Proof Employers don't pay their employees what they're worth.

[FA_Q2]

Men's soccer league has a revenue of 49 million and they pay their players a minimum wage of 50k a year.
Women's soccer league has a revenue of 51 million and they pay their players a minimum wage of 16k a year.

Pay Disparity in U.S. Soccer? It’s Complicated

I bet the problem is that men won't put up with that shit and go out on strike while women don't want to make waves and don't fight for their just desserts.

But regardless to the reason of the disparity, the ultimate disparity is employers are cheap and won't pay their people more than they absolutely have to, to keep them fully staffed. It's not based on revenue of the company or how much money their employees make them. It's based on how easy it is to replace them with someone cheaper.

And, of course....no one watches women's soccer......that is the reason they don't make as much as the men...

It doesn't matter how many games they win, or if they win a championship.....if no one is watching, it doesn't matter, and it doesn't make the Benjamins......

No, it isn’t ‘sexist’ that women’s World Cup teams don’t get equal pay

....

The post you quoted has figures that show your contention is not correct.

Again....no one watches women's soccer......

And even fewer people watch mens soccer

Men's soccer league has a revenue of 49 million and they pay their players a minimum wage of 50k a year.
Women's soccer league has a revenue of 51 million and they pay their players a minimum wage of 16k a year.

Pay Disparity in U.S. Soccer? It’s Complicated

I bet the problem is that men won't put up with that shit and go out on strike while women don't want to make waves and don't fight for their just desserts.

But regardless to the reason of the disparity, the ultimate disparity is employers are cheap and won't pay their people more than they absolutely have to, to keep them fully staffed. It's not based on revenue of the company or how much money their employees make them. It's based on how easy it is to replace them with someone cheaper.

And, of course....no one watches women's soccer......that is the reason they don't make as much as the men...

It doesn't matter how many games they win, or if they win a championship.....if no one is watching, it doesn't matter, and it doesn't make the Benjamins......

No, it isn’t ‘sexist’ that women’s World Cup teams don’t get equal pay

....

The post you quoted has figures that show your contention is not correct.

Again....no one watches women's soccer......

Then explain why they make more in revenue than men's soccer does?

I am not speaking for him but after reading into his rather unclear statement it looks like he is referring to the fact that what they are making RIGHT NOW is not indicative of what they make over a long term. The salaries of those players are not judged off a single perfect year but rather on the aggregate. At this moment they are getting more viewers because they are winning big and the men's soccer is not as well as being in mid season.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why do Leftists never understand simple economics when it comes to employment (or anything else)?

Businesses spend as little as they can in order to get the goods and services they need. This principle applies to lumber, raw materials, services, professional services, utilities, fuel, and so forth.

If you own a "professional" women's soccer team, you will pay whatever is necessary to field a competitive team. If they paid Minimum Wage, they would get a shitload of players willing to play, but the "best" players would opt out. So they increase it incrementally until they reach a level that captures the players they want.

The only time REVENUE is relevant is when the aggregate players salaries are too high for profitability with the aforementioned $51 million in revenue. But they are nowhere near that point now.

Bottom line: if these players think they can make more money elsewhere, they should go there, make the money, and STFU.

When people bring up the topic of what an employee is worth, I tell them it's rather simple: You are only worth as much as the person your employer can replace you with.

If you leave your job at $15.00 because you didn't get a raise, and your employer hires somebody that does just as good as work as you did for the same wage, then you were paid what you were worth. If he has to pay somebody $17.00 an hour to replace you, then you were correct, you were underpaid. If he can find people to do your job for $12.00 an hour, you were overpaid.

Such a basic economic fact that it really should not have to be explained.

It does to some people. They believe that when you work, your pay should reflect company profit. Unless you have profit sharing, it was never that way.

Of course employees like non-employees could buy stock of their company instead of complaining about it, but few seldom do. Unlike pay, you could make money or lose money, but that gamble is up to the individual. And that's the nice thing about hourly or salary pay. It doesn't matter if the company is performing good or poorly, you still get paid the same amount of money unless you have a job where you get paid piece work or perhaps work on tips.

 

[iceberg]

Men's soccer league has a revenue of 49 million and they pay their players a minimum wage of 50k a year.
Women's soccer league has a revenue of 51 million and they pay their players a minimum wage of 16k a year.

Pay Disparity in U.S. Soccer? It’s Complicated

I bet the problem is that men won't put up with that shit and go out on strike while women don't want to make waves and don't fight for their just desserts.

