Reply With Quote
the u.s. gdp is $13.13 trillion, meaning more than 13,000 billion. if push came to shove, the economy could handle it. simply because we are not set up this way does not mean it could not be set up this way.
dude if a soldier dies over their
your tax dollar pays the window the life insurance policy they have
the ones that die make way more then 260k
the equipment is expensive they use
and they have to have it tested in yuma,az
then get it over there
the u.s. gdp is $13.13 trillion, meaning more than 13,000 billion. if push came to shove, the economy could handle it. simply because we are not set up this way does not mean it could not be set up this way.
i question some of that. a lot of folks join the military in the hopes of getting their schooling paid for and other such perks once their tour is completed. and now that i think about it, the supply-demand thing makes me think the salary should be lower: how many applicants are out there for these jobs? pretty sizable, i'd imagine, enough that a salary could be lowered.You don't seem to get how it works.
Soldiers are not making much because they're not suppose to what they do for $$. It's supposed to be an commitment. Pay soldiers millions and you'll see all kind of merceneries in your army who would be there only for the cash and doesn't give a for all the rest.
For the rest, well, it is what you call capitalism or liberalism. It is the law of the offer and the demand and of the market. I'm not saying I agree with that but as a french man, I'm surprised to read that from US posters.Basketball players are paid that much because NBA makes that much, because you're watch it, you're watch the commercials, because you're buying the jerseys and because all this money is distibuted to a small group of people. It's your money which is paying them.
Teachers or people like that have less money to share and are much more numerous and as for soldiers money is not what is supposed to guide them to their job, calling, vocation are.
Geez, you are wrong so much I wonder if you are just pulling our leg. If there were so many ppl wanting to join the military then the Army would not be having problems meeting its recruiting goals. I guess the "perk" of possibly getting your head blown off doesn't appeal to as many people as you seem to think.
And re your strawman argument saying players in the NBA aren't the best, I have one thing to say:
BULL .
when did i say nba players aren't the best?
and all i said was that patriotism isn't the only reason and sometimes not even the primary reason folks join the military.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_r.../MR990appb.pdf.
STATED INTEREST IN JOINING THE MILITARY
Table B.1 was prepared from tabulations on the 1991 Youth At ude Tracking Survey
(YATS) with 30-month follow-up matching of enlistee records from Military
Enlistment Processing Center (MEPCOM) data. Weighted YATS data provide a repre-
sentative sample of youth, and the match to MEPCOM records allows the identifica-
tion of sample respondents who subsequently enlisted for active duty in the military
services. While the table weights YATS data to reflect the responses of youth in gen-
eral, the subsequent enlistee data are not weighted. As a result, the enlistee re-
sponses are not necessarily representative of the enlistee population.
We chose the 1991 YATS file because of its relevance to first-term personnel making
stay/leave decisions about the time covered by our perstempo reenlistment analysis
file, i.e., personnel with an expiration of term of service date between July 1995 and
June 1996. The percentages shown in the table are fairly typical of other YATS
surveys before and since 1991, however. For instance, the patterns seen in the table
probably apply to personnel who entered in the late 1980s and who appear in our
perstempo file as early careerists.
The responses shown in the table are answers to YATS question Q526, “If you were to
consider joining the military, what would be the main reason?” After the respondent
answers, the survey administrator asks, “Any other reasons?” but does not give a
menu of reasons to choose from. Thus, the respondent may and often does have
multiple responses, and responses after the first response are prompted, but not by
specific reasons; hence, they can be considered “unaided” mentions.
As the table suggests, reasons such as “away from home,” “travel,” and “duty to
country” may play a role in decisions to enlist. These items are mentioned by both
the youth population and the enlistees as reasons for joining the military. Further,
long or hostile duty, given the travel and duty involved, may represent a fulfillment of
these reasons.
Page 2
78
Does Perstempo Hurt Reenlistment?
Table B.1
Reasons for Joining the Military: Youth Versus Enlistees
(percent with mention)
Reason
Youth
Population
Enlistees
Away from home
2.1
4.3
Retirement benefits
3.3
7.8
Develop discipline
3.9
3.4
Duty to country
15.9
13.8
Pay for education
24.8
27.6
Job training
24.9
43.1
Maturity
0.4
1.7
Would not consider
8.1
2.6
Other
18.2
23.3
Pay
14.9
17.2
Physical challenge
1.5
1.7
Self esteem/pride
3.6
5.2
More structure
1.8
1.7
National defense
2.0
0.9
Teamwork
1.0
1.7
Travel
7.4
13.8
i'm not going to explain it again.
What is so hard to get? It is very tough to become an NBA ref. These people have put in thousands of hours, with the possibility of never making it into the NBA. Tens of thousands of applicants with only a handful of positions. The NBA is a billion dollar industry and they pay their workers accordingly. You are acting like an NBA ref works for the government.
teachers are overpaid really
The NFL referee salary (National Football League) ranges from USD 25000 to USD 70000
old john clayton story
Sixty-seven of the 119 officials have 10 or fewer years of experience. They aren't at maximum dollars and they should be in their officiating prime. How many are at the top level, 20 years or more? Only 16. So it's not like every official is going to be making $130,000 a game.
