NCAA going to review new transfer rules put into to place this past season

[satis1103]

Thread is officially derailed. But to play along, we all want earn more money. Put yourself in the position of hiring someone. Say as simple as mowing your lawn. You have in mind what you are willing to pay and how much you think the job is worth. The lawn guy knows what he gets paid for a similar yard. So, in this case you need the lawn guy’s minimum amount for him to accept the job whether it is within your price range or not. Or you have to find someone to do it within your price point. The other scenario is you are unhappy with the quality of lawncare you are getting. You can then make the choice to pay more than the going rate to attract and employ a better lawn guy with better results.

This is how wage compensation works. Companies do not offer higher wages than their competition out of the goodness of their heart. They do it to attract a better candidate. Also, when the jobs available stretches the available candidate pool, wages go up. When jobs are scarce, wages go down.

Nobody expects a bump in pay out of kindness. And what I would like to describe as a "fair" wage is one with which a company can retain good employees without overpaying. It's not that a "fair wage" doesn't exist. But rather, that "business über alles" people don't like using the term.

 

[BABYFACE]

It doesn’t even matter anyways.



The Robots are going to take all our jobs.

Yep. When you force over inflated minimum wage that a few states have chosen to do, companies have set up kiosks and reduced counter employees such as McDonalds. I refuse to use a kiosk or a self check out lane at the grocery store if manned one is available.

So question then - what is the opinion of a minimum wage? It sounds as if this system works better with no wage floor.

Minimum wage jobs are starter jobs. If one decides to be the best fry cook their entire life, their income will be low. It is not meant to be career at that level.

Employees and employers should strive to move up employees within a company or individuals move on with a different better job. Experience and growth raises income.

They are companies that pay more than minimum wage for a minimum wage type job. That typically results with them having higher quality employees and less job openings.

 

[Zubaz]

Thread is officially derailed. But to play along, we all want earn more money. Put yourself in the position of hiring someone. Say as simple as mowing your lawn. You have in mind what you are willing to pay and how much you think the job is worth. The lawn guy knows what he gets paid for a similar yard. So, in this case you need to meet the lawn guy’s minimum amount for him to accept the job whether it is within your price range or not. Or you have to find someone to do it within your price point. The other scenario is you are unhappy with the quality of lawncare you are getting. You can then make the choice to pay more than the going rate to attract and employ a better lawn guy with better results.

This is how wage compensation works. Companies do not offer higher wages than their competition out of the goodness of their heart. They do it to attract a better candidate. Also, when the jobs available stretches the available candidate pool, wages go up. When jobs are scarce, wages go down.

Ah, but then things get more complex. If you are the primary wage earner, you can't accept a wage lower than what you require to keep yourself afloat, that's basic arithmetic. But...if your expenses are subsidized then you might accept a lower-than-usual wage. Some examples could include food stamps, public housing assistance, etc. In effect, a third party (the taxpayer) subsidizes artificially LOWER wages due to those safety-net benefits because your personal minimum you require is now lower. From an ultra-simplistic view, supply is meeting demand with low-skilled labor at that price, but is that "fair"? Probably not.

So to bring this back to football, we have to recognize factors beyond mere "supply" and "demand" that sets the price of labor for these players (or, phrased differently, the outside factors that influence both the supply and demand). In that case, we would need to recognize the relationship the NFL has with NCAA Football and its use as a de-facto minor / development league. The overwhelming majority of professional football players are groomed and farmed out of the NCAA system, and the earning opportunities of those athletes are limited by the constraints of *ahem ahem* "amateur" athletics . That is accomplished by both the NFLPA setting an age floor on being allowed to play in the league, as well as the NFL having an antitrust exemption on their monopoly with all major networks that stifles competition.

So it's nice to say "if you don't like what the NCAA is offering you then you can go do something else", but when the labor market for under-21 football has become warped by those anti-competitive factors it doesn't really hold as much weight.

 

[Froggish]

I think one important question is how much is a college degree worth?

What's the current cost of a TCU degree? $250,000?

How much more will an athlete earn over their lifetime with a TCU degree than with no degree?

I've known several TCU athletes who've done quite well in their careers after leaving athletics.

If I had been talented enough, I would've happily played for TCU in exchange for a scholarship.

