6/25/2014 2:18 PM
BILL JAMES, ************!!!
6/25/2014 2:24 PM (edited)
Posted by moy23 on 6/25/2014 2:14:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2014 2:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/25/2014 2:00:00 PM (view original):
And, if you think "Well, yeah, but sports is an extreme example", the receptionist at your doctor's office is going to be making 6 figures. 
The doctor at your local Dr.'s office isn't drawing a $1 million a year in salary.
Hollywood actors might as well move out of their homes... They won't be able to pay the property tax making $100/hr.
Why would they be limited to $100 an hour?

edit: i think actors are contractors, not employees.
6/25/2014 2:24 PM

Why don't we just cap salaries at 100k and then we can watch businesses form one room headquarters to Antigua so they won't be subject to the BJ/BL collaboration 10:1 law?

6/25/2014 2:26 PM
This is approaching Uncleal's LH2B delusionary level.

I think bad_luck, uncleal, and juggalosteve are all related.....
6/25/2014 2:26 PM
Bill - You state that nobody is worth $300 million a year. How do you know this to be true? What is the maximum dollar value of productivity that a person is capable of producing in a given year and how did you determine this number? If I discovered a cure for all cancers in the span of one year, are you claiming that my productivity could still not possibly be worth $300 million?
Asked by: tanda313
Answered: 6/20/2014
If you discovered a cure for cancers in one year, the executive who runs your research company would make far more money from the discovery than you would. How do you feel about that? People who work for large companies, many large companies, not all, but people who work for these companies that have sold out to superstar executives. . .those people know very well that if they do something important from which the company makes a lot of money, the country club set will steal the profits and pay them off with a pittance. This is the reality of the current system. It DISCOURAGES innovation, it discourages creativity, it discourages hard work, on the theory that this is merely a free enterprise system at work. It is not a free enterprise system at work at all; it is a travesty of a free enterprise system. 120 years ago, companies built monopolies to control markets, and claimed that this was merely free enterprise at work. It wasn't, of course; monopolies are not the free operation of the market, they are the destruction of the market, the blockage of the market. I believe in free enterprise, I believe in capitalism, and I believe in Milton Friendman, but this is NOT capitalism and it is not free enterprise; it is organized theft.
6/25/2014 2:29 PM
Asking Bill James for global economic advice is like asking Obama how to fight a war.
6/25/2014 2:32 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/25/2014 2:18:00 PM (view original):
BILL JAMES, ************!!!
WORD!!!!!
6/25/2014 2:37 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/25/2014 2:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/25/2014 2:18:00 PM (view original):
BILL JAMES, ************!!!
WORD!!!!!
Went to the miket school of self quoting, eh?
6/25/2014 2:39 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2014 1:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 6/25/2014 1:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2014 1:15:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/25/2014 1:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2014 12:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/25/2014 12:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2014 12:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by toddcommish on 6/25/2014 11:26:00 AM (view original):
And lowering (or eliminating) corporate taxes will keep some of those businesses in the US rather than fleeing to other countries with more corporation-friendly tax laws, which means MORE jobs which means MORE tax revenue.

Liberals always seem to miss that point when crying for higher corporate taxes.
Companies take jobs overseas to avoid US labor costs, mostly. There is no tax rate low enough to make US employees attractive when Chinese workers can do the job for $1.50 an hour.
Companies take jobs oversees in order to reduce expenses.  Lowering or eliminating corporate taxes would significantly reduce expenses, offsetting the "burden" of US labor costs.

Unless you think all corporations are evil, and will still go offshore anyways, no matter what.

It's not evil. But any company (at least a public company) is essentially obligated to their shareholders to take jobs overseas if it makes financial sense. Cutting the corporate tax, a tax that most large companies are able to, at least partially, get around, doesn't come close to offsetting the gap between the labor cost of an American worker and the cost of an overseas worker.
Sounds like you have no problem with companies sending jobs offshore.

Interesting.

It's not great for the people losing jobs but it's legal and rational. I'd prefer we put policies in place to slow jobs moving overseas.

Bill James's idea might do that:

deadspin.com/bill-james-calls-for-revolutionary-changes-to-the-ameri-1595361407
If I ever thought you came up with dumb ideas.... This guy just took the cake. You don't just want jobs to leave the country you want entire Busiesses to leave the country.