A current nine-year official will watch his salary grow from $64,215 to $95,000 to $128,000 in 2003. Sounds to me as though the league has to put more money into the front end to balance out the package, and that will probably happen when Tagliabue cuts short his trip to Mexico for Monday's crucial, last-minute negotiating session before the replacement crews come onto the field.
The NHL went to the brink of using replacement officials before settling on their four-year deal Thursday. The NFL officials have that in mind, too. You've seen the charts. A 10-year NHL official made $176,000 under the old deal. Certainly, that number grew, so to put the top of the NFL scale of what would probably be half the NHL pay scale is probably a little out of whack.
NFL referees might ref a dozen games while an NBA ref officiates 60. (Guessing the numbers)
don't all those supply-demand rules follow here? even more so considering nfl has fewer games and is a bigger draw?
nfl is a bigger draw?
basketball is alot more demaning
they do not even get in danger of a 400 pound guy landing on them
they get run over all the time. esp the ref standing behind the quarterback.
admittedly the number of games argument seems to hold in baseball, where salaries for umps range from 90,000 to 300k. i'm still surprised by it. refs work 2 months (82 days/ 30 days, if my math is right, and it may very well be wrong). a year without the playoffs. i'm wondering if it has more to do with trying to get guys not to gamble as opposed to supply/demand. there are plenty of folks desperate to be a ref just because they like b-ball and would take $100,000 to do it.
In the NFL, officiating is NOT a full time job. These guys do other things during the week.
In fact, that has been one of the criticisms that comes up from time to time about the NFL, with some people sayingt the officials should be full-time.
Seems to me that lowest-bidder is not the formula to guarantee quality officiating.
Now it may very well be that the current 10-year apprenticeship chases off a lot of good potential officials. But the one thing about this system that I'm relatively certain: the refs in the NBA are the best of those who go through it. Refereeing at every level below the NBA is worse.
, dude, YOU act like you're paying the salaries. what does it really matter to you that i care? if questioning the worth of a ref offends you so much, move on.
What, is that supposed to be a lot of money?
you sir, are an idiot.
but you are the guy who keeps railing on and on about the thread in the thread that, obviously, others have had some opinion about. what part of message board do you not get? and you still haven't addressed the bolded text, namely, if you could give a rat's tail what the nba pays refs, why are you so incensed that i think they are overpaid? you cannot have it both ways, to feign disinterest in the pay but be oh so annoyed at my questioning it. if you truly do not care about the subject, why are you spending so much time reefuting it? it's akin to the kid yelling to everyone that he doesn't want to be bothered.
to a greater point, your claim of, essentially, this is just how the nba wants to do things is such a cop out. the spurs just traded scola for a box of chocolates and a smile. did you constantly go to the numerous threads about that just to write "the spurs pay the bills, that's what they want to do so they can do it, why are we talking about it?" does any of the discussion here effect any sort of change? no. so your reesponse to this thread applies to every thread. and if it bothers you that much, again, move on from this message board where opinions and thoughts are shared, not just plans to impliment change across the swath of the nba.
finally, to explain, succinctly, all the reasons that i have already given about why this thread exists.
1. biggest scandal in the nba. ref is betting on games. one theory that had been touted was that refs make so little that they could be influenced to fix games. 260k is much more than the median u.s. household income of about 50k (as well as more than many of the examples already given in this thread) and seems like enough money to satiate anyone, so how valid is that theory (you yourself said)It is a lot of money but when you look at compared to the NBA which is a multi-billion dollar enterprise it's nothing
But to the rest of society it's sure is a damn lot!
2. the amount itself surprised me, thus prompting me to see if it surprised anyone else. i think they overpay the refs, for whatever reason, and wanted to see what others thought
3. the idea of supply and demand doesn't work. as i've thought about it, there is an abundannt supply of willing workers (granted, there is a weeding out process but that only bolsters the point. they MUST weed out applicants, by background checks as well as by requiring folks to work up the ranks, because the supply is so great) or the demand for the job is great. the increase in wages normally happens when there are few folks for many jobs (i.e., math teachers are getting big stipends because there are many math teaching gigs out there but few folks interested in teaching the subject), which isn't the case here. the number of jobs is limited, certainly, but that would only seem to give the employer even more leverage since there are plenty of other people willing to take the place of some crabby employee. i think the scandal shows the real reason the salary is so high, and apparently, even money may not be the way unless we start seeing refs making the athletes' pay. would that be overpaying?
there, in list form, are the reasons, again, for this thread. the first two reasons were explained many times before, the last just hit me last night and this morning.
only compared to most jobs in the country.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions