<font color=blue>I mentioned that very same Karl Marx quote about eight or ten posts back.</font color=blue>
I knew I had read it somewhere. /w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif
BTW, I am for people earning whatever they can. Why? Because the alternative is someone, somewhere, dictating salaries, which I see as worse than the current situation. It was reported that a contributing factor to the recent focus of CEOs on "cooking the books" could be traced back to the Clinton era regulation (law, whatever) that limited executive salaries to $1 million. Someone thought any more than that was too much. Companies had to figure out how to pay them more. (Note: I am not saying they are worth $1 million. More about that later) Tada. Stock options, in lieu of a higher salary. Some CEOs, figured out that if they increase the stock price by exceeding street estimates, the shareholders would be happy, Wall Street would be happy, and their options would be worth more. Combine this situation with people who were morally-challenged and you get Enron, et. al.
The very first time I sold anything via a classified ad I priced the items (2 snow tires mounted on styled steel Ford Capri wheels) at what I thought was a fair price. They sold in a heartbeat. Why? I had woefully underpriced them. From that point on my opinion/belief has been, "It's not what something is worth, it's what someone is willing to pay for it." I am not saying you lie or deceive someone about the condition of the item or misrepresent it. Nor am I advocating gouging. Rather I am saying the inherent value of something or someone is often not related to what you have to pay to get it. If someone were to decree that ballplayers can not make more than X dollars, the owners would find a way to pay them more than that in order to get them. Look what happens with team salary caps. Teams are always getting 'creative' in order to stay under it, thus obeying the letter of the law but violating the spirit of same. If I want the freedom to change jobs for more money, then how can I deny that right to others, regardless of the salary involved? In 1999 COBOL programmers were in short supply, due to Y2K. They were writing their own tickets...until 1/1/2000.
However, I return to my initial statement. Is a ballplayer worth $252 million over 10 years? Doesn't matter. The alternative is someone, the Federal Fair Salary Board /w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif determining if it's fair. Wage and price controls have never worked. They only serve to drive supply down. One of the states in New England recently tried to lower what they were going to reimburse (price controls) drug companies for prescription drugs. The companies responded that they would cease to do business in that state. The state reconsidered. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif
It's been said of democracy that it's not perfect, but it beats the alternatives. That's the way I feel about the free enterprise system.