You had just said companies send jobs offshore for cost savings.... So with this guys 10:1 idea either we raise employees making $10/hr to $100/hr which means to outsource labor becomes even more enticing.... Or we leave labor at $10/hr which means a CEO will only make $100/hr. Who will sacrifice the time and stress it takes to run a large business for that little sum of money?
Pay the employees better. It will be easy when you aren't paying CEOs $10,000 an hour.
Laughable.

So let's say Jamie Dimon gave up all his income for 1 year.... $20 million divided by 255,000 employees means that each employee will make an additional $78 that year... Or $0.03 per hour if they work a 40 hr week.

So how will it be easy?
6/25/2014 2:44 PM
Posted by moy23 on 6/25/2014 2:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2014 1:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 6/25/2014 1:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2014 1:15:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/25/2014 1:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2014 12:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/25/2014 12:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2014 12:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by toddcommish on 6/25/2014 11:26:00 AM (view original):
And lowering (or eliminating) corporate taxes will keep some of those businesses in the US rather than fleeing to other countries with more corporation-friendly tax laws, which means MORE jobs which means MORE tax revenue.

Liberals always seem to miss that point when crying for higher corporate taxes.
Companies take jobs overseas to avoid US labor costs, mostly. There is no tax rate low enough to make US employees attractive when Chinese workers can do the job for $1.50 an hour.
Companies take jobs oversees in order to reduce expenses.  Lowering or eliminating corporate taxes would significantly reduce expenses, offsetting the "burden" of US labor costs.

Unless you think all corporations are evil, and will still go offshore anyways, no matter what.

It's not evil. But any company (at least a public company) is essentially obligated to their shareholders to take jobs overseas if it makes financial sense. Cutting the corporate tax, a tax that most large companies are able to, at least partially, get around, doesn't come close to offsetting the gap between the labor cost of an American worker and the cost of an overseas worker.
Sounds like you have no problem with companies sending jobs offshore.

Interesting.

It's not great for the people losing jobs but it's legal and rational. I'd prefer we put policies in place to slow jobs moving overseas.

Bill James's idea might do that:

deadspin.com/bill-james-calls-for-revolutionary-changes-to-the-ameri-1595361407
If I ever thought you came up with dumb ideas.... This guy just took the cake. You don't just want jobs to leave the country you want entire Busiesses to leave the country.

You had just said companies send jobs offshore for cost savings.... So with this guys 10:1 idea either we raise employees making $10/hr to $100/hr which means to outsource labor becomes even more enticing.... Or we leave labor at $10/hr which means a CEO will only make $100/hr. Who will sacrifice the time and stress it takes to run a large business for that little sum of money?
Pay the employees better. It will be easy when you aren't paying CEOs $10,000 an hour.
Laughable.

So let's say Jamie Dimon gave up all his income for 1 year.... $20 million divided by 255,000 employees means that each employee will make an additional $78 that year... Or $0.03 per hour if they work a 40 hr week.

So how will it be easy?
Pay Dimon $400,000 a year and the bank will have no problem complying with the law.
6/25/2014 2:54 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2014 2:44:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 6/25/2014 2:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2014 1:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 6/25/2014 1:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2014 1:15:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/25/2014 1:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2014 12:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/25/2014 12:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2014 12:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by toddcommish on 6/25/2014 11:26:00 AM (view original):
And lowering (or eliminating) corporate taxes will keep some of those businesses in the US rather than fleeing to other countries with more corporation-friendly tax laws, which means MORE jobs which means MORE tax revenue.

Liberals always seem to miss that point when crying for higher corporate taxes.
Companies take jobs overseas to avoid US labor costs, mostly. There is no tax rate low enough to make US employees attractive when Chinese workers can do the job for $1.50 an hour.
Companies take jobs oversees in order to reduce expenses.  Lowering or eliminating corporate taxes would significantly reduce expenses, offsetting the "burden" of US labor costs.

Unless you think all corporations are evil, and will still go offshore anyways, no matter what.

