Unless half the price goes to the wealthy owner of the yacht company, of course.
A fair amount of our GDP is just rich people throwing money at eachother. That’s not something that actually grows the real economy. The economy is really powered by the action of money moving from the bottom to the top. If it all accumulates at the top, then the economy doesn’t really function anymore.
I dunno. To what extent is Jeter’s “production of something of value for millions of people” dependent on the fact that he’s got a stadium to play in, and a huge infrastructure of league organization and marketing pumping up interest in his work, and all the other factors that make the sports-entertainment complex so profitable? If Jeter were demonstrating equally outstanding baseball skills in some sandlot game in the middle of nowhere, his performance wouldn’t be producing even a tiny fraction of the value you attribute to it.
Hell, even the lowly hot dog guy in the stands is contributing to the atmosphere of recreational enjoyment that keeps people interested in going to baseball games, and makes a baseball game a crowd-entertainment event that millions more people are interested in watching remotely. Are we really willing to say that “the people at the top” of this sports-entertainment complex, or even the lowly hot dog guy, aren’t crucial contributors to the amount of value that a player like Jeter is able to produce?
Goodness knows I’m all in favor of having a less unequal distribution of wealth in our society, and support all kinds of redistributive measures to achieve that. I just think it’s ultimately very difficult to come up with any effective way of assessing how much any particular individual can be said to “earn” “their” wealth by their independent efforts.
There certainly are some subsidies involved. Some amount of my tax dollars goes to subsidize my local sports teams.
That said, the Jeters’ talents are much more rare, and much more enjoyable (for some) to watch than that of the hot dog guy. It is fair that he receives a greater reward for his efforts.
There will always be income inequality until we achieve a Star Trek utopia. The question is is how much there is, and if that is too much for a society to be healthy.
I’d say that the current levels are certainly on the unhealthy side of things, and that the OP’s hypothetical society would be terminal.
Right. It’s a matter of who is contributing and what would happen to society if that particular individual didn’t contribute. Some people are fortunate and end up with a talent that allows them to contribute more to society than others. It might not be fair, but I do think it’s just, that such people be compensated to a higher degree than others. My problem is with those who reap the benefits without contributing anything. Yes, there’s Yakee stadium itself and the people who built it (no it wasn’t literally Babe Ruth 
), and the people on all the other teams, and the trainers and umpires and so on. And all those people should get a cut of the profits. But do the team owners really do all that much? Yes, they sign the checks, but that money comes from advertisers and ultimately the fans, not because George Steinbrenner* is exceptionally talented or hard working. That’s why I believe it’s the George Steinbrenner’s of the world, and not the Derek Jeter’s or hot dog vendors, who should pay the lion’s share of the taxes.
He sure is a crucial contributor. However, you can pick almost anyone in the world to sell hot dogs and very few if any can swing the bat like Jeter. So, by definition, the hot dog guy will make a low wage and Jeter a high one. Surely you aren’t suggesting that the hot dog guy pay and Jeter pay be equal?
As far as the OP, it seems that it makes assumptions that would lead to a near Utopia or a post-scarcity economy which have been largely pipe dreams so far. Is that the point of the exercise or does the OP seriously believe that we can reach a point where everyone can earn a lifestyle currently not enjoyed by more than 90% of the world’s population?
As much as I would be totally in favour of a more equal distribution of wealth, this is not generally true. While many of those companies may produce intangible goods, they employ thousands of (generally) well-paid employees, and spread a lot of wealth around more or less directly (just think about the service industry around the large campus of a company). And in the case of FAANG, they produce goods and services that billions of users cherish.
Post scarcity is not a utopia. It probably is a necessary condition for a utopia, but it certainly does not guarantee it.
For instance, for all practical purposes, we are post scarcity now. There are enough resources to meet the needs of everyone in the world. However, the wants of those who are more fortunate take precedence, and some are left without enough to survive so that others can have greater luxury and decadence.
