee. I'm talking about effort, not value.

Do you have a gauge to measure how "hard" a person works mentally?

Do you have a chart that converts a persons thoughts and ideas into dollars?

Do you have a measurement that tells how much to pay someone depending on the amount of stress they are under?

Most highly paid people are paid based on results not promises.

There aren't many people who are willing to risk a secure salary based on promises for compensation based upon performance.

 

[KevinWestern]

Robinson Cano recently signed a deal to play baseball with the Seattle Mariners.
The deal pays him $250 million over 7 seasons.
Based on his career avg of 152 games per season, that works out to $234k per game. Cano's career avg is 4.1 plate appearances per game or $57k per appearance.
Each time Cano steps to the plate, he triples the avg wages of food vendor working in the stands.
Hollywood actors who get top billing are paid some twenty to tenty five million dollars per film. That does not include residuals and royalties...The credits showing the assistant to the assistant might make $500 per week.
No one on the political side of this ever argues these points.

Me personally, I'm more about actually trying to convince people of my views vs starting a name calling war. That’s why I started this thread.

For most people it’s easy to understand why Peyton is salaried at $18 million due to the talent he brings to the table. You can see his talent right there on the television screen. However this idea of “talent” often gets lost when speaking about CEOs because most people don’t interact or see what CEOs have to do on a day to day basis to be successful at their job. Therefore, it’s easy to demonize them for making $15 million while it’s much harder to demonize Peyton.

But the point of the thread was to show that “hey, this is the same thing” and I hope it at least opened a few people’s minds to thinking in that direction so that the next time they enter into a “CEO makes 400 times more” conversation they have a new perspective to approach things with.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Athletes salaries are ridiculous and out of hand. It's part of why it's so damn expensive to try and take your family to see a game live.

This may be true, but why are teams willing to pay Manning this much money?

Every season, teams led by Manning have a high probability of playing for a Championship.
Owners are willing to pay big bucks for that.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Athletes salaries are ridiculous and out of hand. It's part of why it's so damn expensive to try and take your family to see a game live.

Like CEOs, athletes are being paid the market rate. As long as people pay the prices to attend the games they will continue to pay them those high salaries. Ultimately it will have to peak.

Oh I get it. Doesn't mean they "deserve it" but if they can get it in a capitalistic society, then they have every right to.

There is no such thing as "deserve"...Not in the business world.
"Deserve" is relative to "entitlement".

 

[auditor0007]

First off, Manning makes around $18 million per year for throwing a football around. The rest comes from investments and businesses that he owns. The entertainment industry is what it is, and there are a number of people who make a ton of money. The thing is that we all choose to pay those salaries by supporting the teams we love. Same holds true with those in Hollywood. If we choose to pay $10 to see them in a movie, then we are the ones supporting those high earnings.

Yes, that's true however I could have framed up the same argument with the premise that Peyton makes $18 million a year. Secondly, he's part of the entertainment world so we should look at this holistically and say that Peyton makes $43 million/year and this is X times more than what the average "entertainment industry" worker makes.

And isn't it true that if you choose to buy a Tyson meat product you're supporting the high earnings of the CEO?

I have to eat; I don't have to pay for a ticket to the game or watch it on TV.

The problem with the argument is that too many believe it's all about how much the rich earn, when the truth is it's really about how little everyone else is earning. I really do not get upset at all that Peyton Manning makes $18 million per year for throwing a football around, but do you know what does upset me about Peyton Manning? What upsets me is that he, like so many others, won't pay his workers at Papa John's a decent wage and he'll do as much as he can to make certain he doesn't have to offer them health insurance. Now, I could be wrong about Peyton and his Papa John franchises, but being that he is such good friends with Papa John's owner John Schnatter, it is reasonable to believe he thinks along the same lines.

I'd never say it's a bad thing if a CEO is dedicated to making sure his employees have more benefits than less, however..

What incentive is there for Papa John/Peyton to pay for healthcare for their employees when they have people lining up to work at the wages + benefits that are already offered? You know what I mean? If people stopped applying to Papa Johns over the benefit issue, they'd be forced to comply - no doubt - but as of right now, what sort of force will drive them to make this decision?

This reminds me of people being upset about Walmart; if WE stop SHOPPING there, the corporation will be forced to comply with whatever demands/wants we might ask them to provide. But to complain AND shop there at the same time are two contradicting actions.

