>>I think maybe the word 'earn' should be defined in this context. I read somewhere that the average CEO's salary was 250 times that of the average worker. Do you believe that the average CEO really 'earns' 250 times the salary of the average worker?
>>
>>Amazing trick.....Mike has learned to throw his voice. :)
>
>You mean his fingers, don't you?

Oho! That was a good one.

>>The first answer is, of course, the average CEO earned it, or else he wouldn't have the 10 million to begin with. :)
>>
>>That CEO may have more than 250 employees to think about. Yes, there are a few bad CEOs who don't seem to care much about the average Joe. But there are many CEOs who devote their life to their company - who feel the pressure in ways the average worker can't possibly fathom. They deserve their earnings.
>
>For the most part, CEO's salaries have not, in the past say 10 years plus or minus been tied to performance in any way comparable to the way the average worker's salary has (or even at all in many cases). Win, lose or draw, CEOs have been getting huge bonuses regardless of performance while the average worker, if he/she get's any sort of bonus at all, gets whatever based on calculations tied to company and even department performance very tightly. Millions of dollars of bonus above salary and usually nice raises to CEOs versus peanuts in bonus if any at all and Mickey Mouse raises, if any at all to the average worker.
>
>There really isn't much in the way of 'earning' what they get. It's written into the contract, and they get it regardless whether they produce, or run the company into the ground.
>

There are indeed many examples of that happening. My point was that the ratio of CEO compensation to that of their employees has jumped dramatically in recent years. That is statistical and anyone can look it up. The divide between rich and poor has likewise skyrocketed. As Paul Krugman put it in a memorable recent column, we have become more of a banana republic than the actual banana republics. In the past 20 years the rich have become much, much richer and the rest of us have stagnated or lost ground. That is also statistical.

>>
>>(Having said all this, I'm appalled at businessmen who try to curry favor with the government to slant competition.)
>>

>>Counter-question. The average CEO salary in 2009 (salary + other earnings) was 9.5 million. Doc Halladay earned 15.5 million in 2010. Is Halladay earning 300 times the salary average worker? <s>
>
>Let's face it, sports salaries are truly obscene, and I've never seen the stats one way or the other, which leaves me wondering. Does Doc really bring in the sort of value that 15 million deserves? You know I love the Doc, but Philly is sold out whether Doc is on the mound or not, so he's not really bringing in any more fans there. Does he generate enough interest on the road to generate $15 million worth of difference? I don't know. And then, does getting to the playoffs generate the kind of dollars that makes it worth paying out the sorts of salaries accumulated by Doc, Oswalt, Hamels and now Lee? I honestly don't know the answer to that question, but my gut reaction is, no. But I could well be wrong. I'd love to see some stats. Having said that, I am, of course, really looking forward to next season.

Yeah, me too. Even in the off season baseball is a much more pleasant thought than the troubles and discord of our time.

I get what you're saying about whether Roy Halladay (I will not call him Doc) is on the mound or not doesn't change already sold out attendance figures. Not quite sure that's the whole story, though. The exact same thing was said of the Red Sox when they were playing in their 34,000 seat bandbox. Every game was sold out. But what allowed them to raise overall revenue significantly, including ticket prices? Winning championships. That is the model the Phillies are following.

Halladay, Oswalt, Lee, Hamels, in whatever order they wind up in -- that's a heck of a starting rotation. As is that of the Giants, who are in their early to mid 20s instead of their 30s and are home grown instead of bought ;-) Maybe they should face down in the playoffs, hahahaha.

Yeah, I know, 2010 may have been their magic season. The Giants still don't have enough bats and you can't count on the pitchers remaining healthy and productive. But it really was enjoyable watching them beat the rich east coast teams.