But regardless to the reason of the disparity, the ultimate disparity is employers are cheap and won't pay their people more than they absolutely have to, to keep them fully staffed. It's not based on revenue of the company or how much money their employees make them. It's based on how easy it is to replace them with someone cheaper.

Americans are sexist for not going to see women play soccer, film @ 11!!!

you can keep mens soccer also.

 

[initforme]

Production is always tied to pay. Pay more get more production and vice versa. Work as hard as one is paid. Pay the men's te more and perhaps they play harder.

 

[FA_Q2]

Why do Leftists never understand simple economics when it comes to employment (or anything else)?

Businesses spend as little as they can in order to get the goods and services they need. This principle applies to lumber, raw materials, services, professional services, utilities, fuel, and so forth.

If you own a "professional" women's soccer team, you will pay whatever is necessary to field a competitive team. If they paid Minimum Wage, they would get a shitload of players willing to play, but the "best" players would opt out. So they increase it incrementally until they reach a level that captures the players they want.

The only time REVENUE is relevant is when the aggregate players salaries are too high for profitability with the aforementioned $51 million in revenue. But they are nowhere near that point now.

Bottom line: if these players think they can make more money elsewhere, they should go there, make the money, and STFU.

When people bring up the topic of what an employee is worth, I tell them it's rather simple: You are only worth as much as the person your employer can replace you with.

If you leave your job at $15.00 because you didn't get a raise, and your employer hires somebody that does just as good as work as you did for the same wage, then you were paid what you were worth. If he has to pay somebody $17.00 an hour to replace you, then you were correct, you were underpaid. If he can find people to do your job for $12.00 an hour, you were overpaid.

Such a basic economic fact that it really should not have to be explained.

It does to some people. They believe that when you work, your pay should reflect company profit.

The truth is that they do not believe this and they are aware of this. It is obvious as soon as you talk about pay and unions in a failing company. Suddenly, corporate performance is no longer a useful measure in your worth.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why do Leftists never understand simple economics when it comes to employment (or anything else)?

Businesses spend as little as they can in order to get the goods and services they need. This principle applies to lumber, raw materials, services, professional services, utilities, fuel, and so forth.

If you own a "professional" women's soccer team, you will pay whatever is necessary to field a competitive team. If they paid Minimum Wage, they would get a shitload of players willing to play, but the "best" players would opt out. So they increase it incrementally until they reach a level that captures the players they want.

The only time REVENUE is relevant is when the aggregate players salaries are too high for profitability with the aforementioned $51 million in revenue. But they are nowhere near that point now.

Bottom line: if these players think they can make more money elsewhere, they should go there, make the money, and STFU.

When people bring up the topic of what an employee is worth, I tell them it's rather simple: You are only worth as much as the person your employer can replace you with.

If you leave your job at $15.00 because you didn't get a raise, and your employer hires somebody that does just as good as work as you did for the same wage, then you were paid what you were worth. If he has to pay somebody $17.00 an hour to replace you, then you were correct, you were underpaid. If he can find people to do your job for $12.00 an hour, you were overpaid.

Such a basic economic fact that it really should not have to be explained.

It does to some people. They believe that when you work, your pay should reflect company profit.

The truth is that they do not believe this and they are aware of this. It is obvious as soon as you talk about pay and unions in a failing company. Suddenly, corporate performance is no longer a useful measure in your worth.

A couple of years ago I bought my 80" television. Outside of news and things like that, I'm not that much of a TV watcher, so I started to find things to watch.

I began to follow the show Big Bang Theory and started catching up on all their past episodes. I became interested in the cast, so I looked them up.

Each of the main players on the show were earning over a million dollars an episode. Plus they got residuals from reruns and things like that. I'm not envious of what they make for ten minutes of work a week, but it made me wonder why the left never cares about them sharing the wealth. After all, what do their makeup people earn? How about their hair dressers? What about the stage crew that has to assemble those different apartments or scenes? What about the joke writers?

Sharing the wealth doesn't work in most places if any. That's why the batboy at a baseball game works for free, and the stadium vendors only sell popcorn and hotdogs part time; they don't get paid enough to do only that job in their lives.

 

[rightwinger]

Nobody wants to pay to see soccer

Especially, women’s soccer

 

[initforme]

The cheap labor is the part of ANY company that actually does any real work. CEOs and management.....not so much. The higher up a person is the less competent. Indisputable FACT.

 

[FA_Q2]

The cheap labor is the part of ANY company that actually does any real work. CEOs and management.....not so much. The higher up a person is the less competent. Indisputable FACT.

Really, this is an indisputable fact?

LOL. What a sad delusion.