First of all it presupposes that all resources we use today are the same resources that we will use tomorrow. Thats like saying at the turn of the 19th century the Middle East was always going to be worthless because all it had was sand.

 

Also its already happening. Factories move to where cheap labor is. Its why factories moved across the sea from England to the US (it was cost of labor and lax labor laws more than raw materials) as the US had FREE LABOR called slaves. Thus it was far cheaper to pick cotton in the US and ship it back to England than pick cotton closer. When the US began to industrialize you began to see labor move to cheaper places, Mexico, China, because once again, cheap labor.

 

So it only stands to reason that as China/Vietnam and the rest of the East industrialize, as labor becomes more expense, you will see a shift to the last bastion of cheap labor, Africa.

 

You dont need special resources to open sweat shops to make Nikes, you just need to find a place where the standard of living is so low that $1 a day is a good wage.

 

I think you're presupposing that technology won't become advanced and cheap enough here at home where the need for cheap labor, and the cost of shipping goods to/from Africa, will no longer exist.

 

Did you get the order of Korea-Taiwan-China-India-Southeast Asia correct?

 

The move to SE Asia had already begun. This was to be the next big phase after that. I'm still waiting.

I think you're presupposing that technology won't become advanced and cheap enough here at home where the need for cheap labor, and the cost of shipping goods to/from Africa, will no longer exist.

 

Unless the US ends immigration restrictions, minimum wage, Im not really sure that will happen. Cost of labor is extreme in the US because the labor market is artificially restricted.

 

When you mess with supply and cost, you screw demand.

Unless the US ends immigration restrictions, minimum wage, Im not really sure that will happen. Cost of labor is extreme in the US because the labor market is artificially restricted.

 

When you mess with supply and cost, you screw demand.

 

are you Alex Nowrasteh? your posts seem very familiar. he/you work(s) at the CATO Institute

Honestly, it makes sense to think Africa will be the next big thing, but they've always had this penchant for all-of-sudden going nutso and killing everyone/burning down everything in sight. You don't invest in places like that, nobody will insure you.

As I wrote in the GOP thread, and looking ahead to 2014, the shut down benefits candidates who are not in the house. Clinton and Biden, but Clinton more so, can avoid getting dirty and attracting negative attention. On the other side, you have to love Christie's position. If he could survive the GOP primaries, he would be a tough candidate to beat.

Daniel Radcliffe, talking about how he perfected an American accent, said that he always gave his soldier action figures American accents. You've gotta love how we've become such a neo-imperial power that someone who is British of all things associates soldiers with the USA from childhood

are you Alex Nowrasteh? your posts seem very familiar. he/you work(s) at the CATO Institute

 

Never heard of him, but looked him up. Im kind of like a Cato institute experiment that went horribly astray.

Jake - White House already stating they won't invoke 14th amendment. Debt ceiling will not be easily resolved.

trillion dollar coin time

Not necessarily political, but contentious enough to keep out of the NCAA sports threads.

 

Man Rich Thanks To College Athletics Blasts Paying College Athletes

 

Paying college athletes is "the most idiotic suggestion of all time," according to Jim Boeheim, who was paid $1.8 million last year, making him the highest-paid employee at Syracuse University.

 

The coach, who stands to make an additional $130,000 every year his team makes the NCAA tournament, declared "I don't believe players should be paid" in a conversation with local reporters.

 

"Nobody got in it" for the money, said Boeheim, who receives about $77,000 annually on top of his base salary to put towards the purchase of a new car.

 

"I believe they are getting a tremendous opportunity," Boeheim said of student-athletes, who finish each year owing an average of $3,222 on costs not covered by their scholarships, but do get free athletic equipment. Boeheim personally receives hundreds of thousands of dollars a year from Nike in exchange for his players wearing their sneakers.

 

Fox News asks Nicaraguan meteorologist to host ‘Taco Day’ segment: ‘You grew up on tacos’

Not necessarily political, but contentious enough to keep out of the NCAA sports threads.

 

Man Rich Thanks To College Athletics Blasts Paying College Athletes

 

It really drives me nuts when people say "and they get free access to equipment!". Like you consider your work desk and keyboard part of your compensation package.

Boeheim gets $77,000 a year to buy a car. More than the average family of four earns in a year. 50% more than they earn in a year. Just for his car.

 

The richer you are, the less you actually have to pay for stuff.

It really drives me nuts when people say "and they get free access to equipment!". Like you consider your work desk and keyboard part of your compensation package.

 

Oh please, they get everything they need for free - food, housing, transportation, equipment, clothes, etc. They go on trips to foreign countries and participate in different group activities. Let's not pretend they have to pay for their own sneakers to play basketball.

 

It's more akin to Google giving you free lunch off a menu prepared by private chefs than it is your employer providing you with keyboard.

