On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:00:00 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 2/8/2012 9:36 PM, jk wrote:
George wrote:


The idea is that millions and millions are making less than 10.00 an
hour and Bill O'Reilly is making millions a year at his job.

So?

The difference between what each is paid is huge.

So?


Apparently, O'Reilly is
able to add a lot more value than Walmart employees are. At least that
is what the market is saying.

And it's correct.

That would be true if everything the market said was correct or the
right thing to do. But

No "buts" about it. It is correct: O'Reilly adds more value than any


That's where you loose me.
I don't think he adds value, clearly others do. I think he is a puffed
up windbag, but some times amusing.

But then I don't think entertainers must "add value" to be well paid,
just be amusing. The good ones do add value, and are better paid.
But then I though Rush was a comedian the first sever times I heard
him on the radio. I just wondered WHEN he was EVER going to get to
the punch line.

jk


I think you can see my point, which is that just because the "market"
decided what someone gets paid that doesn't' mean it makes sense is
fair, or is rational. Katie Couric got paid 15 million a year to read
the news for 30 minutes a day. Supposedly that was decided by the
market. I say it was determined by a group of executives. The thing is a
lot of jobs pay way too much for what they provide and a lot pay way too
little for what is done. That's what the market decides but who said the
market actually makes any sense or is the least bit fair? As we all know
in many cases it's neither. It's just that some people are so
ideologically wedded to the idea that nothing is better than the free
market they can't imagine anything could ever be better.

Hawke

And, as usual, you are wrong.

The glamour faces on TV are there for the same reason that sports
events are. to get a higher "viewer count". It is that simple, you
want the big advertising accounts you got to prove that the
advertisers have the most exposure on your station so you hire
beautiful people and pay substantial sums to be able to show the
National League play-offs.

During the 2011 Tour de France some 15,000,000 watched the race from
the course and millions more on TV. The price that advertisers will
pay for that amount of exposure is what governs how much the
competitors are paid.

So actually it is market pressure that is the basis of the high paid
athletes and the glamour pusses.

Cheers

John B.