mlhouse

1. The problem with the living wage argument is that there is a vast group of people in this country (and world) that cannot produce enough to justify a living wage. That is a sad situation, but it isn't the employer's job to pay for this problem. It is societies and the employer more than pays their fair share of taxes in contributing to solving the problem. But to try to force a "living" wage cost society because resources are now misallocated and the welfate of everyone will suffer much more. Leave the efficiencies of business in place and address the social aspects with the proper mechanisms for that. EVERYONE is much better off. 2. THat they are skilled baseball players is a given, but the fact is that the vast majority of the minor league players will never make the major leagues. They play minor league ball that draws minor league crowds paying minor league ticket prices. THat is their value. ANd while you can argue that means sometimes you get to watch a Byron Buxton or Miguel Sano for a cheap cost, you also have to watch players that are much below that average. So, the prices of minor league baseball reflect this and this dictates a significant piece of the salary minor league players receive. 3. No, most of the labor issues do not derive from the anti-trust exemption that sports receive (and which I oppose). But rather, they derive from the extension of labor rules when the market is covered by a collective bargaining agreement. Almost all of the salary cap, draft, and contract rules would be patently illegal in a "free market". But almost every issue has been upheld by the court systems, including the draft, rookie pay scales, and the other salary control/competitive balance issues. IF the unions were to decertify like they threatened recently then the entire landscape would change. I don't even think the draft would be able to stand scrutiny (which would mean that the competitive balance of almost every professional sport would be significantly altered).

But what is the "inequality"? A minor league baseball player enters into a contract willingly. They value their time/effort and look at the alternatives and decide to sign the contract. Their employer, which is a mixture of the major and minor league teams, analyses their value as an employee and the alternatives, and offers the salary. Since both sides are making an agreement and neither side is coerced no inequality exist and your subjective opinion is worth exactly nothing. Zip....Nadda. THe salary is the "price" of labor. IT is governed, not perfectly, but still goverened by the laws of supply and demand. And again, your subjective opinion with respect to "justice" are meaningless in this equation. IF minor league baseball did not "pay" enough then there would be a shortage of minor league baseball players. If such a shortage existed, then those employers would have to raise wages until they covered the shortage. No such shortage of labor exists in the minor league baseball market. In fact, as I have argued, there probably is an over abundance of employees wanting these positions so that every year team need to release players and end their dreams. Too bad, but that is how it works.

There is no such thing as a "living wage". There is only a wage. You produce a value and your employer pays you for that value. How you "live" after you leave your place of employment is not part of the labor equation, and rightly so for both sides. WHat do I mean by that? If your employer was in charge of your "living wage" then they will necessarily need to be in charge of everything in your life. NO one wants that because that is in essence slavery. If you are so unskilled that you cannot produce a "living" wage, then thatt is society's problem as awhole and we spend hundreds of billions of dollars on anti-poverty programs (not that it does much good because the one driver of poverty is the idiotic decisions most of them make on themselves that cannot be stopped). You are wrong about the "trust" structure of baseball too. The modern structure is based on union labor economics. The new employees of such systems live by the rules and wage scale drawn up by the existing union. And just like Henry Ford, if the wages being paid were not high enough then you would have a shortage of employees on the floor of your plant. Baseball does not have such a problem. THey have more than enough young men willing to give it a shot for the chance of making the big payday in the major leagues. THat means that the compensation is more than adequate.

The Ford claims are just ridiculous. I know that the left wingers like to trot this (and Costco) out as an example of how companies are "better" if they just pay their employees more, but Ford was just working within the market. Working in the original ford plants was tedious work. The turnover was very high. To complete Ford had to pay a premium to his employees.

When you own General Motors then you can make the decision to pay the janitors as much as the CEO. The funny thing about these type of claims by people is that from my experience the business owners that are the most liberaral are the cheapest people and screw the lower end employees the most. WHen you work for an employer only two things are important. 1. What you produce and 2. what your total compensation is. On occasion there is a sob story that will make me feel bad and I will give an employee a raise but that is favortism that is unfair to the rest of my employees. IF there are some people that work but cannot afford to live properly that is societies problem, not the employer's, and we have programs galore that spend hundreds of billions of dollars in food stamps, Medicaid, job training, section 8 housing, and other entitlements that give them help.

