Income Inequality

[BigRedBuster]

5 hours ago, Big Red 40 said:

As far as Income inequality, college football is a really good example. The players, who work their butts off get paid zero dollars , and the coaches get millions. Even worse the coach can fail in spectacular fashion, as Riley did and still collect more buyout money than most people will make their entire working life .I think frost will do great things here, but even if he fails Nebraska football will go on.  

If 150,000 was all a top football coach made, then yes someone would do it and do it well.  

I can agree with that. 

 

Bit, are you in the camp that believes Frost really doesn’t do anything and is easily replaced?

[BigRedBuster]

4 hours ago, RedDenver said:

A lot to respond to:

 

Guy and Big Red 40 have already addressed this, but there's an inherent assumption throughout everything you're saying here that somehow becoming a CEO is based on the cream rising to the top. However: An uncomfortable view on what really makes a CEO successful

 

And I think you're under estimating it. From the link above:

 

 

Do you have supporting evidence?

 

Big Red 40 gave a good reply. Without the players (the workers), the HC  (CEO) can't win or even play the game. And if you think recruiting and talent matter a lot to football, then that means the players matter even more.

 

Also I'm not claiming that there aren't exceptionally CEO's, just that they aren't that exceptional on average compared to their workers relative to the difference in pay. Using your example, Scott Frost or Nick Saban are a good examples of paying a premium for an exceptional CEO, but look at how much guys like Ferentz, Riley, Dooley, etc. make. Across CFB, do we really think those HC are worth that much more than their players?

But, they (and Frost) don’t do anything and are easily replaced. 

 

Got it. 

 

I never said the company could survive without lower end workers. In fact, I’m the one that has said everyone is vital from m the stock holders, to the CEO, to the entry level employee. 

 

You are the one that tried saying the CEO doesn’t do anything and is easily replaced. Which is BS. 

[Big Red 40]

@BRB Nope i think he will do his job well and make himself very irreplaceable. I think Frost loves this place enough he'd probably work for less than 7 million a year, but he would be dumb to take any less, when our system has decided that's what hes worth. 

[BigRedBuster]

2 minutes ago, Big Red 40 said:

@BRB Nope i think he will do his job well and make himself very irreplaceable. I think Frost loves this place enough he'd probably work for less than 7 million a year, but he would be dumb to take any less, when our system has decided that's what hes worth. 

Wow....isn’t is interesting when a system decides a CEO is worth millions. 

[Ric Flair]

14 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

But, they (and Frost) don’t do anything and are easily replaced. 

 

Got it. 

 

I never said the company could survive without lower end workers. In fact, I’m the one that has said everyone is vital from m the stock holders, to the CEO, to the entry level employee. 

 

You are the one that tried saying the CEO doesn’t do anything and is easily replaced. Which is BS. 

 

Great post. Each of our work is valued based on how easily we can be replaced. That’s how supply and demand work.

[Big Red 40]

Everyone knows how the system/economics works, no need to keep explaining. Everything in life revolves around work, and money, and the only worth a person has is is their productivity, marketability, blah blah blah. If heard it a million times and its still crap to me. I don't know how old some of you are, but you will eventually realize that the important things in life really happen after work, not during, and the measure of a person has nothing to do with how much money they have. Hundreds of millions of people in this country are not going to become business owners, corporate big shots, investors, trust fund babies, or any of the other cookie cutter things  society deems "worthy" of riches. We know were going to have to work for someone else, who's going to take the lions share of everything, and give us the least they can. That sucks but we put up with it because there's little, or no, choice in most cases. The problem comes when the top skims too much, and dribbles down too little, and i think were going that direction , if not already there, in this country. I think most people would be happy in a system where the rich can get "theirs" as long as we get "ours" too. It was that way for a long time in this country, but not so much any more.   

[teachercd]

I blame the show Undercover Boss

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

It's close to a consensus that the Denmark model isn't sustainable for large populations, even one as small as their's (5 million or so). 

 

The model is laughable to me, but I can see how it sounds good in theory. And I suppose it would until the skill shortage takes hold, and the amassing personal debt among families becomes to much to overcome. Not to mention the scarcity, and eventual death of ambition. I mean, who wants to strive for greatness when you're living the same life as the guy selling newspapers on the corner?

 

 

Where are you getting this? Upward mobility in Denmark is slightly higher than in the US. (The linked article discusses combining the strengths of the US and Danish systems.)

 

57 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

But, they (and Frost) don’t do anything and are easily replaced. 

 

Got it. 

 

I never said the company could survive without lower end workers. In fact, I’m the one that has said everyone is vital from m the stock holders, to the CEO, to the entry level employee. 

 

You are the one that tried saying the CEO doesn’t do anything and is easily replaced. Which is BS. 

Maybe I'm not explaining myself well. My post about CEO's, shareholders, and execs being easy to replace was in response to a post that labor is easily replaced. Do you think CEO's, shareholders, and execs are any harder to replace than workers? I don't. Sure, there's some exceptional CEO's out there who may be hard to replace with an equal quality, but the same can be said for workers.

 

You keep coming back to Frost, but he's the exception, not the rule. You're ignoring all the Derek Dooley's and Mike Riley's of the coaching world. Think of it this way: if Frost was no longer the coach, would Nebraska be unable to fill the HC position because there's a lack of people who they could hire? If Frost didn't take the Nebraska HC gig, would we be without a HC today because they are so rare?

[BigRedBuster]

2 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Do you think CEO's, shareholders, and execs are any harder to replace than workers?

Do you think it’s harder to replace a coach like TO or Frost than finding the next great O lineman?

 

i could easily argue that a good coach is a lot more rare than a good player. 

[RedDenver]

25 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Do you think it’s harder to replace a coach like TO or Frost than finding the next great O lineman?

 

i could easily argue that a good coach is a lot more rare than a good player. 

Maybe, but I doubt it. Finding the next Tommie Frazier just as hard as finding the next great HC.

 

But again, that's somewhat beside the point, as I've said that there are of course exceptional individuals who would be hard to replace with an equally exceptional individual, whether that's a HC, CEO, or welder. What I'm talking about is on average or across the board.

 

Additionally, there's the huge difference in income, which is where this discussion started from.

[teachercd]

I gotta give RD credit, talk about not giving up the fight.  (just like me with firefighters)

[TheSker]

1 hour ago, teachercd said:

I blame the show Undercover Boss

It would be more appropriate to blame The Apprentice.

[jsneb83]

I believe the advancement of automation and technology has a lot to do with the increase in income inequality. This has made demand for production and other lower level work go down and also has made it less valuable. Whereas a CEO's job has remained relatively unchanged, therefore the difference in the value between the two is much larger today than it was back in the day.

[Moiraine]

2 minutes ago, jsneb83 said:

I believe the advancement of automation and technology has a lot to do with the increase in income inequality. This has made demand for production and other lower level work go down and also has made it less valuable. Whereas a CEO's job has remained relatively unchanged, therefore the difference in the value between the two is much larger today than it was back in the day.

 

 

Yep. And it will keep widening, and the haves will keep saying if they pay less taxes and are less regulated it will help the have nots, and lots of the have nots will go merrily along as long as there’s a carrot.

[TheSker]

Income inequality exists in literally every society and culture.....and has throughout the history of the world.

 

An individual can let it get them down or take responsibility for at least trying to better their situation.