Why are the democrats ignoring two industries that have highly paid key employees who are pricing their product out of reach for many American's because of these high salaries? These high salaries are also between 50 - 1,000 times more than the lowest paid workers in their respective industries. Many workers in these industries are part-time and have NO benefits, no health insurance, no retirement plan, not even paid vacation!

The industries in question; Entertainment (film, music,television, etc.) Professional Sports. Both industries dominated by big contributors to the democrats as well as personal endorsements (normally worth millions given for free in violation of campaign laws in my opinion). Why no outrage that Oprah makes $100MM/yr. but a lowly production assistant makes far less than $100,000/yr. Why no outrage that many of the top employees of these businesses fly in private company owned jets?

Yet the "greedy" bankers are just awful people.

Hmmm, good question.

I'm mad as HELL.

Quote:Inside Manny's Ramirez's contract
DALLAS — Details of the record $160 million, eight-year contract agreed to by Manny Ramirez and the Boston Red Sox, as obtained by The Associated Press:

Overall
Signing bonus — $16 million, paid from 2001-05
2001 — $13 million, of which $3 million deferred
2002 — $15.5 million, of which $4 million deferred
2003 — $18 million, of which $4 million deferred
2004 — $20.5 million, of which $4 million deferred
2005 — $20 million, of which $4 million deferred
2006 — $19 million, of which $4 million deferred
2007 — $18 million, of which $4 million deferred
2008 — $20 million, of which $4 million deferred
2009 — $20 million (team option)
2010 — $20 million (team option)

Signing bonus
$16 million to be paid over five years: $6 million in 2001, $3 million each in 2002, 2003 and 2004, and $1 million in 2005.

Award bonuses
All-Star selection — $75,000
Silver Slugger — $75,000
League championship series MVP — $150,000
World Series MVP — $150,000
Most Valuable Player — $200,000
MVP second place — $125,000
MVP third place — $100,000
MVP fourth place — $75,000
MVP fifth place — $50,000


Relocation bonus
$1 million if traded.

No-trade protection
None, but he gets a complete or limited no-trade clause matching any the Red Sox give to any other player.

Charity
Ramirez will donate $1 million from his contract to Boston-area charities aiding Hispanic youth.

I gotta ask why actors and athletes need unions?

They need unions because in the olden days they didn't get paid like this.

MOST actors don't make money like that. They're the names that fly by whom you've never heard of... who work for 3 months, then audition for 2 years before their next gig as "dead prostitute #4" on CSI

(02-16-2009 02:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  MOST actors don't make money like that. They're the names that fly by whom you've never heard of... who work for 3 months, then audition for 2 years before their next gig as "dead prostitute #4" on CSI

Exactly my point if they were paid for the time spent on the set just as Big Name actors an episode of CSI or other series would cost tens of millions of dollars.

(02-16-2009 01:17 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

Quote:Inside Manny's Ramirez's contract
DALLAS — Details of the record $160 million, eight-year contract agreed to by Manny Ramirez and the Boston Red Sox, as obtained by The Associated Press:

Overall
Signing bonus — $16 million, paid from 2001-05
2001 — $13 million, of which $3 million deferred
2002 — $15.5 million, of which $4 million deferred
2003 — $18 million, of which $4 million deferred
2004 — $20.5 million, of which $4 million deferred
2005 — $20 million, of which $4 million deferred
2006 — $19 million, of which $4 million deferred
2007 — $18 million, of which $4 million deferred
2008 — $20 million, of which $4 million deferred
2009 — $20 million (team option)
2010 — $20 million (team option)

Signing bonus
$16 million to be paid over five years: $6 million in 2001, $3 million each in 2002, 2003 and 2004, and $1 million in 2005.

Award bonuses
All-Star selection — $75,000
Silver Slugger — $75,000
League championship series MVP — $150,000
World Series MVP — $150,000
Most Valuable Player — $200,000
MVP second place — $125,000
MVP third place — $100,000
MVP fourth place — $75,000
MVP fifth place — $50,000


Relocation bonus
$1 million if traded.

No-trade protection
None, but he gets a complete or limited no-trade clause matching any the Red Sox give to any other player.

Charity
Ramirez will donate $1 million from his contract to Boston-area charities aiding Hispanic youth.