You are changing your argument know. Your argument was that the draft and other issues with respect to the labor agreement with the baseball union was wrong, and that players taht were not part of the union when it such agreements were made should not be subject to that agreement. Wood v NBA and many other court cases disproves your assertion. Next, the minimum wage law is pretty much dead. There are lots of ways that a minor (notice the employer is a minor not major) league team will almost certainly be able to demonstrate that the players are not under their control for more than 40 hours per week for one and second, that the pay is based more on a "game" than hours worked. All kinds of compensation is based on this such as on-call work. In that case, overtime and minimum wages do not matter as long as the parties agreed to the compensation (check), that the compensation has some rational basis (check), and that the wages are competitive (check).

Nope. If the wages paid to illegal immigrants were higher, MORE illegal immigrants would cross the border. If wages paid were lower, FEWER illegal immigrants would cross the border. That isn't just a philosophy, it is the law. Next, it doesn't matter what wage rate I THINK is "reasonable". It only matters what the person ACCEPTING the wage believes is "reasonable". I wouldn't poop for $2/hour but to some people given what their alternatives are, $2/hour might be an economic windfall. It is a subjective measure of the value of your labor, time, and alternatives. Next, if there were peope that willingly and knowlingly wanted to work for $0.20/hour who are you to decide if that is right or not? Clearly, if they are doing it willingly and knowingly then the $0.20/hour might be significantly more than what they can earn otherwise and starvation might be their other real alternative.

Nope.........perfect knowledge is not required. Value in economics is a subjective opinion, not objective. So, the Twins thought BJ Garbe was worthy of the 6th overall pick in the draft and a 7 figure signing bonus. They also thought that Justin Morneau was worthy of a 3rd round pick. Not perfect knowledge, but that is how the valuation of the players are given their expectations.

I disagree with this racial way of looking at it. Should the NBA be looking at increasing the number of white players in the league? Even if that was a worthwhile goal, minor league salaries are unimportant. What percent of the population knows what the minor league salary scales are? The choices of what sport to play are made long before such a concept would enter into an individual's thinking. High level players that play multiple sports are competitively bid on. I used the Kohl Stewart example. The guaranteed 7 figure signing bonus for a high school player is something other sports cannot even come close to and you would need to be one hell of a football/basketball/hockey (maybe) to turn that offer down. Baseball also has several other financial advantages other sports cannot compte against. Football has significant injury risk and their contracts are not guaranteed. Football also does not have a minor league or foreign league system were players just below the "major league" level can earn significnat incomes by playing minor league football. Another aspect of the football and basketball player economics is that to make the professional levels you have to go to college for what essentially is your minor league seasons. Baseball is allowed to draft players directly from the high schools. So there are competitive advantages to baseball just as there are some to other sports.

Yes. If they were not paid just fine there would not be illegal immigrants.

He sued the NBA because he claimed the CBA prevented him from negotiating with other teams and it's scale lowered his earnings, and that he was NOT a member of the union that made the agreement. / edited by ashburyjohn to remove disrespectful and antagonistic phrasing

1. With multi-sport athletes there is considerable competition between the sports. If major league baseball thought they were good they would offer them a bigger bonus. The minor league salary plays little part in this determination. It is essentially trivial when you are player that is in this competitive situation. 2. You simply cannot ignore the bonuses as part of the baseball compensation scheme and pretend that the minor league stipend (which is what it really is) is the competitve price. The Twins 6th round draft pick last year catcher Brian Navarretto got a $262,500 signing bonus. Prorate that over the next 5 or 6 years and he is making more than an adequate income.

It doesnt matter what I think, nor what you think. I might even think such a situation is unfair. The problem is that is the law. For example see Wood v. NBA. Unionized labor has enormous power to distort the free market place.

So they are paid just fine.

Those aspects are independent of the salary of a minor league player and are determined by the collective labor agreement of professional baseball. And while this may limit the "free market" for professional baseball services, these services still must compete in the complete market for labor services. So, some players taht are drafted may choose an alternative career rather than take the low pay and limited chances of a professional baseball career. Most of these guys know that they have zero chance of making it to the big leagues so they go do something esle in their lives.

