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

[KevinWestern]

Yes most far left posters won't acknowledge their programming, defend their messiah at all costs.

You have been called out for being a far left Obama drone, that is what you are. Just own up to it.

That's fine if you think that, but I'm asking you why do you think that? I'm not going to let you get away with just accusations; you need to work to support these conclusions with maybe some quotes, or statements I made in the past.

You can maybe start with this thread:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/324163-does-anyone-left-or-right-still-like-obama.html

and then move onto this one:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...ng-obama-the-increasingly-difficult-task.html

 

[dblack]

You made the partisan dribble and got called on it once again.

Please show all the threads and posts you have made blasting Obama for his cronyism.

Stop pretending to be something you are not, you are a far left Obama drone and have been exposed for it time and time again.

If you don't like being called out on it, then I suggest that you stop posting like a far left Obama drone.

How does calling out Obama on crony deals make me a far left Obama drone? I am not following your logic, and I don't understand what you "called me out" on.

Yes most far left posters won't acknowledge their programming, defend their messiah at all costs.

You have been called out for being a far left Obama drone, that is what you are. Just own up to it.

KW is no Obama fluffer. At least I haven't seen it.

 

[KevinWestern]

KW is no Obama fluffer. At least I haven't seen it.

Kosh is entitled to his opinion - we all are. However, if he's looking for any sort of respect or credibility it would be worthwhile for him to back up his claims with some examples.

I'm curious to see what he can come up with, because (as you mention) I generally don't applaud Obama for really anything.

 

[kwc57]

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.

Speaking of sweeping generalizations. I disagree that there is a line of thinking that says if you are poor, you are lazy. I will agree that there are liberal taking heads and politicians who feed that line to their followers, but it is twisting what some people believe. There are poor people who work hard and are trying to improve themselves and their lot in life. Then there are poor who choose not to work and sponge off of the system who are indeed lazy. Conservatives make that distinction. Liberals refuse to recognize it so they can claim the sweeping generalization that conservatives say the poor are lazy. All poor people are not lazy. All lazy people are poor. Conservatives know the difference.

 

[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.

Speaking of sweeping generalizations. I disagree that there is a line of thinking that says if you are poor, you are lazy. I will agree that there are liberal taking heads and politicians who feed that line to their followers, but it is twisting what some people believe. There are poor people who work hard and are trying to improve themselves and their lot in life. Then there are poor who choose not to work and sponge off of the system who are indeed lazy. Conservatives make that distinction. Liberals refuse to recognize it so they can claim the sweeping generalization that conservatives say the poor are lazy. All poor people are not lazy. All lazy people are poor. Conservatives know the difference.

Thanks for the laugh. Seriously.

The GOP presidential candidate claimed that 47% of the country are dependent on government and you have the balls to make a statement like that? Pretty funny if you ask me.

 

[KevinWestern]

All lazy people are poor.

Not sure I agree. There a multitude of extremely lazy and worthless rich people.

This is mostly with regards to inheritors.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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...

Do those stadium workers bring in as much money as Peyton Manning? Does Peyton Manning have a skill that is not as easily replaceable as the skill of the stadium worker?

I don't begrudge anyone their salary - unless it's funded by tax dollars.

 

[KevinWestern]

Do those stadium workers bring in as much money as Peyton Manning? Does Peyton Manning have a skill that is not as easily replaceable as the skill of the stadium worker?

I don't begrudge anyone their salary - unless it's funded by tax dollars.

Yes, definitely. Peyton has a skill that's not as easily replaceable and therefore he commands (a lot) more money than a hot dog vendor

 

[cutter]

How many people does Peyton Manning employ? How many people earned a good income building the stadium he plays in?. How many work in Denver on game day because of him? How many people work in the television industry beaming his games around the world? How many people work building flat screen TV's because his games look so good on them? How many people earn income producing his jerseys for the fans? For 43 million dollars he generates a jobs and income for millions of workers. How much do you think he would earn if he got 1% of whet he generated because of his talent? Maybe he's underpaid.

 

[nodoginnafight]

How many people does Peyton Manning employ? How many people earned a good income building the stadium he plays in?. How many work in Denver on game day because of him? How many people work in the television industry beaming his games around the world? How many people work building flat screen TV's because his games look so good on them? How many people earn income producing his jerseys for the fans? For 43 million dollars he generates a jobs and income for millions of workers. How much do you think he would earn if he got 1% of whet he generated because of his talent? Maybe he's underpaid.

Just to keep it real - if it weren't Peyton Manning, people would be tuning in to watch Tim Tebow or whoever is wearing the jersey of their favorite teams. But yes, winning and setting records does generate more interest. By Peyton doesn't get ALL that credit imho.

 

[kwc57]

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.

Speaking of sweeping generalizations. I disagree that there is a line of thinking that says if you are poor, you are lazy. I will agree that there are liberal taking heads and politicians who feed that line to their followers, but it is twisting what some people believe. There are poor people who work hard and are trying to improve themselves and their lot in life. Then there are poor who choose not to work and sponge off of the system who are indeed lazy. Conservatives make that distinction. Liberals refuse to recognize it so they can claim the sweeping generalization that conservatives say the poor are lazy. All poor people are not lazy. All lazy people are poor. Conservatives know the difference.

Thanks for the laugh. Seriously.