We can never be in a post scarcity situation where all wants are fulfilled, as, almost by definition, wants are infinite. In order to have such a utopia, we need to find a way to ensure that needs are fulfilled before wants, as putting wants first ensures that needs will be lacking.
I don’t think that that was where the OP was going with this. But, I do believe that we should be able to reach a point where food, clothing, shelter, running water and sewage, electricity and communication, healthcare, education, and at least some level of discretion in entertainment can be enjoyed by all. But we cannot do that as long as we maintain the current mentality that you can earn tens of millions of dollars by pushing pieces of paper around, and that someone that spends 10 hours a day doing the menial gathering of water and wood to eke out bare survival isn’t doing enough to earn the basic levels of needs of existence.
John Madden used to talk about how back in the day professional football players had to get summer jobs. I’m not sure they were worse than players today. I’m not saying we should go back to that level, especially if the money saved went to the owners who are even richer than the players, but if things were a bit more equal perhaps seats wouldn’t be that expensive, food would be cheaper, and that hot dog vendor might make a decent wage.
I’m on board with sports being like they were in the 1980s. More access to the players and they were not such rich snobs, above the level of us lowly fans. Maybe it is just rose colored glasses, but I miss that, and maybe I should turn in my conservative card because of it.
However, I don’t see how that would mean that the hot dog guy would make a better wage. AFAIK, he made shit wages then just like now. IOW, the problem isn’t that a Jeter makes $20 million a year and you could peel off some of his money and pay the hot dog guy $100k of that. It is still the marketable skills between Jeter and the hot dog guy. Any teenager can sell hot dogs.
You are correct on this count. But what about, as I stated, the next level up? Very few could play shortstop as well as Derek Jeter. A-rod in his younger days, maybe Ozzie Smith. But what about the team owners? I’m pretty sure almost anyone can sign a check just as easily as George Steinbrenner, or to use better examples, Stan Kroenke or Cal McNair or Shahid Khan. Yet those guys make billions every year. What talent do they have that makes them so valuable?
Money is fungible. If the same amount of money is being funneled into a sports team and all that is associated with it, and the players make less money, then there would be more money left to pay the support staff a better wage.
No one said anything about making $100k, that’s utter strawman territory. However, a somewhat better wage, sure.
My understanding is that the venue pretty much only gets money from concessions, ticket sales go to the team. If ticket sales went to the venue as well, then they could afford to pay more, as well as charge less for that hot dog.
This is not really true. Have you met teenagers?
The hot dog guy is carrying around a fairly hefty hot box, walking up and down stairs, often in rather unpleasant weather.
No, and I don’t understand how you could have got even the suggestion of that from what I wrote.
I was questioning FlikTheBlue’s assumption that Jeter’s value essentially comes just from his “swinging the bat”, and that therefore his high pay is more justified than the high pay of “the people at the top” who “reap the benefits without contributing anything”, to quote FTB.
ISTM that Jeter’s abilities at swinging the bat would be worth basically nothing at all without the whole organization of pro sports largely created and maintained by “the people at the top”.
As I said, I think these kinds of arguments tend to obscure the problematic aspects of evaluating to what extent any individual “deserves” more money than another for “producing value” in an organization that’s very much a joint effort.
That’s why I think markets (within some regulatory limits) should determine what people get paid for the kind of work they do. And then the government should tax people on the basis of how much money they’ve got, not on intrinsically vague and subjective estimates of how much they “contribute” to “earn” their money.
Well, you are correct. But what is the solution for that other than a Cuban or Soviet style government takeover of property and redistribute wealth, which has also been shown that the people doing the redistribution get placed at the top of the ladder? I’m not trying to be a smartass, but it seems that to get where you want to be, that will be required.
Also, sure, some people have inherited the money, but what about the idea that I have built wealth over my lifetime, so I can now sit back and write checks with the money I have earned? The hot dog vendor cannot buy the New York Yankees and write checks, but I can because of my hard work over my lifetime, or maybe my grandfather’s hard work. Do we destroy that and spread it around?
