Sunday, October 16, 2011

Yankees' Salaries vs. Everyone Else's. Where's The Outrage? How About An "Occupy Yankee Stadium"?

In today's NY Times, Nicholas Kristof sympathizes with the Occupy Wall Street movement by citing various examples of income inequality including this one:

"As my New York Times colleague Catherine Rampell noted a few days ago ("Bankers' Salaries versus Everyone Else's"), in 1981, the average salary in the securities industry in New York City was twice the average in other private sector jobs. At last count, in 2010, it was 5.5 times as much. (In case you want to gnash your teeth, the average is now $361,330.)"

Here's another factoid:

In 1988 (earliest year available from the USA Today Salaries Databases), the average salary of a baseball player on the New York Yankees ($700,339) was 28 times the average salary in other private sector jobs in New York City (about $25,000).  By 2010, the average salary for the Yankees (if you want to gnash your teeth, the average was $8,253,000) was 124 times the average private sector salary in NYC ($66,120).  

Where's the outrage about "excessive" salaries for Yankees players, which have increased relative to average New York City salaries much more than salaries for NYC bankers?  What about an "Occupy Yankee Stadium" protest?

37 Comments:

At 10/16/2011 10:29 AM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

That's why they want high paying jobs. So, they can pay for high priced baseball and concert tickets.

 
At 10/16/2011 10:53 AM, Blogger Sean said...

People occupy Yankee Stadium on a regular basis.

 
At 10/16/2011 11:02 AM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

Actually, they just want to buy, not pay for, baseball and concert tickets.

 
At 10/16/2011 11:02 AM, Blogger Buddy R Pacifico said...

There should also be an Occupy the Major League Baseball Players Association union hall. The MLBPA has always opposed a salary cap for their players.

 
At 10/16/2011 12:39 PM, Blogger arbitrage789 said...

I’m not an OWS sympathizer.

But the Yankees never got a federal bailout.

 
At 10/16/2011 12:46 PM, Blogger Rick said...

Good point. Let's not forget Hank and Hal Steinbrenner. With a combined net worth of over $1 Billion. They are probably in the top 1%.

 
At 10/16/2011 1:03 PM, Blogger morganovich said...

arb-

i don't know the specifics about the yankees, but the vast majority of major league teams get huge government subsidies in the form of free or heavily subsidized stadiums, preferential tax treatment, etc.

it may be predominantly local, as opposed to federal, but it's still a huge government subsidy, which, unlike that of the banks, is never paid back.

TARP was loans, repaid by the private financial sector to the treasury at a profit for taxpayers.

protesting it is roughly equivalent to my protesting you for getting a mortgage and paying it off.

 
At 10/16/2011 1:24 PM, Blogger truth or consequences said...

"Where's the outrage?"....what outrage, lots of people like me just don't watch anymore.

Hard to get excited about a bunch of milionaires playing a game. Sheeesh, contract negotiations make as much if not more news than the actual game!!!! I don't watch pro team sports anymore.

Individual sports (golf, tennis) now that's a different story...don't make the shot/putt you loose money. That's real...pressure, accountability.

The tragedy in all of this is the effect the high pro salaries has on amateur teen age atheletics as a whole.

 
At 10/16/2011 1:25 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

In fact, Major League Baseball has created a set of regional monopolies, and that has probably warped salaries and ticket rices northward.

Professional sports are amazing. They get the public )usually corrupt local governments, like Arlington TX, (where they condemned land and pushed owners off, so that George Bush jr. and pals could have a stadium) to pay for the stadiums, and then use the public's airwaves, and then charge outrageous prices to cover profits and salaries.

People are not forced to go to ballgames, so it is what it is, and not worth regulating. But it is an example of "free enterprise" is often warped beyond recognition.

 
At 10/16/2011 2:53 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

I’m not an OWS sympathizer.

But the Yankees never got a federal bailout.


Fine, but what do you want? If those banks are going to be bailed out and continue to exist, do you want people like those who work at the post office working there so they need perpetual bailouts? If not, then you're going to have to pay people enough to lure them away from other prospective employers.

Ideally, there would have been no bailouts. But, these idiots aren't against bailouts. They just want a turn at the trough like the farm animals that they are.

 
At 10/16/2011 2:55 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

protesting it is roughly equivalent to my protesting you for getting a mortgage and paying it off.

No, Morganovich. It is like protesting Arb getting a mortgage backstopped involuntarily by you. Whether you paid it off or not is beside the point.

 
At 10/16/2011 2:56 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

That is, whether arb pays it off or not is beside the point.

 
At 10/16/2011 3:56 PM, Blogger rjs said...

what did the yankees ever do to these people?

http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/

 
At 10/16/2011 3:58 PM, Blogger pkd said...

It's not just the baseball players. Other sports stars and entertainers are also paid much more than I am.