It's not evil. But any company (at least a public company) is essentially obligated to their shareholders to take jobs overseas if it makes financial sense. Cutting the corporate tax, a tax that most large companies are able to, at least partially, get around, doesn't come close to offsetting the gap between the labor cost of an American worker and the cost of an overseas worker.
Sounds like you have no problem with companies sending jobs offshore.

Interesting.

It's not great for the people losing jobs but it's legal and rational. I'd prefer we put policies in place to slow jobs moving overseas.

Bill James's idea might do that:

deadspin.com/bill-james-calls-for-revolutionary-changes-to-the-ameri-1595361407
If I ever thought you came up with dumb ideas.... This guy just took the cake. You don't just want jobs to leave the country you want entire Busiesses to leave the country.

You had just said companies send jobs offshore for cost savings.... So with this guys 10:1 idea either we raise employees making $10/hr to $100/hr which means to outsource labor becomes even more enticing.... Or we leave labor at $10/hr which means a CEO will only make $100/hr. Who will sacrifice the time and stress it takes to run a large business for that little sum of money?
Pay the employees better. It will be easy when you aren't paying CEOs $10,000 an hour.
Laughable.

So let's say Jamie Dimon gave up all his income for 1 year.... $20 million divided by 255,000 employees means that each employee will make an additional $78 that year... Or $0.03 per hour if they work a 40 hr week.

So how will it be easy?
Pay Dimon $400,000 a year and the bank will have no problem complying with the law.
Except that no one in their right mind takes that job, the hours, the travel, the stress for $400,000. He has the livelihood of 255,000 employees that he is responsible for. Can't say the same for tom cruise or peyton manning who make twice as much money as Dimon.

Besides ... He can move to London and make $20 million there doing the same thing. There are plenty of foreign owned banks operating in the US... BMO, RBS, RBC, Banco Popular, HSBC, Barclays...
6/25/2014 2:57 PM
It you cut all the top guy's salaries, they'll have less "diminished marginal utility" money for you to steal.  Sorry, I mean, "tax".

Then, you'll have to raise taxes on the poor and middle class to offset the loss of tax revenue from the upper class.

Hypocrite.

6/25/2014 3:45 PM
Posted by moy23 on 6/25/2014 2:55:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2014 2:44:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 6/25/2014 2:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2014 1:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 6/25/2014 1:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2014 1:15:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/25/2014 1:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2014 12:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/25/2014 12:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2014 12:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by toddcommish on 6/25/2014 11:26:00 AM (view original):
And lowering (or eliminating) corporate taxes will keep some of those businesses in the US rather than fleeing to other countries with more corporation-friendly tax laws, which means MORE jobs which means MORE tax revenue.

Liberals always seem to miss that point when crying for higher corporate taxes.
Companies take jobs overseas to avoid US labor costs, mostly. There is no tax rate low enough to make US employees attractive when Chinese workers can do the job for $1.50 an hour.
Companies take jobs oversees in order to reduce expenses.  Lowering or eliminating corporate taxes would significantly reduce expenses, offsetting the "burden" of US labor costs.

Unless you think all corporations are evil, and will still go offshore anyways, no matter what.

It's not evil. But any company (at least a public company) is essentially obligated to their shareholders to take jobs overseas if it makes financial sense. Cutting the corporate tax, a tax that most large companies are able to, at least partially, get around, doesn't come close to offsetting the gap between the labor cost of an American worker and the cost of an overseas worker.
Sounds like you have no problem with companies sending jobs offshore.

Interesting.

It's not great for the people losing jobs but it's legal and rational. I'd prefer we put policies in place to slow jobs moving overseas.

Bill James's idea might do that:

deadspin.com/bill-james-calls-for-revolutionary-changes-to-the-ameri-1595361407
If I ever thought you came up with dumb ideas.... This guy just took the cake. You don't just want jobs to leave the country you want entire Busiesses to leave the country.

You had just said companies send jobs offshore for cost savings.... So with this guys 10:1 idea either we raise employees making $10/hr to $100/hr which means to outsource labor becomes even more enticing.... Or we leave labor at $10/hr which means a CEO will only make $100/hr. Who will sacrifice the time and stress it takes to run a large business for that little sum of money?
Pay the employees better. It will be easy when you aren't paying CEOs $10,000 an hour.
Laughable.