I gotta ask why actors and athletes need unions?

Because it's easier to rely on the coercion of collective bargaining that to to be self-reliant in the free market.

(02-16-2009 03:54 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-16-2009 01:17 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

Quote:Inside Manny's Ramirez's contract
DALLAS — Details of the record $160 million, eight-year contract agreed to by Manny Ramirez and the Boston Red Sox, as obtained by The Associated Press:

Overall
Signing bonus — $16 million, paid from 2001-05
2001 — $13 million, of which $3 million deferred
2002 — $15.5 million, of which $4 million deferred
2003 — $18 million, of which $4 million deferred
2004 — $20.5 million, of which $4 million deferred
2005 — $20 million, of which $4 million deferred
2006 — $19 million, of which $4 million deferred
2007 — $18 million, of which $4 million deferred
2008 — $20 million, of which $4 million deferred
2009 — $20 million (team option)
2010 — $20 million (team option)

Signing bonus
$16 million to be paid over five years: $6 million in 2001, $3 million each in 2002, 2003 and 2004, and $1 million in 2005.

Award bonuses
All-Star selection — $75,000
Silver Slugger — $75,000
League championship series MVP — $150,000
World Series MVP — $150,000
Most Valuable Player — $200,000
MVP second place — $125,000
MVP third place — $100,000
MVP fourth place — $75,000
MVP fifth place — $50,000


Relocation bonus
$1 million if traded.

No-trade protection
None, but he gets a complete or limited no-trade clause matching any the Red Sox give to any other player.

Charity
Ramirez will donate $1 million from his contract to Boston-area charities aiding Hispanic youth.

I gotta ask why actors and athletes need unions?

Because it's easier to rely on the coercion of collective bargaining that to to be self-reliant in the free market.

In all fairness, there is no free market in sports.

For most intents, at this point in time, there is ONE employer for a football player, the NFL. These are franchises with one large company.

MLB? Same way, unless you want to go to Japan, but they pay significantly less.

NBA? Ok, you get the picture.

There are limits to how the free market can be implemented, effectively laws of nature.

(02-16-2009 03:54 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-16-2009 01:17 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

Quote:Inside Manny's Ramirez's contract
DALLAS — Details of the record $160 million, eight-year contract agreed to by Manny Ramirez and the Boston Red Sox, as obtained by The Associated Press:

Overall
Signing bonus — $16 million, paid from 2001-05
2001 — $13 million, of which $3 million deferred
2002 — $15.5 million, of which $4 million deferred
2003 — $18 million, of which $4 million deferred
2004 — $20.5 million, of which $4 million deferred
2005 — $20 million, of which $4 million deferred
2006 — $19 million, of which $4 million deferred
2007 — $18 million, of which $4 million deferred
2008 — $20 million, of which $4 million deferred
2009 — $20 million (team option)
2010 — $20 million (team option)

Signing bonus
$16 million to be paid over five years: $6 million in 2001, $3 million each in 2002, 2003 and 2004, and $1 million in 2005.

Award bonuses
All-Star selection — $75,000
Silver Slugger — $75,000
League championship series MVP — $150,000
World Series MVP — $150,000
Most Valuable Player — $200,000
MVP second place — $125,000
MVP third place — $100,000
MVP fourth place — $75,000
MVP fifth place — $50,000


Relocation bonus
$1 million if traded.

No-trade protection
None, but he gets a complete or limited no-trade clause matching any the Red Sox give to any other player.

Charity
Ramirez will donate $1 million from his contract to Boston-area charities aiding Hispanic youth.

I gotta ask why actors and athletes need unions?

Because it's easier to rely on the coercion of collective bargaining that to to be self-reliant in the free market.

The "free market" is far from free and level.

Because actors and athletes aren't demanding billions in bail out $ from the tax payers like the banks are. Ask a dumb quest:lmfao:ion, get a straight forward answer.

(02-16-2009 05:55 PM)onlinepole Wrote:  Because actors and athletes aren't demanding billions in bail out $ from the tax payers like the banks are. Ask a dumb quest:lmfao:ion, get a straight forward answer.

Well, if the Hollywood SCUM isn't looking for free money, why did the Crimulus package give them hundreds of millions? Why is there any money for "The Arts" in the Crimulus Package? Want a Stupid answer ask a democrat a simple question.