The NFL, to continue the example, not only has a salary cap, but a salary floor, which if IIRC is something like 45% of the team revenue, which must be payed in salary to the players. The reason it’s like that these days, and why it wasn’t back in the days when John Madden was coaching, is because the NFL players union has a lot of leverage and is stronger now. If we had stronger union laws, maybe other unions could also negotiate such deals.
Yes, but if we assume the players are paid less money (by some legal force) then why would it follow that the hot dog guy is paid more (without some legal force)? You pay the wage that gets a guy to put on the uniform and sling hot dogs which seems to be working now as we do have hot dog guys.
Agreed. But what does this mean other than that we need “the people at the top” to give Jeter and the hot dog guy a paycheck?
What does this mean other than inserting anti-competitive forces into the marketplace? Maybe a guy could play wide receiver for the Chiefs and he “only” makes $100k per year by his full and free agreement. Why should “stronger union laws” stop that from happening? Or why should a 19 year old kid with a high school education get muscled out of a hot dog vending job because the union has it locked down for its members who make an inflated wage, making you and I pay more for hot dogs at the game?
I’m all for a solution where everyone can make a comfortable living, but these suggestions just seem to allow for SOME to have an undeserved and elevated status.
I know - what really would happen is that the owner would pocket more money. There would have to be a major attitude change for the hot dog vendor to get anything more. And I’m certainly not saying that the hot dog vendor would, or even should, make anything like Jeter. The complaint is not that the lowest are making less than the highest, it is the gap between them has widened tremendously in the past few decades.
It means that there isn’t a nice clean theoretical explanation in terms of “amount of value produced” to explain why Jeter, the hot dog guy, and “the people at the top” should be considered to “earn” or “deserve” the different amounts of money they get.
That’s why, as I said, markets should determine salaries (with some basic regulatory restrictions such as minimum wage) without reference to such theoretical explanations or justifications. And governments likewise should set tax rates without considering these theoretical explanations about the different amounts that different people are presumed to “contribute” and thus “deserve” higher or lower pay.
Yup, and if markets are basically determining salaries, then there are going to have to be some institutions like unions to give workers collective bargaining power.
Otherwise the hot dog guy and his ilk won’t be making a comfortable living. Because in a world where employers have a lot more power than employees, the employer will always be able to save money by finding someone to work for starvation wages.
Let’s just examine that one for right now. Are you saying that there should be no jobs at all that don’t pay a “comfortable” or (insert whatever word) wage? Why is it wrong if, for example, I make $200k per year, and my wife works at a job that pays $15k per year because she likes the work? Should that $15k per year job be illegal because someone other than my wife might want to make it their only source of income for a family of four?
Again, I sympathize with the plight of those who bust their ass working for peanuts, but what is the solution? If you can’t pay $15/hr (or $30k-ish per year) then the job just goes undone?
In other words, what if the hot dog guy isn’t supporting a family or even himself (his wife has a great job to pay the bills), but just enjoys a free view of the ball game? Let’s say he misses his father and it makes him feel closer by having that job. Illegal?
I’m saying that if the goal is, as you said, for everybody to make a comfortable living—and if that living, for people who are able to work, is to depend on their earnings from work—then yeah, every job that someone might depend on for their living needs to pay a comfortable-living wage. I mean, that ain’t rocket science.
On the other hand, if we want to consider modified scenarios where, say, everybody gets a sustenance-level Basic Income whether they’re working or not, then sure, we can have a much more flexible approach to wage levels. Or, if we can guarantee for all the availability of jobs that pay the comfortable-living wage, then we can also allow additional jobs that pay a lower wage, where somebody might decide they would rather forego some comfort for the sake of a low-paying job they really love. There are lots of possible variants if we’re willing to guarantee either an abundance of good jobs, security of income, or some combination of the two.
But if we’re expecting people in general to depend on wages for a comfortable living, and we want everybody to actually have a comfortable living, then everybody needs readily available jobs that pay a comfortable-living wage.
We can’t just pay lip service to wanting everybody to have a comfortable living, and then go on exploiting workers into desperately trying to scrape by on low-paying jobs for a highly uncomfortable living.