 
At 10/16/2011 4:43 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

Baseball players entertain, and cheer us. Bankers, on the other hand, are thieves, and steal our money. Any other questions? Good, I'm going to go watch a football game.

 
At 10/16/2011 5:46 PM, OpenID Sprewell said...

I agree with morganovich that sports isn't a very good example of free market salaries, because they rip off local govts left and right. They always claim that they're helping the local economy, but all the studies show that they have little effect, merely moving entertainment money around from venues far from the stadium to the closer ones. I suppose you could say the protesters should be even more outraged at athlete salaries as a result, but who cares, they're in for a massive collapse. New sports like the X games have taken off because of cable TV, entirely new ones will take off on the internet. All these highly-paid fields, whether baseball players or financiers, are in for heavy competition from the internet, competition they're unused to and therefore will not survive.

 
At 10/16/2011 6:10 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Sean

"People occupy Yankee Stadium on a regular basis."

They get pretty loud & boisterous, too. Sometimes they wave signs.

 
At 10/16/2011 6:34 PM, Blogger arbitrage789 said...

Methinks (2:53)

"[These idiots] just want a turn at the trough like the farm animals that they are"

Basically, I think that's true.

. . . . . . . .

"These idiots aren't against bailouts".

A lot of them claim to be.

Although I doubt that they're against bailing out unions (e.g., "Aid to the States")

 
At 10/16/2011 6:37 PM, Blogger arbitrage789 said...

morganovich (1:03)

I understand that most of the money lent to the banks has been paid back. But a substantial portion of the initial $787B never went to the banks at all. And of the money that HAS been paid back, it seems that most of that has just gone into Obama's slush fund to spend as he sees fit.

(correct me if I'm wrong).

 
At 10/16/2011 6:39 PM, Blogger arbitrage789 said...

"sports [enterprises]... rip off local govts left and right"
__________________________

I actually feel a lot better at getting ripped of at the state and local level. If things get bad enough, I can always move to another (hopefully less corrupt) state.

 
At 10/16/2011 7:10 PM, Blogger Mat Josher said...

Wait, the Yankees collapsed the economy and then were bailed out by out tax dollars, leaving the rest to rot. Did not know that.

 
At 10/16/2011 7:32 PM, OpenID Sprewell said...

Mat, was it the bankers' fault that a ton of people signed on to mortages that they wouldn't be able pay, often lying about their salary? Was it the bankers' fault that a bunch of people refinanced their mortgages or took out a home equity line of credit so they could buy SUVs and big-screen TVs, then defaulted on their loans? There is plenty of blame to go around, whether for dumb bankers, govt bureaucrats and politicians that pushed bad lending, or irresponsible borrowers. Simplistically and repeatedly blaming the banker because he is the intermediary that puts together the loans and because some small fraction of creditors, not shareholders, received bailouts is just childish scapegoating. In the market, the CEO of Bear Stearns lost 95% of his stake in the company, almost a billion dollars, when they were forced to merge with Chase. In govt, Barney Frank got reelected, after years of pressuring Fannie/Freddie to make more and more bad subprime loans, then got to write the Frank/Dodd bill and got more power over Wall St. Mistakes were made to go around, but the market punishes, while the politicians largely lie their way to more power. The real criminals are in DC, the fact that this ragtag bunch in NY doesn't realize this marks them as willfully stupid.

 
At 10/16/2011 7:54 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

Yep, all of a sudden, Millions of people became incredibly adept at lying on mortgage applications to the extent that . . . . .. .


How naive do you have to be to believe all that?

It was nothing less than massive, systemic fraud perpetrated by the biggest banks. There should be hundreds, if not thousands of them in jail.

That's what your OWS Supporters, such as myself, are pissed about.

 
At 10/16/2011 8:49 PM, OpenID Sprewell said...

What sounds more naive to you: that all parties involved were dumb and made mistakes, which is what I said, or that it was only the bankers committing "systemic fraud?" I know which is more naive and it isn't me. ;) Of course there was some fraud done by the banks and their complicit auditors, just like liar loans from borrowers and their brokers proliferated, but that doesn't explain the majority of the bust. Remember, incompetence is not a crime, nor is it fraud, and I think if you actually examine the evidence, you'll find plenty of ignorance and greed to go around. In any case, as the first link notes, it is tough to prove intent to commit fraud, so Dick Fuld is more scared of investor lawsuits than anything else. If you really think there was so much fraud, you are free to sue away like everyone else.

 
At 10/16/2011 9:15 PM, Blogger arbitrage789 said...

Sprewell,


"The real criminals are in DC.."


O.K., fair enough. But what about the bankers who bribed them?

 
At 10/16/2011 10:07 PM, OpenID Sprewell said...

arbitrage, presumably you are referring to "lobbying," as if you have actual evidence of a bribe, you could probably put them in jail, where the politicians haven't entered either. Of course the bankers lobbied the govt, that's what happens when you give the govt so much power. But we know who lobbied the govt more, all the activist groups that wanted more subprime lending, because that was what Barney Frank kept going on about.

