It shouldnt work like this...

[SLCKev]

I don't think the pro atheletes are overpaid simply because of the odds that they will ever make it to that level are so against them and there are so few that ever really make it. At the same time, when the NHL players went on strike for a whole season, I questioned wether the players play for the right reasons. Love for your sport/job should come before money.

[silkworm]

There certainly aren't more highly paid athletes than there are highly paid writers. I'm not certain how much money the authors of non-fiction books make on average or how many of these authors are professors (or why that would really matter). There are a lot of literate types making a lot of money writing good books.

 

My youngest boy devours Harry Potter which I think teaches him several things' date=' not the least of which being the joy of reading. If you include such fictional teachers, I'm not sure I agree at all.[/quote']

 

First of all, fiction is as useless to society as sports, only more vulgar because it's a breeding ground for the misperceptions that make so many people idiots.

 

Second of all, the lady who wrote the Harry Potter book and the conman who wrote natural cures along with the Da Vinci Code guy etc. are a smaller percentage wise than people who seriously pursue being a professional athlete and make it.

 

I used to be in that business and I know a lot of working writers and most writers starve, which is the way it should be.

 

I don't think the pro atheletes are overpaid simply because of the odds that they will ever make it to that level are so against them and there are so few that ever really make it. At the same time, when the NHL players went on strike for a whole season, I questioned wether the players play for the right reasons. Love for your sport/job should come before money.

 

I don't think the argument is that these athletes do or do not have specialized skills that are high in demand but low in supply and luckily happen to be in an area that makes a lot of money. I think the argument is their disproportionate amount of income versus their value to society.

[john5746]

I'm not sure what there is to discuss. Professional athletes' and actors' salaries are driven by supply and demand, like anything else in the private sector. You can reflect on the silliness and decadence of our society in which these people make millions of dollars a year, and that would be fair. I agree. But if you're looking to complain or to debate, I think you're out of luck. It's no one person's decision; it's just market forces. There is no person who can decide that they should be paid less and have that mean anything.?

 

We can decide not to have to pay for stadiums, etc. For example, we could pass laws requiring sports teams to reserve enough money to pay and maintain stadiums and some of the maintenance for the roads to them and to have a cap on admissions. If they still have enough money to pay the players outrageously, so be it.

 

Now' date=' whether teachers should be paid more, that's an entirely separate issue, and one for which decisions [i']can[/i] be made, because they are public employees. Is that what we want to talk about?

 

One way salaries for public workers can be determined is by comparing the salary to the private sector. If they can get more benefits, pay etc. to lure many to the private sector, then there will be a shortage of teachers, which would increase demand, increasing pay.

 

I think teachers get paid quite well IMO. I don't think elementary teachers need a 4 year degree. Just alot of patience!

[ecoli]

We can decide not to have to pay for stadiums, etc. For example, we could pass laws requiring sports teams to reserve enough money to pay and maintain stadiums and some of the maintenance for the roads to them and to have a cap on admissions. If they still have enough money to pay the players outrageously, so be it.

 

I think the rationale is, that sports teams and stadium increase things like tourism and boast the local economy, which is good for the taxpayers.

[JustStuit]

Anything attepting to fix the problem would probably lead to the communist principles. Capitolism at its best.

[Skye]

I think the trends are more annoying than data points, the rapid rise in executives salaries over the past five or ten years for example. It never seems fair to be denied a pay rise by someone who have consistently given themselves raises recently.

[JohnB]

but I'm not comfortable with the logic. It's the same as hostage situations: "accede to our dermands or the innocent will suffer".

In this case, I think it's more like "You asked what I do to deserve more money, well today I didn't do it."

I'm afraid that militant unionism isn't my forte either, when it involves holding the innocent to ransom. However, I'd be in favour of getting hold of the Vice-Chancellors and tarring and feathering the bastards.

Okay, time for; Militant Unionism 101.

 

Firstly issue more than one demand. Most of these are simply for bargaining points. When you give them up, it make it look like you are trying to reach consensus.

 

Possible Demands;

 

1. All lecturers entitled to the title "Professor" are to recieve a Lab Assistant called "Igor".

2. Classes to be suspended during thunderstorms to allow lecturers time in the basement for their "experiments".

3. Late night access to local graveyards for "research".

4. Extra security to be hired to defend against angry mobs armed with pitchforks.

5. An immediate 10% pay rise indexed annualy at a rate do be agreed upon, such rate to be not less than 140% of the annual CPI Growth Index.

 

You can give up any of the first 4 to show you are "willing to negotiate".

 

An alternative ( and less disruptive) approach is to;

 

A. Find an attractive female student sympathetic to your cause.

B. Get her to entice the Vice-Chancellor into a compromising position.

C. Take photographs.

D. Blackmail the SOB.

 

Does this help?

[Glider]

In this case, I think it's more like "You asked what I do to deserve more money, well today I didn't do it."[/i']

Yep, I like that

 

Okay, time for; Militant Unionism 101....

 

Firstly issue more than one demand. Most of these are simply for bargaining points. When you give them up, it make it look like you are trying to reach consensus.

 

Possible Demands;

 

1. All lecturers entitled to the title "Professor" are to recieve a Lab Assistant called "Igor".

2. Classes to be suspended during thunderstorms to allow lecturers time in the basement for their "experiments".

3. Late night access to local graveyards for "research".

4. Extra security to be hired to defend against angry mobs armed with pitchforks.

5. An immediate 10% pay rise indexed annualy at a rate do be agreed upon, such rate to be not less than 140% of the annual CPI Growth Index.

 

You can give up any of the first 4 to show you are "willing to negotiate".

 

An alternative ( and less disruptive) approach is to;

 

A. Find an attractive female student sympathetic to your cause.

B. Get her to entice the Vice-Chancellor into a compromising position.

C. Take photographs.

D. Blackmail the SOB.

 

Does this help?

Yes it does, thank you, though in all conscience, I'm not sure I could inflict the VC on any of my students. Plus, I still like the idea of tarring and feathering the bugger.