Goodell to take pay cut amid NFL drive to cut costs

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell will take a pay freeze in 2009 and cut his total compensation for 2008 by 20%-25%, USA TODAY has learned.
As part of a league-wide salary freeze for all NFL employees, Goodell is freezing his current annual compensation of $11 million for upcoming fiscal 2009 even though his contract entitles him to an automatic pay raise, NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy confirmed Thursday.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/...dell_N.htm

He answered your question pretty thoroughly to me. Bankers were the ones begging for dollars and then funding of lavish trips (Note AIG) for executives just days after they received the bailout. Not to say that multi-million dollar celebs don't go on very lavish getaways, but they don't receive money from the government to help them out and then use that money on things that have nothing to do with their own welfare.

(02-16-2009 08:38 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(02-16-2009 05:55 PM)onlinepole Wrote:  Because actors and athletes aren't demanding billions in bail out $ from the tax payers like the banks are. Ask a dumb quest:lmfao:ion, get a straight forward answer.

Well, if the Hollywood SCUM isn't looking for free money, why did the Crimulus package give them hundreds of millions? Why is there any money for "The Arts" in the Crimulus Package? Want a Stupid answer ask a democrat a simple question.

No, actually you still dont seem to get it. The entertainment industry isnt being "bailed out". The bailout is the TARP fund, directed at faltering financial institutions. The stimulus bill is separate and intended to jump start the economy in a number of different sectors (construction, education, the arts, healthcare, etc).

(02-16-2009 04:29 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-16-2009 03:54 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-16-2009 01:17 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

Quote:Inside Manny's Ramirez's contract
DALLAS — Details of the record $160 million, eight-year contract agreed to by Manny Ramirez and the Boston Red Sox, as obtained by The Associated Press:

Overall
Signing bonus — $16 million, paid from 2001-05
2001 — $13 million, of which $3 million deferred
2002 — $15.5 million, of which $4 million deferred
2003 — $18 million, of which $4 million deferred
2004 — $20.5 million, of which $4 million deferred
2005 — $20 million, of which $4 million deferred
2006 — $19 million, of which $4 million deferred
2007 — $18 million, of which $4 million deferred
2008 — $20 million, of which $4 million deferred
2009 — $20 million (team option)
2010 — $20 million (team option)

Signing bonus
$16 million to be paid over five years: $6 million in 2001, $3 million each in 2002, 2003 and 2004, and $1 million in 2005.

Award bonuses
All-Star selection — $75,000
Silver Slugger — $75,000
League championship series MVP — $150,000
World Series MVP — $150,000
Most Valuable Player — $200,000
MVP second place — $125,000
MVP third place — $100,000
MVP fourth place — $75,000
MVP fifth place — $50,000


Relocation bonus
$1 million if traded.

No-trade protection
None, but he gets a complete or limited no-trade clause matching any the Red Sox give to any other player.

Charity
Ramirez will donate $1 million from his contract to Boston-area charities aiding Hispanic youth.

I gotta ask why actors and athletes need unions?

Because it's easier to rely on the coercion of collective bargaining that to to be self-reliant in the free market.

In all fairness, there is no free market in sports.

For most intents, at this point in time, there is ONE employer for a football player, the NFL. These are franchises with one large company.

MLB? Same way, unless you want to go to Japan, but they pay significantly less.

NBA? Ok, you get the picture.

There are limits to how the free market can be implemented, effectively laws of nature.

I understand...but...Unions use coercion to do business and thus I oppose them. I oppose on principle any coercion used against others to achieve goals.

Also, many points of interest (museums, zoos, theaters) are key pieces of the economy, and attract further investment in restaurants, hotels, and related businesses. The issue in stimulus bill shouldn't be about the art or type of art, it should be about the INFRASTRUCTURE supporting the arts.

Rehabilitating theaters, museums, or zoos could turn around a dead or dying area. It has happened so many times before. And it provides opportunities for artists, no matter their artistic bend.

Government should not dictate or support particular pieces or styles of art, no more than they should dictate or support religion or types of speech. But the infrastructure that could support not only the arts but the surrounding economy makes perfect sense to support.