Boeheim gets $77,000 a year to buy a car. More than the average family of four earns in a year. 50% more than they earn in a year. Just for his car.

 

The richer you are, the less you actually have to pay for stuff.

 

How many people does Boeheim allow the University to employ because he's really good at his job? How much money has he made the University and local economy because of what he can do and the kinds of recruits he's been able to bring in? I think college coaches are vastly overpaid but at the same time they bring in ten times what they earn.

 

Oh please, they get everything they need for free - food, housing, transportation, equipment, clothes, etc. They go on trips to foreign countries and participate in different group activities. Let's not pretend they have to pay for their own sneakers to play basketball.

 

No, many of them don't get "everything they need for free." Many leave with debt or have to scrape by, especially if they didn't come from backgrounds where their family could financially support them.

 

It's more akin to Google giving you free lunch off a menu prepared by private chefs than it is your employer providing you with keyboard.

 

Only if I'm working for Google but not getting paid.

How many people does Boeheim allow the University to employ because he's really good at his job? How much money has he made the University and local economy because of what he can do and the kinds of recruits he's been able to bring in? I think college coaches are vastly overpaid but at the same time they bring in ten times what they earn.

 

Boeheim brings in exactly zero dollars to the school if there aren't people playing basketball. Why should some become extremely wealthy off of this billion-dollar industry while the bulk of the labor is unpaid and barred from any compensation?

 

I'm also skeptical that Boeheim really does bring in about $20M a year to the school.

Edited October 4, 201312 yr by StrangeSox

No, many of them don't get "everything they need for free." Many leave with debt or have to scrape by, especially if they didn't come from backgrounds where their family could financially support them.

 

Ok, let's break this down. Who are "they" we're talking about? The star athletes that have the only argument for being paid? Or the 3rd string kicker? I could give a s*** if the 3rd string kicker has to pay for something. He's getting a free education and a bunch of other perks and he's not making the school a dime.

 

So really we're talking about star athletes - the ones that make the schools money and have the best argument for being paid. What do they have to pay for? What do they have to scrape by for? I'd like an example. At best you're talking about incidentals. So fine, give them a stipend of a few grand a semester to pay for books and school supplies. That's still not what people want when they say pay the athletes.

 

How much would you pay them? How would you break it down? Does everyone get 50k cash? Does it depend on playing time? Popularity? No matter what system you design it would be a gigantic cluster f***, on top of ruining college athletics.

Edited October 4, 201312 yr by Jenksismybitch

Boeheim brings in exactly zero dollars to the school if there aren't people playing basketball. Why should some become extremely wealthy off of this billion-dollar industry while the bulk of the labor is unpaid and barred from any compensation?

 

I'm also skeptical that Boeheim really does bring in about $20M a year to the school.

 

The bolded is irrelevant. They play basketball, every year. And 25-35k people show up in a stadium to watch them play (supposedly the upcoming Duke game they might move the court so 50k can attend). And hundreds of thousands/millions watch every game on TV. If the program sucked, they wouldn't draw like that.

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigeast/post/_/id/...etball-revenues

 

According to that the program brought in $18 million in 2011. That probably doesn't include TV deals with the conference that the school shares. That doesn't include tax revenue and extra money flowing in the local economy. He's worth every penny if he keeps the program elite.

 

 

Ok, let's break this down. Who are "they" we're talking about? The star athletes that have the only argument for being paid?

 

Every person providing labor that generates revenue for the NCAA has an argument for being paid directly by the NCAA/their colleges. They certainly have an argument for being able to profit off of their images, names, likeness, etc.

 

Or the 3rd string kicker? I could give a s*** if the 3rd place kicker has to pay for something. He's getting a free education and a bunch of other perks and he's not making the school a dime.

 

I am doubtful that a 3rd string kicker is receiving a full scholarship. If he's not making the school a dime, then why are we worried about allowing them to be compensated?

 

So really we're talking about star athletes - the ones that make the schools money and have the best argument for being free labor. What do they have to pay for? What do they have to scrape by for? I'd like an example. At best you're talking about incidentals. So fine, give them a stipend of a few grand a semester to pay for books and school supplies. That's still not what people want when they say pay the athletes.

 

We're talking about every athlete who generates billions of dollars collectively for the NCAA but, god forbid, somebody buys them a cheeseburger, let alone gives them compensation for the labor that is generating massive profits and wealth for others.

 

How much would you pay them? How would you break it down? Does everyone get 50k cash? Does it depend on playing time? Popularity?

 

Oddly enough, there are many sports leagues that exist and actually do pay the athletes. They also allow these athletes to benefit off of their own name and likeness through apparel deals and endorsements.