So let's say Jamie Dimon gave up all his income for 1 year.... $20 million divided by 255,000 employees means that each employee will make an additional $78 that year... Or $0.03 per hour if they work a 40 hr week.

So how will it be easy?
Pay Dimon $400,000 a year and the bank will have no problem complying with the law.
Except that no one in their right mind takes that job, the hours, the travel, the stress for $400,000. He has the livelihood of 255,000 employees that he is responsible for. Can't say the same for tom cruise or peyton manning who make twice as much money as Dimon.

Besides ... He can move to London and make $20 million there doing the same thing. There are plenty of foreign owned banks operating in the US... BMO, RBS, RBC, Banco Popular, HSBC, Barclays...
The President of the US makes something like $400,000 a year. You're saying that being CEO of a bank is 50x more difficult than being president?
6/25/2014 3:47 PM
More likely to happen?

BL says "Yeah, maybe Bill James' idea isn't that good."
BL gives us Mike Trout's opinion on how to stop global warming.
6/25/2014 3:51 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2014 3:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 6/25/2014 2:55:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2014 2:44:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 6/25/2014 2:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2014 1:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 6/25/2014 1:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2014 1:15:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/25/2014 1:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2014 12:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/25/2014 12:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2014 12:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by toddcommish on 6/25/2014 11:26:00 AM (view original):
And lowering (or eliminating) corporate taxes will keep some of those businesses in the US rather than fleeing to other countries with more corporation-friendly tax laws, which means MORE jobs which means MORE tax revenue.

Liberals always seem to miss that point when crying for higher corporate taxes.
Companies take jobs overseas to avoid US labor costs, mostly. There is no tax rate low enough to make US employees attractive when Chinese workers can do the job for $1.50 an hour.
Companies take jobs oversees in order to reduce expenses.  Lowering or eliminating corporate taxes would significantly reduce expenses, offsetting the "burden" of US labor costs.

Unless you think all corporations are evil, and will still go offshore anyways, no matter what.

It's not evil. But any company (at least a public company) is essentially obligated to their shareholders to take jobs overseas if it makes financial sense. Cutting the corporate tax, a tax that most large companies are able to, at least partially, get around, doesn't come close to offsetting the gap between the labor cost of an American worker and the cost of an overseas worker.
Sounds like you have no problem with companies sending jobs offshore.

Interesting.

It's not great for the people losing jobs but it's legal and rational. I'd prefer we put policies in place to slow jobs moving overseas.

Bill James's idea might do that:

deadspin.com/bill-james-calls-for-revolutionary-changes-to-the-ameri-1595361407
If I ever thought you came up with dumb ideas.... This guy just took the cake. You don't just want jobs to leave the country you want entire Busiesses to leave the country.

You had just said companies send jobs offshore for cost savings.... So with this guys 10:1 idea either we raise employees making $10/hr to $100/hr which means to outsource labor becomes even more enticing.... Or we leave labor at $10/hr which means a CEO will only make $100/hr. Who will sacrifice the time and stress it takes to run a large business for that little sum of money?
Pay the employees better. It will be easy when you aren't paying CEOs $10,000 an hour.
Laughable.

So let's say Jamie Dimon gave up all his income for 1 year.... $20 million divided by 255,000 employees means that each employee will make an additional $78 that year... Or $0.03 per hour if they work a 40 hr week.

So how will it be easy?
Pay Dimon $400,000 a year and the bank will have no problem complying with the law.
Except that no one in their right mind takes that job, the hours, the travel, the stress for $400,000. He has the livelihood of 255,000 employees that he is responsible for. Can't say the same for tom cruise or peyton manning who make twice as much money as Dimon.

Besides ... He can move to London and make $20 million there doing the same thing. There are plenty of foreign owned banks operating in the US... BMO, RBS, RBC, Banco Popular, HSBC, Barclays...
The President of the US makes something like $400,000 a year. You're saying that being CEO of a bank is 50x more difficult than being president?
The president is also set for life for doing a 4-8 year job. And they get those fancy book signing and speech deals for millions after the job. They make MUCH more than $400,000 and talk about golden umbrellas.
of 125

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.