If one’s choice of a school places zero to little value on the educational component....the price/value of that education is irrelevant.

I would wager that a incredibly large number of D1 athletes do not consider a schools degree in their decision...In most cases, I bet they assume them all to be created equal

Edit: I’ll add that they all will claim they do but it’s probably so far down the list that it’s a non factor.

 

[BABYFACE]

Nobody expects a bump in pay out of kindness. And what I would like to describe as a "fair" wage is one with which a company can retain good employees without overpaying. It's not that a "fair wage" doesn't exist. But rather, that "business über alles" people don't like using the term.

It pretty comes down to a company willing to pay more than competition to have higher quality employees. Fair wage is not a metric that is used and a fair wage is subjective.

You need a bathroom remodel done in your home. Let’s say the fair compensation rate for the job is 10k. You find a contractor that will do it for 8k. Do you say no sir, I must pay you 10k because that is fair compensation? You know you don’t. It is unrealistic to expect business to operate any different than us on this.

I think what has hurt wages more so than anything is companies and employees not having any loyalty to each other. When an employee used to work 20, 30, or 40 years for an employer, companies were willing to pay more for employee retention and employees worked more hard to stay with such a company. Manufacturing is another. It drives higher paying non skilled labor upwards.

 

[HFrog1999]

Yep. When you force over inflated minimum wage that a few states have chosen to do, companies have set up kiosks and reduced counter employees such as McDonalds. I refuse to use a kiosk or a self check out lane at the grocery store if manned one is available..

I’m thinking we need to start an anti-Robot movement where we refuse to do business with Bots and only deal with people.

 

[CountryFrog]

Seems many are forgetting the famous economic theory of "mo money, mo problems."

 

[HFrog1999]

If one’s choice of a school places zero to little value on the educational component....the price/value of that education is irrelevant.

I would wager that a incredibly large number of D1 athletes do not consider a schools degree in their decision...In most cases, I bet they assume them all to be created equal

Edit: I’ll add that they all will claim they do but it’s probably so far down the list that it’s a non factor.

Maybe that’s the attitude of the top recruits hoping for a pro career. But I still think the vast majority of student athletes are there for an education.

 

[Paint It Purple]

https://www.fridayfirm.com/en/attorney/tmars/

friend told me once all the good prosecutors end up doing defense work.

not sure if that holds true, but who would know better about applying [ deposit from a bull that looks like Art Briles ] rules to your underpaid workforce?

To lazy to read your link, but “underpaid workforce” got my attention. Anyone believing they are underpaid need only ask for a raise, accept the answer or move on to a different employer willing to pay you your perceived worth. Or, work for yourself and choose your own compensation. Good luck

 

[Pharm Frog]

Maybe that’s the attitude of the top recruits hoping for a pro career. But I still think the vast majority of student athletes are there for an education.

As a former admissions director for a D2 school, I would like to agree with you but can’t. I can only imagine what it’s like at the D1 level. And I don’t have to imagine actually as I was a guest lecturer at a university that plays football in the AAC and won less than half its games last season. There were several football players in the classes I spoke to and I asked them that question...all but one said that their plans were to play football in the NFL (and their engagement and grades in the class would seem to be consistent with those beliefs).

Now if you were referring to all athletes (volleyball, soccer, equestrian, track and field, etc), I could agree.

 

[Double V]

I don't know about that... most people would take a 7 dollar an hour job over unemployment, but it doesn't necessarily make that pay fair.

Why not?

 

[Zubaz]

To lazy to read your link, but “underpaid workforce” got my attention. Anyone believing they are underpaid need only ask for a raise, accept the answer or move on to a different employer willing to pay you your perceived worth. Or, work for yourself and choose your own compensation. Good luck

And if that person works in an industry where wages are artificially depressed by anti-competitive factors?

 

[Pharm Frog]

So it's nice to say "if you don't like what the NCAA is offering you then you can go do something else", but when the labor market for under-21 football has become warped by those anti-competitive factors it doesn't really hold as much weight.

