Go Back   New Orleans Saints Forums - blackandgold.com > Main > Saints

The Elephant in the room.....

this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; I'm going to tread into this thread lightly. Being an economist who is in a union, and also a business owner who has employed union labor, I may not have a unique perspective, but I can add a few things. ...

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 09-13-2010, 04:16 PM   #22
xan
Professor Crab and
Site Donor 2014
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Princeton
Posts: 3,372
Blog Entries: 34
I'm going to tread into this thread lightly. Being an economist who is in a union, and also a business owner who has employed union labor, I may not have a unique perspective, but I can add a few things. They won't clear anything up or sway one to a particular side, but they are worth factoring into one's opinion.

1) Entitlement. One is entitled to what one negotiates with the payer. Vernon Davis (VD) negotiated the highest paying contract in NFL history for a tight end. As long as he performs as per the contract, he is entitled to any and all compensation specified in the contract. I find that concept getting diluted by the misperception that the term implies "worth" in a value judgment sense relative to the rest of society. It is not. Entitlement is simply between the two contractual parties. So, for a second week, we must make SF regret having VD.
2) Relativism/Social Justice. Born in the United States, in the later part of the 20th century, to a family of means, Alex Smith had a knack for throwing an oblong ball to another person. Born anywhere else on the planet, his skills would not command much in the marketplace; had he been born in Zimbabwe, for example, he would not even have had the chance to throw a ball, much less get paid for it. Farmers and teachers command orders of magnitude higher salaries than people who can throw balls in Zimbabwe. So it is with great cosmic fortune he works in a country whose society values ball throwing, and works for an employer who is willing to pay him a top 10 contract for throwing a ball to people. It is not that our society doesn’t value farming or teaching, it is just that at this unique point in time, it values ball throwing more. As long as Smith pays his taxes, he should earn whatever his culture is willing to pay. So, let’s see if Alex Smith continues to get his entitlements if he throws those balls to our players. I hope he has a teaching degree to fall back on.
3) Market Power - A. Individuals hold little market power to negotiate higher than market rates for services. When individuals collude, they can leverage potential withholding of services to gain premium wages. Competition is the enemy of premium wages, so colluding individuals need to have enough membership to have leverage, but not so much that the benefits of collusion become too diluted. The opposite is true, as fewer buyers drive down market prices. This is one of those situations where both sides wish to limit membership and drive market prices to favorable positions. Inducing defection is the goal of each side towards the other. Owners are going to count on the rank and file player earning the lowest wages to defect, as they have far fewer resources to commit to a prolonged period of unemployment. Small market owners need the group to justify franchise valuation and maximize total return. Players are hoping that big market teams, with the allure of breaking away from the pack and earning a higher return on investment, will force a disbanding of the owners who will negotiate higher salaries based on their expected higher yields. Each side is counting on maintaining its membership to maximize its leverage over the other side.
4) Market Power – B. Competitive balance stemming from collusion of both sides to limit wages and to equally distribute (most) revenues has served to increase the foundation of the major sources of revenues. Because each team competes with the same level of resources, its deployment of those limited resources determines its competitive outcome. Without a negotiated balance, a similar situation to Major League Baseball would occur, where only a few teams are competitively viable, and thereby profitable. Baseball franchise values fluctuate with regional demand for television revenues, creating lower potential revenues and lower potential wages/returns on investment. Highly productive players, whose negotiated relative salaries command a premium, but with no teams capable of paying that premium, will either have to accept lower salaries or not play at all. This situation has resulted in depressed value for smaller market teams and lower market share, revenues and profitability for baseball as a whole.
5) Anarchy. Otherwise known as Darwinism, Survival of the Fittest, The Free Market and Touch S*$T, Deal With It. Unregulated Free Markets will go through episodes of collusion, surpluses and shortages. Every participant will try to extract maximum value, driving costs down and finding price/quality pressure points that achieve maximum profitability. A paradox similar to that of the Pittsburgh Pirates can occur where one can field a truly uncompetitive product yet still be highly profitable. They are the “Sham-Wow” of professional sports.
6) Morality. Regardless of whether one believes in Social Justice or Anarchy, morality is irrelevant. Because “right” and “wrong” are intrinsic to one’s position on the field (or skybox), one should hear, but not factor in biased value judgments. Rules governing the process should dictate the ethics. If it is agreed that competitive balance is “good for the game” or long run profit maximizing, then rules promoting those outcomes should be enacted and enforced. If it agreed that competitive balance has no impact on long run profit maximization, then restrictions should be removed from participants.

As an ironic note, I find it very interesting that the Union (by definition, a collusive organization) wishes to decertify for the sole purpose of promoting a government intervention in relief of negotiating against a collusive ownership. If one has an “anarchistic” position, you don’t care about collusion and you don’t want government intervention. If you are a “justice seeker,” you only care about the minimum contract between parties, and collusion only truly matters if the minimum is less than that of what any American can expect from his society. This would be similar to investment bankers filing suit with the Federal Government to get a higher piece of the Goldman Sachs/Barclay’s/et al. pie. I’m not sure either side will be happy letting our Federal Government decide what’s in the best interest of the Game.

Calvin: "I wish I was a Tiger."
Hobbes: "Common lament."
xan is offline  
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:02 AM.


Copyright 1997 - 2020 - BlackandGold.com
no new posts