 
At 10/16/2011 10:21 PM, Blogger arbitrage789 said...

Sprewell,

Yes, pardon me.

I meant to say "lobbied".

 
At 10/16/2011 10:34 PM, Blogger Sean said...

Ron H.,

They get pretty loud & boisterous, too. Sometimes they wave signs.
Yes, something should be done at once. Preferably involving beer.

 
At 10/16/2011 11:45 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Sean

"Yes, something should be done at once. Preferably involving beer."

Great idea! I'm glad you thought of it. I believe I'll go have one.

 
At 10/17/2011 7:25 AM, Blogger Zachriel said...

"I know, but I had a better year than Hoover." - 1930 Babe Ruth response to his salary of $80,000 being more than the President's $75,000

Wall Street had a very bad year, where they nearly collapsed the global economy. That might have something to do with the discomfort over the same people making large salaries.

 
At 10/17/2011 8:53 AM, Blogger Jon said...

The problem is not strictly the fact that some people make a lot more than others. It's that this wealth is used by some to exacerbate inequality and subvert democracy.

Not all super wealthy people are subverting democracy. Oil wealth is, and it may just destroy the species. That's what leading climate scientists are saying right now with regards to Canada's tar sands. This profits first and people second mentality is wrecking all kinds of things. A rich baseball player is not the problem. The problem is we don't have democracy. That's due more to Wall St than anything else, so they are right where they should be.

 
At 10/17/2011 9:29 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

Mark's analogy is a bad one. The Yankee players get their money in a free market. Their salaries are paid directly by the Yankee ownership and indirectly by fans attending games and watching the YES network. That is not the case with many of the banking salaries and bonuses. They were not paid out in a free market because when the banks became insolvent they were bailed out by the taxpayer. At the same time the Fed was busy offering free loans so that the banks could manipulate the futures markets. By having access to unlimited lending they did not have to be right, only persistent. With their unlimited lines of credit they could break anyone who opposed them and could manipulate the price of various commodities as well as the major indices. That has to stop. The Fed's monopoly should be ended and the banks need to stand on their own instead of acting as parasites on savers and investors.

 
At 10/17/2011 11:57 AM, Blogger Singularity said...

Why not Occupy D.C. ? Can someone look at the average income of the lobbists playing is the swill.

 
At 10/17/2011 1:42 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Jon: "Not all super wealthy people are subverting democracy. Oil wealth is, and it may just destroy the species. That's what leading climate scientists are saying right now with regards to Canada's tar sands. This profits first and people second mentality is wrecking all kinds of things."

Blah, blah, blah - nothing to respond to.

"A rich baseball player is not the problem. The problem is we don't have democracy. That's due more to Wall St than anything else, so they are right where they should be."

So, you condemn those who buy political influence, but not those who are bought?

 
At 10/17/2011 1:59 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

So, you condemn those who buy political influence, but not those who are bought?

Eh, watcha mean, Ron H.?

When I buy influence, we have democracy. When others buy influence, we have tyranny!

Time to occupy something until enough wealth is destroyed...I mean redistributed.

 
At 10/17/2011 5:37 PM, Blogger Bobby Caygeon said...

The left is so freaking morally bankrupt they can't even see straight. This OWS is a prime example. None of these idiots have any idea what they want nor what the real underlying problems are. The can't articulate anything and have no idea how markets actually work. They just know that there is a good chance their parasitic selves may not have all that promised free blood from the host.

The "bankers" haven't done anything illegal. Sure they have benefited from public money (and capitalism shouldn't subsidize losses or more of this will happen) but that is squarely on your elected representatives who are bought and paid for. If you don't want them getting money then vote them out. There is no bigger WS whore than the man in the WH, so if your "movement" had any integrity it may want to start there.

At the end of the day OWS is nothing more than a rally for petulant entitled losers who only simply want the finite transfer payments going to them as opposed to the bankers. They are all statists simply carrying water for the new narrative of the D's. Useless idiots all of them.

 
At 10/18/2011 1:19 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Methinks: "Eh, watcha mean, Ron H.?

When I buy influence, we have democracy. When others buy influence, we have tyranny!
"

Well of course, everybody knows that. :-)

I just don't think it's fair that the buyees aren't getting more of the rage directed at them.

"Time to occupy something until enough wealth is destroyed...I mean redistributed."

Well, I plan to occupy a chair at my local lender while I take on a butt-load of new debt. From what I see on TV, OWS participants are demanding that all private debt be forgiven. At least all student loans.

What an interesting concept! :)

It's really seems unfair that someone with degrees in art appreciation and gender studies can't find a job after borrowing and spending all that money, and now being saddled with the debt.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home