1. The KillerFrogs

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

Discussion in 'Scott & Wes Frog Fan Forum' started by BABYFACE, Feb 18, 2019.

  1. Eh, in theory sure, but that could be overly idealistic, and not a very practical response to anticompetitive practices. Not everyone has the luxury is waiting for markets to equilibrate, nor the resources to shift their specialization. Their inability to do both and resulting behavior could (one could argue does) slow, or even prevent, that sort of change from occurring.

    And again, to use the industry that started the conversation. given that the industry is granted statuatory protection from their anticompetitive practices, it's not exactly a fair (there's that word again) fight to start with.
  2. I think you are seeing whether the market can bear competition with the AAF and the upcoming XFL which has said they won’t place the same age-restrictions on players like the NFL. But if you want me to defend the concept of the NCAA serving as the virtual farm system for the NFL, you won’t get that from me. IMO if the colleges were to do what they could and should do to protect the integrity of “higher education” (outside the constructs of the NCAA), they’d refuse to play ball with this system. MLB has their farm system and NBA has alternatives as well.
    Double V and Todd D. like this.
  3. I'm not sure you meant to quote my post, as what I quoted attempted to dispel the "idealist" view of wages as being simply supply and demand and recognizing the practical factors and complexities that go in to the labor market. I'm not sure where it came across as acting superior.
    I don't disagree, and the "justness" of this fact probably comes down to your ideology.

    However, my point wasn't to dispute this, it was in response to your example of a micro transaction, and how other factors impact wages on the macro level. You need $X to feed yourself, your decision / ability to accept, say, a $7.50 / hr wage will be impacted by whether or not that's enough to make $X to feed yourself for the week, and if you receive food assistance that impacts that fact and might make you more likely to accept that wage...even though what's really happening is a taxpayer is effectively subsidizing that employer in terms of your overall compensation. That needs to be factored in and recognized was all I was saying.
  4. I dont disagree with this at all, and I suspect most don't. The disagreement likely comes with how to solve the "problem." Admittedly, I'm not entirely sure what kinds of protections/exemptions the NFL specifically has from anti-trust laws, but I suspect that would be a good start. Short of maybe not being forced to break up into multiple leagues, they really shouldn't receive any protections, imo.

    The problem with "fair" is how to answer the question of who gets to judge the "fairness" of any deal, be it wages for work or otherwise? Who's responsible for enforcing said fairness? When the "market" gets to decide, within some boundaries like aforementioned anti-trust laws, is that less "fair" than some elected body? What if the elections of those bodies weren't "fair" to begin with?
    Purp, BABYFACE and Todd D. like this.
  5. I deleted my post that had personal info. I shouldn’t have to do that make a point in response to Todd D. I think most understand hardship no matter which side of the debate we are on.
    Todd D. likes this.
  6. How many different ways are there to become a doctor? Or a lawyer? Seems that football isn't the only industry that forces you to go through college before being able to make an income.

    Whether it's totally fair or not seems irrelevant. Very little is totally fair. Even a large number of the paid professional athletes [ hundin] and moan about their working conditions while cashing their 1.2 million dollar game check.

    I'm all for the kids getting more money. I'm all for the professionals getting more money. I'm all for ME making more money. So if they figure out a way to pay the athletes then I'll be happy for them. But there will be lots of people who still won't be happy. They'll want the kids to get even MORE money, practice LESS, and have more ability to go wherever they want. And then once all those things are given then they will want more, more, and more. That's what I know about a free market. Whatever you give to people they will never be totally happy and will always want more. That doesn't make them wrong necessarily, but there's no satisfying people with just a little money and there's seemingly no satisfying people with a whole lot of money either.
    Purp, Double V and BABYFACE like this.
  7. I've grown weary (not wary or leery) of the use of "fair" in economics debates. For one, it's totally subjective and undergirded by emotion so what seems fair to you may seem unfair to me. So from the very start we've introduced a variable into the debate on which we can never agree.

    Next, the desire to make things fair in economics if the market makes a decision on fairness with which you disagree implies two things that are dangerous. 1) The government must decide what is fair and correct the unfairness. 2) In order to make things "more fair" someone (often multiple people) end up getting dispossessed of what they acquired fairly, which seems inherently unfair to me.

    The same people who argue for economic fairness argue against eminent domain (and they're right to do so), but at least when land is seized by ED the owner receives something in return. When economic "fairness" is pursued the one losing property gets nothing in return. Government at all levels is supposed to protect us and our private property from our negligent and criminal neighbors; it shouldn't become a negligent and/or criminal overlord.

    Why is it any of our business (yours, mine, or the government's) to decide what is and isn't fair in a transaction between people other than us? And if it somehow is our business (it never should be unless a crime is committed) how can we possibly decide which benevolent arbiter of fairness to appoint for resolving such issues? Since fairness is so subjective we're always going to end up with people who feel unfairly treated by this arbiter. Why is it okay for some to be treated unfairly and not others?

    Also, why is laizzes faire used by so many as a pejorative? Because it's unfair? Maybe we should try it before dismissing it. We've never really gotten close to it bc the largest corporations can collude with government to create barriers to entry and that activity is unfair both for the would-be entrepreneurs and the consumers who would benefit from transactions with them. Does that (un)fairness not matter?