1. I have already addressed this. Most of the brand value of college sports is owned by the university/college. People pay to watch University of Minnesota football. Tens of thousands of people turn out to watch them play, even though they are at best a mediocre team. NOW, take the entire team (which probably includes a NFL first round draft pick) and make them a minor league, semi-pro team. That team would get 1/20th of the revenues of the U of M team. 2. College athletes at division I schools are already compensated in the terms of full ride athletic scholarships. 3. That there are restrictions of outside work and earnings is a function of the cheating that has gone on and continues to go on in college athletics. 4. Lastly, you claim that better minor league pay would mean better major league players is hilarious. THe problem baseball has in relation to the "wages" of other sports is related to the signing bonuses paid to top draft picks, not the relatively trivial minor league salaries. Kohl Stewart chose to play minor league baseball rather than try to replace Johnny Football at A&M for 4 million reasons, not that he could make a killing in the lucrative field of playing minor league baseball.

Seriously? People are not commodites but their labor IS a commodity. And, in the market for baseball talent minor league players are worth much, much less than major league players. To even make this claim is pure ridiculousness. If you don't think so, compare the prices for a Miracle game at Hammond field and a professional baseball game, and compare the total revenue. If you tried to charge $53 for a seat for a Miracle game the total attendence would be.....zero. Valuation in economics is a completely subjective individual choice. PRICES are the marginal prices were the demand and supply curve crosses. Again, if you pay wages that are too low you will not be able to get enough labor. If you want to argue that there is a shotage of people interested in playing professional baseball then at least that is an coherent argument. It is just counter-factual. But there isn't. ANd there isn't a shortage of people wanting to play NCAA Division I football, basketball, or any of these other "exploited" people.

1. THe draft, trading, and wage scales are part of a collective bargaining agreement with the union. That point has already been made. In a way that is a market decision but it is fixed at the time of the negotiations. In other words, both sides come to the negotiation and bargain. They get some value here, give up some value there. 2. All the lamenting is just ridiculous. These individuals make decisions: I was drafted in the 38th round of the MLB draft from Indiana St. University. SHould I play professional baseball? Yes or no. It would be interesting to get some actual data, but my guess is that minor league compensation does not even enter into the equation in that decision and the decision is made mostly by how the prospect feels about their ability to make it to the major leagues and their other employment options. 3. I am going to repeat the underlying FACT that seems to escape most of you: If major league baseball or NCAA football or any other sport did not pay their "employees" enough there would be a labor shortage for them. Teams would struggle to fill their rosters and the quality of the product offered to PAYING fans would suffer. Then the teams would have to make decisions on how to reach their financial goals: raise wages to improve product, lower prices to increase demand, etc. 4. Here is another fact of economics. When you are paid for a job, you are paid EXACTLY what you are worth. IF another employer offered you more you would leave for that job. So, if you are making $1244/month working for the public school system that is what you are worth. Your employer's responsibility to you ends after compensating you for your productive work.

1. You are forgetting the per diem, which if the minor league teams had to they woudl simply convert into "wages". This eliminates the "minimum" wage problem. I also doubt that the minor league players are under their "employers" control 40 hours per week but even at that level their compensation should have no problem meeting minimum wage level. 2. What you are forgetting about the $1 million chump change is that the Twins had to pay it to buy Blackburn out.......in other words, spending another $1 million does not save you the Blackburn buyout. 3. Players that earn the right to be bought out for $1 million to not play demonstrate that they are at least marginal MLB players. That is the ultimate reward for any and every minor league player, and that needs to be factored in. 4. MLB is not a good corporate citizen. They are a profit maximizing activity that worries first and foremost about their bottom lines. All the "good citizen" talk is just rhetoric. 5. Again, since you are replying to my post, you are missing the point. MLB does not have to DOUBLE each and every minor leaguers current salary. LET ME REPEAT: THEY DO NOT HAVE TO DO ANYTHING WITH MINOR LEAGUE SALARIES. If the salaries were too low then they would not have enough qualified "employees" to fill their roster spots for the minor league teams. The reality is, and this is demonstrated every year, they have TOO MANY employees and they have to release players.

But you are their second mother by choice. If you were in it for the money you would not be a host mom. That is my whole point about the minor league players. They make the choice of playing baseball as a professional. In many ways they are really, really lucky and should never complain.