(02-16-2009 10:18 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  Also, many points of interest (museums, zoos, theaters) are key pieces of the economy, and attract further investment in restaurants, hotels, and related businesses. The issue in stimulus bill shouldn't be about the art or type of art, it should be about the INFRASTRUCTURE supporting the arts.

Rehabilitating theaters, museums, or zoos could turn around a dead or dying area. It has happened so many times before. And it provides opportunities for artists, no matter their artistic bend.

Government should not dictate or support particular pieces or styles of art, no more than they should dictate or support religion or types of speech. But the infrastructure that could support not only the arts but the surrounding economy makes perfect sense to support.

Picking fun here... so you'd support public funds for religious infrastructure??

I agree that supporting arts in dead or dying places CAN be a good thing, but it isn't always. More often than not, it is simply good money after bad. By the same token, I suspect that a decent portion of the stimulus checks sent to everyone went to pay for tickets, records, PPV, dinner and the like.

My problem with Government stimulus for arts infrastructure is that it invariably puts public money in parts of town where private money has left. Private money left because the people there don't or can't support the arts. You may give jobs to people to construct the new theater, but they may not live there... and won't buy tickets... and the people across town where private money built a theater aren't going to traipse back across town. Think about building a new building. The laborers come in from the suburbs and the engineers come from out of town. The chances that those jobs are created locally are slim... though the coffee shop across the street may see a pick up in business, the Roach Coach from across town will drive in and cut into it. Things like professional stadiums or the only theater in town CAN revitalize an area once they're built because they're the only game in town... but many other things only sound good on paper.

Generally speaking, if you can't get private money to go along with you, you probably shouldn't do it.

But I'm wondering... While we've certainly seen dozens of TV and movie stars "lend their talents" to Broadway, I'd rather see them start a fund with their own money... or AT LEAST with the money they get paid to BE on Broadway.

Rather than having the government come up with ideas, I'd prefer to have some sort of private matching fund for projects like these. If the local economy can come up with $5mm, the government will give them another $5mm, or $10mm, or even $20mm. If they can't come up with some portion of the funds, then it probably isn't a good idea. Not talking about roads etc... but things built for the purpose of generating commerce of one kind or another.

(02-16-2009 10:18 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  Also, many points of interest (museums, zoos, theaters) are key pieces of the economy, and attract further investment in restaurants, hotels, and related businesses. The issue in stimulus bill shouldn't be about the art or type of art, it should be about the INFRASTRUCTURE supporting the arts.

Rehabilitating theaters, museums, or zoos could turn around a dead or dying area. It has happened so many times before.

Where?

Those things you talk about are like retail...they follow the money. When people have discretionary money, they spend on theatres, museums and zoos. When they don't have money, they don't spend.

Fixing the economy doesn't start w/ fixing the top layer, the fluff. It starts w/ fixing the fundamentals.

And for the US, that means innovating to provide goods and services better/faster/cheaper than the competition. It has ALWAYS been that way.

In the 1850's, the US produced a small fraction of the world's goods...China and India accounted for about 50%. (See that figure in history books very often!?) Then the industrial revolution took hold...innovation drove out the competition. The US was the big beneficiary, dominating production, and growing the largest economy.

Now the rest of the world is catching up in production capability, and thus those economies are converging again.

Furthermore, this is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It is inherent in the universe. It cannot be thwarted by isolationism, protectionism, or deficit spending. It doesn't matter if the dumb idea comes from the political left or right...it won't work. (Just so happens more dumb ideas come from the left, but whatever)

If anything is to help the economy, it must aid in the production of desired goods and services. Roads and bridges do help, they're not the full cure, but they are a rational starting place. High speed internet could help as well, although I believe there should be a sound, straightforward plan to recoup the costs of this when turning it over to the private sector...otherwise it hurts the overall economy.

What really needs to be done is reduce unnecessary regulation and oversight by the gov't, and streamline any necessary regulation+oversight, followed quicky by tax reductions...so that industry can innovate and improve where industry needs to improve...not where the Government thinks it needs to improve.

On the flip side, zoos and theatres won't do squat. And I can provide ample evidence of that.

This is the dumbest thread on page 1 of this board, and that's saying something given that 80% of them are ridiculous.