Of course people are lining up to work there, because they can't find a decent paying job anywhere. This is what we have done; we have forced wages so low that yes, people will line up for those low paying jobs. What is ironic is that you will argue that people will line up for these low paying jobs, but at the same time you will call them lazy for requiring food stamps to help feed their families. The entire argument is upside down because we are defending high pay for the very few and low pay for the masses. It is insanity on steroids.

 

[buckeye45_73]

The fact is, that very few people get to be a professional football player or a CEO of a successful company. These jobs are few and far between. Does that mean everyone who doesn't achieve one of these jobs isn't a success or didn't work hard? Of course not. It also doesn't mean that the people who are in those positions are even the hardest workers in their organizations.

The problem is there seems to be a line of thinking in this country that if you're poor then you're probably lazy. I mean look at that rhetoric during the election and "47% of the country being moochers". That to me isn't fair as you can be busting your ass working hard and still just making enough to get by...if that. We need to disconnect the thought that high pay = high value = hard work. Once we do that, maybe we can start to figure out how we can adjust the system so that the people who do work hard, who aren't looking to mooch off the system but do genuinely need help can get that assistance from the rest of us who perhaps have caught a few breaks in life.

RDD that's a talking point, Show me where people have said working poor are lazy?

Noone says that, I will say people on welfare for a decade and can work, ARE lazy. yes


But people who want a comfortable average job and collect their paychecks are fine, but if they want to move up, you have to have talent and ambition. Not everyone has that.

 

[RDD_1210]

The fact is, that very few people get to be a professional football player or a CEO of a successful company. These jobs are few and far between. Does that mean everyone who doesn't achieve one of these jobs isn't a success or didn't work hard? Of course not. It also doesn't mean that the people who are in those positions are even the hardest workers in their organizations.

The problem is there seems to be a line of thinking in this country that if you're poor then you're probably lazy. I mean look at that rhetoric during the election and "47% of the country being moochers". That to me isn't fair as you can be busting your ass working hard and still just making enough to get by...if that. We need to disconnect the thought that high pay = high value = hard work. Once we do that, maybe we can start to figure out how we can adjust the system so that the people who do work hard, who aren't looking to mooch off the system but do genuinely need help can get that assistance from the rest of us who perhaps have caught a few breaks in life.

RDD that's a talking point, Show me where people have said working poor are lazy?

Noone says that, I will say people on welfare for a decade and can work, ARE lazy. yes


But people who want a comfortable average job and collect their paychecks are fine, but if they want to move up, you have to have talent and ambition. Not everyone has that.

You don't remember the whole "47% of the country are moochers" conversation that happened during the election?

 

[ClosedCaption]

I'm not trying to call anyone out here because I think those concerned about CEO pay have nothing but good intentions. However..

Peyton Manning - a guy who throws a leather football around for entertainment, 6 months out of the year - makes about $43 million annually. This is about 2,150 times more than the stadium worker earning $20,000/year, busting his ass up and down the stairs in the heat for minimum wage pay (and dealing with all the drunk idiots in between).

How come I’ve never heard the phrase, does “Peyton work 2,150 times harder than the hot dog guy”? Why are (some) people only upset when it is the CEO of a 900,000 employee company making that $15 million? If anything, I’d be much more ticked about the Peyton situation, given that he – again – only throws a football around for 6 months out of the year in front of a bunch of drunk people.

This thread is just an exploration into the idea of a potential double-standard here...

Yes Payton Manning works harder than the hot dog guy.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Oh I get it. Doesn't mean they "deserve it" but if they can get it in a capitalistic society, then they have every right to.

If someone would you that youd turn it down? Your e full of shit. You wouldnt think twice about it.


and who decides who deserves it? How is that quantified?

Of course I wouldn't turn it down. Did I give the impression that I would. But that doesn't change the fact that the system we've established doesn't put value on HARD work, just work that can make someone else richer. So to look down on the working poor who often work VERY, VERY hard simply because they are poor and to stereotype them as "moochers" or "lazy" isn't fair, because it isn't true.

What a headache...
Ok, here it is..
People who work a full time job or two part time jobs cannot be viewed as lazy or one of the freeloaders. They are as much a part of the group known as producers.
Generally, those viewed as lazy or parasites are those who CAN work, but choose not to work because it is easier to sit home on their asses and collect checks from the government.
Now, those who work low skill jobs who complain about their pay based on their perception of "hard work" have no one to blame but themselves. What that means is those who view their wage as substandard, have every opportunity to improve their skills. They can go to school. They can learn a trade.
When I see "works hard", I ask "at what"?