And that is true although the problem with these "assets" is that the median expected value is essentially a negative value because so few players actually become assets to their major league team. "Investing" in a minor league nutrition program means not just spending the money on Byron Buxton but the 50 other prospects taht will never reach the major leagues. Further, the major league teams "invests" significant money in the signing bonuses paid to the minor league players before they even play a game. This is how the economics of baseball works. The palyers taht are valuable assets, like Buxton and Sano, are given millions of dollars. The later round draft picks or the unknown players in the foreign leagues don't get anything. This is how markets work.

If college athletes and minor league players were "UNDERPAID" then no one would become a college athlete or minor league player. This proves you are wrong. You can argue all you want about who is paid what and what is paid to who, that millions of dollars are made and spent lavishly by universities. I agree that this unethical behavior by the leadership of these colleges and universities is disgusting. But it still does not change the facts. Again, the vast bulk of the college brand value is owned by the university itself. Put the M on your helmet and your value as entertainment is multiplied significantly. These guys are paid significant amounts of money by receiving athletic scholarships. While I oppose the straight out paying of college athletes (how do you negotiate a contract?), I believe that the NCAA can make a half way step by allowing a certain number of athletic scholarships to include stipends and have these stipends have differing values. For example, 5 of the football teams scholarships could have $1,000/month stipends. Another 10 could have $750/month. ANd maybe anohter 15 $500/month. Then if you are a college athlete being recruited by Florida St, Alabama, Texas A&M, Ohio St. and your local University of Minnesota, you might want to go to the U of M because those other big schools already used their $1,000 scholarship on some other recruit. Of course, the NCAA does not want this because that would erase the super team conferences that generate all of their television revenues. It is a totally unethical system all the way. My son plays Division III college football and is an academic all conference player. He plays for free. Every player that plays athletics for a college/university should play for free too.

Seriously? Based on NCAA data the average NCAA Division I baseball team loses $665,000 a year. The median revenues are $337,000 which means that Division I colleges spend over a million per year so some "students" get the chance to play baseball and perhaps have a professional baseball career......Robbing these guys blind??? Seriously? And, as I stated, even the revenue sports are not. While there are a handful of NCAA players in basketball and football that might be worth more than their scholarships, the vast majority are not. I will again repeat my example of brand value. Remember the Minnesota Gopher basketball team that made it to the Final Four (1997). Bobby Jackson, Sam Jacobson, Quincy Lewis, etc? Put all of those players on a minor league basketball team and who pays to watch them? The answer is obviously many times fewer people that pay a much higher ticket price to watch a college basketball team that has the same, or even lesser, players. The vast majority of the brand value that creates college sports revenues is "owned" by the universities and colleges and most of the scholarship players are being paid more than they are worth with their athletic scholarships, which in most cases are valued at over $25,000/year. (The fact that these academic scholarships are probably not worth that much to the actual player is exactly why college athletics are ethically challenged).

I did not mention the contract at all. I only mentioned the draft provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. As far as minimum wage laws, I doubt that there are any violations. Adding in their per diem and even assuming that they are under their employers control 40 hours a week, they are essentially paid minimum wage. That is 40*4.25*7.25 is $1,232/month which is about hte minimum minor league salry. Again, if these players do not want to essentially earn minimum wage they can opt out of a baseball career. About half of the drafted players already do just that.

Then don't sign a contract and play minor league baseball. Go do something else with your life. The odds are that in a few years you will fail in your baseball career and have to anyways. No one is forcing the players to play baseball. This is a free society and whatever is unfair about the draft system of baseball is part of a collective bargaining agreement negotiated by a union. Minor league teams are not a huge revenue generators. The Ft Myers Miracle get a reasonable crowd to start the season, but as the season (and summer) drones on the crowds dwindle. It is a fun and cheap game to go to, but most people can care less. As far as college baseball players and the NCAA, the scholarships they receive are way more valuable than the financial considerations that colleges and universities get from a non-revenue program like baseball. Further, I would argue that most of the "brand value" of college athletics is owned by the college. Lets put it this way. Consider the University of Minnesota football, basketball, hockey or baseball teams. People pay big dollars to go to these events. Now, take those very same players, remove the University of Minnesota logo, and put them on a semi-pro or minor league sports team. Such teams would draw a pittance for attendance with even nominal ticket fees. Very few people would have interest.