Not going to pretend that there’s a lot of free market principles at work in the system. This is why there are anti-trust protections given. However, if you don’t like what the NCAA is “offering”, what is stopping someone from going and doing something else that they do like? This is where I mention that I summarily and emphatically reject the argument that these players have only one “option”. It may be true that they have a single path to get to the NFL but there’s nothing prohibiting them from pursuing a different destination with a pathway they find more appetizing. In fact, that’s what the vast majority of them will have to do anyway since the ratio is pretty imposing for ncaa athletes/nfl draftees. It will be interesting to see what the XFL may do to this dynamic.

 

[Pharm Frog]

And if that person works in an industry where wages are artificially depressed by anti-competitive factors?

If it’s a concern, find a different industry. It’s not like many industries just suddenly become anti-competitive (although it does happen).

Some of y’all are making some real strong arguments for free markets and limited government.

 

[Double V]

Ah, but then things get more complex. If you are the primary wage earner, you can't accept a wage lower than what you require to keep yourself afloat, that's basic arithmetic. But...if your expenses are subsidized then you might accept a lower-than-usual wage. Some examples could include food stamps, public housing assistance, etc. In effect, a third party (the taxpayer) subsidizes artificially LOWER wages due to those safety-net benefits because your personal minimum you require is now lower. From an ultra-simplistic view, supply is meeting demand with low-skilled labor at that price, but is that "fair"? Probably not.

So to bring this back to football, we have to recognize factors beyond mere "supply" and "demand" that sets the price of labor for these players (or, phrased differently, the outside factors that influence both the supply and demand). In that case, we would need to recognize the relationship the NFL has with NCAA Football and its use as a de-facto minor / development league. The overwhelming majority of professional football players are groomed and farmed out of the NCAA system, and the earning opportunities of those athletes are limited by the constraints of *ahem ahem* "amateur" athletics . That is accomplished by both the NFLPA setting an age floor on being allowed to play in the league, as well as the NFL having an antitrust exemption on their monopoly with all major networks that stifles competition.

So it's nice to say "if you don't like what the NCAA is offering you then you can go do something else", but when the labor market for under-21 football has become warped by those anti-competitive factors it doesn't really hold as much weight.

That's assuming 100% of college football players believe they have a realistic chance at the NFL, and are only playing football in college as a means to an end that is the NFL. I am certain that is not true.

 

[Zubaz]

Not going to pretend that there’s a lot of free market principles at work in the system. This is why there are anti-trust protections given. However, if you don’t like what the NCAA is “offering”, what is stopping someone from going and doing something else that they do like? This is where I mention that I summarily and emphatically reject the argument that these players have only one “option”. It may be true that they have a single path to get to the NFL but there’s nothing prohibiting them from pursuing a different destination with a pathway they find more appetizing.

I remember something Dr. Butler said (in between Elvis references) in Intermediate Macro: Defined broadly enough, nothing is a monopoly. Defined narrowly enough, everything is.

I'm not entirely sure that saying "If you don't like it, choose another industry" is a valid response to one industry warping a labor market and artificially depressing wages.

 

[Double V]

And if that person works in an industry where wages are artificially depressed by anti-competitive factors?

Seek new skills to switch industries.

 

[Pharm Frog]

I remember something Dr. Butler said (in between Elvis references) in Intermediate Macro: Defined broadly enough, nothing is a monopoly. Defined narrowly enough, everything is.

I'm not entirely sure that saying "If you don't like it, choose another industry" is a valid response to one industry warping a labor market and artificially depressing wages.

If labor responds by choosing another industry, it’s a strong likelihood that the offending monopoly changes it’s ways.

 

[Double V]

I remember something Dr. Butler said (in between Elvis references) in Intermediate Macro: Defined broadly enough, nothing is a monopoly. Defined narrowly enough, everything is.

I'm not entirely sure that saying "If you don't like it, choose another industry" is a valid response to one industry warping a labor market and artificially depressing wages.

It is if you define the US labor market appropriately (i.e. not with an artificially narrow scope).

 

[Eight]

Yes it does.

I used to work for $7 an hour and was happy to have the job.

To lazy to read your link, but “underpaid workforce” got my attention. Anyone believing they are underpaid need only ask for a raise, accept the answer or move on to a different employer willing to pay you your perceived worth. Or, work for yourself and choose your own compensation. Good luck

the issues with wal-mart are not solely about wages