Now that MLB is back...does anyone care?

[packs]

I can’t believe there are so many people who fall into the owner’s narrative trap about the players being “millionaires who play a game”.

The owners are BILLIONAIRES who don’t want to pay people to work. How can anyone be on the side of people who by and large inherited their fortunes and never worked a day in their life.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

I can’t believe there are so many people who fall into the owner’s narrative trap about the players being “millionaires who play a game”.

The owners are BILLIONAIRES who don’t want to pay people to work. How can anyone be on the side of people who by and large inherited their fortunes and never worked a day in their life.

How do they not want to pay people to work? What player is working and not getting paid? They don't want to pay players not to play, actually....

It's not that I'm on the Billionaires side, it's that in the constant public money fighting between millionaires and billionaires, they all seem whiny and unappealing.

[packs]

The A’s are valued at over 2 billion dollars and as soon as the minor league season was cancelled they stopped paying the players $400 a week so they could save 1.3 million dollars. The owners only reversed course after the league made enough noise about it. Why should the players not want to get paid when all the owners want to do is screw them and make it look like the players are the bad guys?

The owners originally wanted to pay the players one third of their salary regardless of how many games they played.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

The A’s are valued at over 2 billion dollars and as soon as the minor league season was cancelled they stopped paying the players $400 a week so they could save 1.3 million dollars. The owners only reversed course after the league made enough noise about it. Why should the players not want to get paid when all the owners want to do is screw them and make it look like the players are the bad guys?

The owners originally wanted to pay the players one third of their salary regardless of how many games they played.

This is decidedly NOT "...who don’t want to pay people to work". They didn't pay some minor leaguers who didn't work. I stand by the facts in my statement, and my opinion of them. Again, I did not say anything positive about the owners, so I'm not sure what your point is.

[Chuck9788]

I just see it as a big tournament, (below) should be the World Series rings that they give out.

[packs]

Originally Posted by G1911

This is decidedly NOT "...who don’t want to pay people to work". They didn't pay some minor leaguers who didn't work. I stand by the facts in my statement, and my opinion of them. Again, I did not say anything positive about the owners, so I'm not sure what your point is.

It definitely is. Being a minor league player isn’t like having your job. When the industry shuts down they’re still expected to maintain a certain physical condition, train and follow all team rules in the meantime (rules that may limit your employment opportunities depending on what activities your contract allows). However the team didn’t want to offer any salary for that commitment or resources. The team can’t offer team facilities and they didn’t offer to pay for private instruction either. They expect you to do all the things you would have for no pay and at your own expense AND to find a way to make a living outside of baseball on top of it.

When it comes to the major league players, the owners wanted to pay a 54 game salary regardless of how many games were played. If the season was 100 games, they wanted to pay for 54. The players are only now getting paid a prorated salary for every game they do play because of the Union. Not because the owners wanted to pay people to work.

Please offer any counterpoint of your choosing that demonstrates the players are asking for things you wouldn’t ask for at your own job.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

It definitely is. Being a minor league player isn’t like having your job. When the industry shuts down they’re still expected to maintain a certain physical condition, train and follow all team rules in the meantime (rules that may limit your employment opportunities depending on what activities your contract allows). However the team didn’t want to offer any salary for that commitment or resources. The team can’t offer team facilities and they didn’t offer to pay for private instruction either. They expect you to do all the things you would have for no pay and at your own expense AND to find a way to make a living outside of baseball on top of it.

When it comes to the major league players, the owners wanted to pay a 54 game salary regardless of how many games were played. If the season was 100 games, they wanted to pay for 54. The players are only now getting paid a prorated salary for every game they do play because of the Union. Not because the owners wanted to pay people to work.

Please offer any counterpoint of your choosing that demonstrates the players are asking for things you wouldn’t ask for at your own job.

The part that is a factual claim is completely false. They are not and didn't try too refuse to pay players who are working. Some teams are not paying players that are not working. This is how it works in every industry. If I am an hourly employee, I still have to remember how to do my job and remain in physical condition good enough to do that job. The company does not pay you for the time spent exercising if your job has physical demands. Like 25% of this country was recently furloughed from their jobs too, they did not get paid, because they were not working. Your statement is factually wrong.

They are asking for things I wouldn't. Heck, I took a mandatory paycut happily a couple months ago, and then I issued myself a bigger paycut than I had to take so we could slightly improve our odds of survival as a company, and give a little more to my employees that make less and need it more immediately than I do. Revenues are down everywhere, not just for MLB that can't sell tickets anymore and missed almost 2/3 of the season completely. Most of us, who make a hell of a lot less, are in a similar boat, or much worse. The difference is they still have a mansion at the end of the day, and I'm not griping about my salary for the year.

Again, I'm not praising the owners or saying they are right. I said I find the constant griping from players to the media about how they don't make enough millions and are oppressed by the owners to be obnoxious. The owners are obnoxious too, but they aren't being rolled out as victims and they aren't the ones we go to the games to watch. I also said the owners did not attempt not to pay players who are working. That is not an opinion, that part is 100% true. I guess I should not be surprised a fact is controversial because one doesn't like it.

You are making claims that are 100% factually wrong, and then arguing against a perspective I did not express and do not hold rather than the one I stated. Makes this rather stupid and pointless.

[packs]

To each their own. There could have been a 114 game season but the owners didn’t want to pay for it.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by packs

I can’t believe there are so many people who fall into the owner’s narrative trap about the players being “millionaires who play a game”.

The owners are BILLIONAIRES who don’t want to pay people to work. How can anyone be on the side of people who by and large inherited their fortunes and never worked a day in their life.

Not everyone buys into the class envy thing.

Now that you've finished running down people who have more than you (because they have more than you,) go out and buy a lottery ticket.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Not everyone buys into the class envy thing.