 

How do colleges manage to figure out if they should pay a coach $50k a year or $2M a year? How does any other labor market function? Why should college athletics be any different?

 

No matter what system you design it would be a gigantic cluster f***, on top of ruining college athletics.

 

If college athletics can only exist if it exploits unpaid labor as the overwhelming majority of its workforce and the sole reason they generate revenues, then college athletics shouldn't exist. I've very doubtful that college athletics would be ruined if people were actually fairly compensated for their labor, though.

 

The bolded is irrelevant. They play basketball, every year. And 25-35k people show up in a stadium to watch them play (supposedly the upcoming Duke game they might move the court so 50k can attend). And hundreds of thousands/millions watch every game on TV. If the program sucked, they wouldn't draw like that.

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigeast/post/_/id/...etball-revenues

 

It's not irrelevant. Boeheim's value is $0 if there aren't people paying basketball. Why should the person who convinces them to play basketball and tells them how to play basketball earn millions upon millions of dollars, but the people actually paying basketball earn nothing?

 

According to that the program brought in $18 million in 2011. That probably doesn't include TV deals with the conference that the school shares. That doesn't include tax revenue and extra money flowing in the local economy. He's worth every penny if he keeps the program elite.

 

This assumes that someone else couldn't come in and do his job for less, or that he couldn't do the same job for less if the revenues were split with the people actually playing the sport as well. And it still remains 100% true that, without a basketball team, 0 people will show up to watch Boeheim stand on the side of a basketball court.

Every person providing labor that generates revenue for the NCAA has an argument for being paid directly by the NCAA/their colleges. They certainly have an argument for being able to profit off of their images, names, likeness, etc.

 

I don't disagree that they have an argument. But very few college athletes (including the hundreds of thousands who don't play premiere sports) generate sufficient revenue for their school or the NCAA to warrant being paid BEYOND their scholarship and additional benefits. Let's lowball it and assume a scholarship, room and board, and extras cost a school 50k per athlete. How many players are actually worth that much to a team based on the money they generate for the school?

 

I am doubtful that a 3rd string kicker is receiving a full scholarship. If he's not making the school a dime, then why are we worried about allowing them to be compensated?

 

I'll try to find it but I remember reading somewhere that football teams have like 80-85 scholarships and rarely do they play more than 50 people in a game. So yes, they do. And again, he is being compensated!

 

We're talking about every athlete who generates billions of dollars collectively for the NCAA but, god forbid, somebody buys them a cheeseburger, let alone gives them compensation for the labor that is generating massive profits and wealth for others.

 

Well I agree there, the NCAA has stupid rules on this (the bagel but not cream cheese example). But at some point the NCAA has to draw a line and they just chose the wrong spot.

I'm fine giving athletes a little. But how much do you want to give? How much is it worth? 1% are going to be able to get an accountant or some other expert to breakdown exactly how much they made the school. The rest get what? The same?

 

Oddly enough, there are many sports leagues that exist and actually do pay the athletes. They also allow these athletes to benefit off of their own name and likeness through apparel deals and endorsements.

 

How do colleges manage to figure out if they should pay a coach $50k a year or $2M a year? How does any other labor market function? Why should college athletics be any different?

 

If college athletics can only exist if it exploits unpaid labor as the overwhelming majority of its workforce and the sole reason they generate revenues, then college athletics shouldn't exist. I've very doubtful that college athletics would be ruined if people were actually fairly compensated for their labor, though.

 

Lol, jesus. Exploits. Yes, all of those poor star athletes in college. What a terrible life they live for four years! What I wouldn't give to be exploited as the king of campus for 4 years from age 18-20. Cry me a river for these poor souls.

It's not irrelevant. Boeheim's value is $0 if there aren't people paying basketball. Why should the person who convinces them to play basketball and tells them how to play basketball earn millions upon millions of dollars, but the people actually paying basketball earn nothing?

 

 

 

This assumes that someone else couldn't come in and do his job for less, or that he couldn't do the same job for less if the revenues were split with the people actually playing the sport as well. And it still remains 100% true that, without a basketball team, 0 people will show up to watch Boeheim stand on the side of a basketball court.

 

I don't even know what you're arguing. I live in the real world. And in the real world basketball is played at colleges and universities across the country every year. In that real world a guy like Boeheim has value above, beyond and separate from the players that he RECRUITS, TRAINS, COACHES and DEVELOPS into athletes good enough to make a living playing a game.

 

And the reverse of what you say is also true - without the school the players are worth nothing. Sure, .0000001% of them could go play in the NBA, the rest aren't worth anything even if they could go pro right away. Colleges make stars out of players. Coaches make stars out of players. I don't know why you view this as a one sided relationship when it's clearly not.

 

how come a free college scholarship isn't considered as having any value here?