    That's correct. As mentioned above it also works better by restricting government from having any influence at all in picking/influencing winners and losers in economic transactions. If someone is willing to do a job for $5 an hour and the government won't let him that's potentially unfair to both parties. The one willing to pay $5 an hour may not be willing to pay $10 so the one guy loses the benefit of someone else's voluntary labor and the other loses the opportunity to earn a wage. And if fairness is our chief concern the guy losing the opportunity to work is likely the biggest loser here bc he's now lost his chief competitive advantage, which is his price in the labor market. If he's got to compete on quality at $10/hr he may never get work. If he could compete at that price he'd most likely have not accepted it in the first place. So now we've created a dependent on government by virtue of government pursuing "fairness," yet it doesn't seem very fair to me.
  8. The real minimum wage is always zero, no matter what the law dictates. The obligation should always be on minimum wage advocates to explain how wages can be artificially raised without simultaneously reducing the amount of labor that will be hired. The magic number right now seems to be $15/hour. Why? Why should we limit it to that? Why not 30, or 50?

    Bringing this back to college athletes, I absolutely support the right of college students to own their likeness and to earn money from things like jersey sales. Colleges and the NCAA seem to believe that student athletes have no brand value prior to their college careers, but many players have immense popularity and value in their likeness prior to setting foot on campus. I think that would be a good compromise for the time being, in lieu of paying players.
  9. I actually enjoy this debut as I can see both sides of the argument. Would you consider it illegal for a booster to promise a 5 star QB that they would "buy" 100k jerseys once a year as long as he was at the school? There isn't a perfect way to pay student athletes because of Title IX and how there will always be people who bend the rules.
    cheese83, BABYFACE and maximilian like this.
  10. People in these discussions resort to fixed-pie fallacies more often than not. An economic transaction occurs and someone benefits, but it must have come at the expense of someone else.

    My favorite comment about that was something to the effect of: "Now I know [insert big corporation] pays wages that may be considered 'exploitative' by the unpaid bloggers making millions for Arianna Huffington, but let's look further."
    Purp likes this.
  11. The reality is that people romanticize college football. Namely, all of us as fans. We love CFB, as much as we complain about everything about it. Paying players would massively change what CFB would look like, and many don't want to see that happen.

    I'm not offering an opinion one way or another, but that's just part of what I see when the paying players debate pops up.
    MTfrog5 likes this.
  12. No matter what level it's set at, having the same minimum wage in San Francisco and Mississippi is about the dumbest thing ever. Maybe I'm not following the debate close enough and don't know all the details, I'm certainly no economist, but I'm guessing 80% of the Mississippi population would get a raise and 80% of the Mississippi small business owners would be at serious risk of having to shut down.
  13. Because there is significant, though not undisputed, evidence that moderate increases to the min wage increase the standard of living of those earners without a corresponding increase in unemployment, while increases above that level do. See Card and Krueger for some pretty famous research on that issue.
  14. And you're hitting on a big component of the critique of minimum wage: the one size fits all mentality is dumb at best, dangerous and disingenuous at worst.
  15. Wow, Card and Krueger. Never heard of that.
  16. Then go after the anti-competitive factors. Don't create a minimum wage to correct the problem because it only creates a new problem without solving anything. Two wrongs don't make a right. More deadweight loss for everyone! All in the name of fairness!
  17. I use my Kruegar card all the time to save when I grocery shop and earn fuel points.
    Double V, Volare, CountryFrog and 2 others like this.
  18. That was before an Elvis reference, but after a Marilyn reference.
    Todd D. likes this.
  19. But what if the government isn't the one providing that subsidy and instead is family and/or the church? Most minimum wage jobs are not filled by primary breadwinners. So eliminating the opportunity to work for $5 or $7.50 you've actually increased the burden on the family and/or church (or any other provider of subsidy which may also include the taxpayer. Why does the employer have to be the one receiving the subsidy from taxpayers? It really isn't.
  20. IMO, there needs to be a recognition of all factors in order to determine the justness of a behavior or transaction, and surely all of us agree that a government's job is to enforce justice (even if we disagree on what that definition is). It appears you're basically viewing "consent" between two people as the be-all-end-all, without recognizing some relative power structures that go in to offering that ostensible consent.

    For example, surely we recognize that survival and desperation are some pretty key factors. Taken to another extreme, imagine a situation where a woman is starving, someone comes up to her and offers a Big Mac if she'll sleep with him (but only if she agrees to waive any and all paternity claims that may arise from this liaison), and she accepts. Because, you know, starving. There's been offer-acceptance and "consent", but due to the the desperation that woman is facing few would argue such a transaction is "just", you could even argue that she didn't even really "consent" as a result of that desperation. I think few outside of the hardcore libertarians would argue such a transaction would be permissible in society. We therefore have laws that prevent said transactions from taking place, regardless of the "consent" that either party might offer. For a less offensive example, imagine something like blackmail which could be considered a "consenting" transaction but we still don't permit that or recognize said offers as valid due to that (as well as the negative social impact those transactions have). Safety regulations ("you agreed to work in that mine that you knew could collapse"), we can go on and on with plenty of examples where

    You're right, there's a subjectivity to all of this. Governments are comprised of people, and prone to corruption. Populism can cause inefficient decisions. That shouldn't be disputed. All of that needs to be factored in when discussing whether something is "just" or "fair". I just don't think you can view it is as some black and white objective claim that boils down solely to consent, when the factors that determine consent can vary wildly.

    That would probably depend on whether the increase to necessarily decreases the opportunity to work. If we increase the Min Wage to $100 / hr, we would agree it almost assuredly would. Whether more modest increases to the min hourly wage substantially reduce that opportunity is less certain. Very complex topic.
    Purp likes this.

Share This Page