Now that you've finished running down people who have more than you (because they have more than you,) go out and buy a lottery ticket.

Stereotypes are always dangerous. There are some of the rich who are trust fund babies and living it up. Some worked really hard for their money. Some screwed others to make their riches. Others still are philanthropists.

But I think a stereotype that is true is that the rich stay rich by doing everything they can to keep their money. Some argue that's sound business operation. Others argue they're heartless.

Full disclosure: My wife and I are strong union supporters. I don't believe in socialism, but laws helping redistribute wealth are needed. The good ol days - 1950s and 60s - had a higher level of wealth located within the middle class, and also had higher taxes. Many want America to be more economically like then, but they aren't willing to recreate the conditions that allowed the US to flourish.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by todeen

But I think a stereotype that is true is that the rich stay rich by doing everything they can to keep their money.

I'm not rich but I save my money too. That's a bad thing?

Originally Posted by todeen

Full disclosure: My wife and I are strong union supporters. I don't believe in socialism, but laws helping redistribute wealth are needed.

I bolded the part where you advocate stealing from people simply because they have a lot.

If people build wealth by obeying laws, playing by the rules, then what they have belongs to them, and you and others need to learn to keep your greedy* hands off it.

*greed: Wanting to take what others have, because it's easier than earning it yourself.

[Cliff Bowman]

I don't know about MLB, but after what I just heard about the NBA I am through with it and if what I hear about what the NFL is planning pans out I will be through with it. I have been an avid fan of all three since the late 70's. packs, you can have them.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I'm not rich but I save my money too. That's a bad thing?







I bolded the part where you advocate stealing from people simply because they have a lot.



If people build wealth by obeying laws, playing by the rules, then what they have belongs to them, and you and others need to learn to keep your greedy* hands off it.



*greed: Wanting to take what others have, because it's easier than earning it yourself.

Redistribution doesn't mean theft. It can be a wide range of ideas. But let's call it theft for the sake of your argument.

How come individuals made more "real wealth" in the 1960s than they do now? My generation is supposed to be the first to make less money than their parents. I would argue that the wealthy for 60 years has redistributed wealth to the top percentage of earners. Therefore they have literally been stealing for a hell of a long time from just about 99% of the population. And if that has been you, tsk tsk.

Now, moving beyond "theft", redistribution can be something as easy as businesses paying a higher share of health insurance instead of passing it on to employees. That's not theft. Redistribution could be increasing taxes to reduce college costs. I wouldn't consider that stealing. States used to pay a lot more in higher education funding, so really that would be returning to previous levels of funding.

Do you want more examples?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by todeen

Redistribution doesn't mean theft. It can be a wide range of ideas. But let's call it theft for the sake of your argument.

How come individuals made more "real wealth" in the 1960s than they do now? My generation is supposed to be the first to make less money than their parents. I would argue that the wealthy for 60 years has redistributed wealth to the top percentage of earners. Therefore they have literally been stealing for a hell of a long time from just about 99% of the population. And if that has been you, tsk tsk.

Explain how the wealthy redistributed wealth to the top earners. Are you saying wealthy people earned more money than less wealthy people?

That's rather self-evident, isn't it? Of course wealthy people earn (transfer wealth) more than non-wealthy people.

And what's that final comment about? And if that has been you, tsk tsk. You're thinking people who are successful need to be admonished for it? In your world, starting a company that grows huge, employs thousands of people, produces things people want and voluntarily pay for... is a bad thing?

Originally Posted by todeen

Now, moving beyond "theft", redistribution can be something as easy as businesses paying a higher share of health insurance instead of passing it on to employees. That's not theft.

Businesses view the compensation they pay their employees as one number. For instance, to an employer, paying someone $80,000 in salary + $10,000 in benefits = paying $70,000 in salary + $20,000 in benefits.

Some people, like you apparently, would prefer the smaller salary and bigger benefits package. I would prefer the higher salary, smaller benefits, and the ability to then get a high deductible health plan, and cover basic stuff like checkups, lab work, etc. out of pocket.

Originally Posted by todeen

Redistribution could be increasing taxes to reduce college costs. I wouldn't consider that stealing. States used to pay a lot more in higher education funding, so really that would be returning to previous levels of funding.

So, two guys graduate high school the same year. One wants to go to an over-priced party school and drink beer for 4 years. The other goes to work to support his family. In your mind, the working guy should be paying higher taxes to subsidize the college brat.

Originally Posted by todeen

Do you want more examples?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

No. I see where you're coming from. Other people becoming mega-successful is bad. Sitting on your butt, watching others become successful, then expecting society (politicians) to take their productivity and "redistribute" it to people like you, is good.

When somebody else makes money, it does not hurt you. It obviously makes you angry and jealous, but it doesn't hurt you. I think you should spend more energy trying to improve your own situation honestly, and spend less time eyeing the wealth of others, trying to find a way to grab some of it for yourself.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by todeen

Redistribution doesn't mean theft.

It inherently is. Redistributing wealth is taking from some people, and giving what belonged to those people before the seizure to other people. Unless you think that everyone having their wealth taken away supports the seizure of their property, redistribution is theft.

Anyone who would like to redistribute their wealth may feel free to put their collections where their mouths are and mail me some of their pre-war cards. As a poor collector who can only afford low-grade beaters of players who were mostly not very good, I am in need. PM for shipping address.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Not everyone buys into the class envy thing.

Now that you've finished running down people who have more than you (because they have more than you,) go out and buy a lottery ticket.

I don’t know what this comment means. If you think players are millionaires playing a game aren’t you denigrating people for having more than you?

[Hot Springs Bathers]

I didn't think I would care. I hate the rule changes, I don't respect the commissioner at all. However I'm looking forward to the games!