The GOP presidential candidate claimed that 47% of the country are dependent on government and you have the balls to make a statement like that? Pretty funny if you ask me.

Being woefully uninformed is nothing to take pride in asshat. I do realize that sometimes the truth hurts, but it's still the truth.

Mitt Romney says 47 percent of Americans pay no income tax | PolitiFact

"Our ruling

Romney said at the fundraising event that "47 percent of Americans pay no income tax."

He didn’t specify federal income tax, and many states do levy their own income taxes. But since Romney was referring to a sector of the entire American population, we think it’s clear he was talking about federal taxes.

Research by the Tax Policy Center supports his claim. The think tank found that many Americans are so poor that they owe no taxes, and others qualify for enough breaks and exemptions to reduce their liability to nothing. Another report by the Joint Committee on Taxation from 2009 found an even larger share of Americans who owed nothing.

We rate Romney’s statement True."

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Your premise is false.
The progression should be that one goes from a low skill low wage job while continuing their training/education. As this person progresses, they then become eligible for higher wages at their current employer or they move on to another employer. Or even change industries/occupations.
Your premise appears to be that most people are helpless to improve themselves. That their efforts, successful or not should mandate higher pay.
It doesn't work that way.
Now, even the lowest of skilled workers is not what anyone with a brain would consider 'lazy'. Perhaps their biggest shortcoming is the lack of ambition to move beyond their present station.
People that "line up" for work are not lazy. They are trying to find gainful employment.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Yes Sport Entertainers are paid too much. Next.

Says who?

 

[thereisnospoon]

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 the grand scheme of business as it relates to labor, without accomplishment and achievement, effort means nothing.
In the real world we are rewarded for our accomplishments, not how hard we tried.

 

[kwc57]

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 the grand scheme of business as it relates to labor, without accomplishment and achievement, effort means nothing.
In the real world we are rewarded for our accomplishments, not how hard we tried.

But, but, but......that isn't faaaaiiiiiiirrrrrrr!!!

 

[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...

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.

First off, unless Schnatter has placed Manning in a position of authority to set company policy, he has no say in how much the workers in the restaurants are paid.
Second, as with most chain businesses, they are independently owned. The individual owners set labor rates.
Third, unless you've done some in depth research, you have no idea the wages of those workers.
Lastly, these are low skill low wage jobs. Not the kind of occupations one with even the slightest bit of intelligence would consider to be a career or one on which could raise a family.
Where the idea came from that a fast food, convenience store or other low skill worker should be paid the same as a skilled worker or white collar educated is a mystery.
"Oh well, she's a single mom. Pay her more"....Oh he's been making fries for 12 years, pay him more"....That does not fly.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Just to try and throw a monkey wrench into some of the discussion :

Can you really discuss what a player is 'worth' when operating under a salary cap? Manning might be worth $50 million a year to Denver, but they can't pay him that much because of cap issues.

I think MLB would be a better comparison; don't they work without a cap?

MLB has no salary cap...There is a "luxury tax" for those franchises that have payrolls above a certain amount based on the market in which the franchise is located.

 

[RDD_1210]

Speaking of sweeping generalizations. I disagree that there is a line of thinking that says if you are poor, you are lazy. I will agree that there are liberal taking heads and politicians who feed that line to their followers, but it is twisting what some people believe. There are poor people who work hard and are trying to improve themselves and their lot in life. Then there are poor who choose not to work and sponge off of the system who are indeed lazy. Conservatives make that distinction. Liberals refuse to recognize it so they can claim the sweeping generalization that conservatives say the poor are lazy. All poor people are not lazy. All lazy people are poor. Conservatives know the difference.

Thanks for the laugh. Seriously.

The GOP presidential candidate claimed that 47% of the country are dependent on government and you have the balls to make a statement like that? Pretty funny if you ask me.

Being woefully uninformed is nothing to take pride in asshat. I do realize that sometimes the truth hurts, but it's still the truth.

Mitt Romney says 47 percent of Americans pay no income tax | PolitiFact

"Our ruling

Romney said at the fundraising event that "47 percent of Americans pay no income tax."

He didn’t specify federal income tax, and many states do levy their own income taxes. But since Romney was referring to a sector of the entire American population, we think it’s clear he was talking about federal taxes.

Research by the Tax Policy Center supports his claim. The think tank found that many Americans are so poor that they owe no taxes, and others qualify for enough breaks and exemptions to reduce their liability to nothing. Another report by the Joint Committee on Taxation from 2009 found an even larger share of Americans who owed nothing.

We rate Romney’s statement True."

From your own link....

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney said in the video. "All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what."

So he did say it, exactly as I said he did. In fact, you highlighted how much worse his statement was then just what I referred to.

If you were trying to prove me right, you did a great job of it. Well done turnip. Now go crawl back in your hole.

 

[HUGGY]

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...

I was just wondering what the Broncos paid Manning for the 1st snap in the Super Bowl?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHvxhBO7mQ8]Seahawks score first in Super Bowl with bad Broncos snap - YouTube[/ame]

 

[RDD_1210]

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 the grand scheme of business as it relates to labor, without accomplishment and achievement, effort means nothing.
In the real world we are rewarded for our accomplishments, not how hard we tried.

Right, so the conservative talking point that the poor are lazy is ridiculous and invalid. Thanks.