$15/hr minimum wage- what's it mean to you?

Yeah! Redistribution baby!

Class warfare is a tricky thing. They have to get us to hate the rich and successful. Because you know they like had it given to them, or just exploited the slaves for their wealth.

Obviously labor will rise to rule the rich, until the money is gone, then were gonna need some more rich people. Or a revolution. Then to the victorious go the spoils.
 
Yeah! Redistribution baby!
Class warfare is a tricky thing. They have to get us to hate the rich and successful.
The media and liberal politicians hate those who've worked and made it big, sports team owners as well if their political ideas differ, but something I don't believe I've ever seen is for them to attack a player for his/her greed and the crazy salaries some of them make. I say if the market will bear it, go for it, but what's good for the goose....... And another thought, without wealthy team owners who would pay those outrageous salaries?
 
I don't know how it works in America, but over here it's not the wealthy owners who pay the salaries, it's the ordinary people who shell out for match tickets, team clothing, and pay per view TV, and who buy the products the companies who sponsor are selling.

Pretty sure the wealthy team owners aren't paying those salaries out of their own pocket and expecting nothing in return.
 
Ultimately he does pay their salaries Peter after revenue from all you mentioned is gathered, and of course he's expecting a return just as we are. I wouldn't buy a $1,000 saw and not expect to recoup that investment and a lot more. But rest assured, the owner was not on welfare when he bought the team. My question is though, why are the players immune to the hate the rich syndrome?
 
There needs to be a population reduction!

Oh,yeah! You're right on the money with that. Though, even if there was a significant reduction in the population I don't think the social classes would change that much despite the fact. It's something I have thought about for some time and my conclusion is, "There's always going to be lazy weak people leaching off the rest of us that work."

Nonetheless a significant reduction in population would be a damn good start.
 
There has been one occasion where the massive reduction in population had some surprising results.
Before the Black Death in western Europe people were basically slaves, legally bound to work for their master.
After, when the population had been reduced by half or so, workers were in short supply and were tempted by better wages from a desperate landowner nearby, so labour movement began.
Oversimplification I know.
 
Oh,yeah! You're right on the money with that. Though, even if there was a significant reduction in the population I don't think the social classes would change that much despite the fact. It's something I have thought about for some time and my conclusion is, "There's always going to be lazy weak people leaching off the rest of us that work."

Nonetheless a significant reduction in population would be a damn good start.

If it can not change much, call it a win. Its going to go way downhill.
 
Ultimately he does pay their salaries Peter after revenue from all you mentioned is gathered, and of course he's expecting a return just as we are. I wouldn't buy a $1,000 saw and not expect to recoup that investment and a lot more. But rest assured, the owner was not on welfare when he bought the team. My question is though, why are the players immune to the hate the rich syndrome?

Possibly because sport is about the purest meritocracy there is, only the talented get to the top, no exploiting workers, no dodgy under the table deals. I personally still find it obscene that one person can earn such huge amounts for so little effort (comparatively) but you can't really blame the individual for taking what's offered.

Also, I don't hate rich people, what I despise is greed and love of money above all else, which results in mistreatment of fellow humans.
 
There has been one occasion where the massive reduction in population had some surprising results.
Before the Black Death in western Europe people were basically slaves, legally bound to work for their master.
After, when the population had been reduced by half or so, workers were in short supply and were tempted by better wages from a desperate landowner nearby, so labour movement began.
Oversimplification I know.

But I liked your explanation so much. Oversimplification.....tell me it's not so.:D
 
Possibly because sport is about the purest meritocracy there is, only the talented get to the top, no exploiting workers, no dodgy under the table deals. I personally still find it obscene that one person can earn such huge amounts for so little effort (comparatively) but you can't really blame the individual for taking what's offered.

Also, I don't hate rich people, what I despise is greed and love of money above all else, which results in mistreatment of fellow humans.
As good an answer as I've heard Peter
 
Good one Mick. Simple is good.

My uncle used to work for the Hoover Institute. He and my father got into an argument about one of the revolutions in Europe. It was funny, Dad said it was because the people had no food to eat, my uncle said it was because of about 100 different things. Both were probably right, I guess you had.to be there.

I dont know about all this over population stuff. 100 years ago they were probably talking about the same thing. Of course then they started ww1. Europe has been good about lowering their own population.
 
The Spanish flu killed as many as WW1 around that time.
 
The population density in the U.S. is around 35 people per square mile. Huge areas of the world have much lower densities. There's still plenty of room.
 
Back
Top