READ Economics 101

Status
Not open for further replies.

salty justice

Registered User
May 25, 2004
7,194
0
Los Angeles
found this on www.blackhawkzone.com thanks Rick10!


ABC manufactures and sells widgets (made for optimal use in cold weather situations, not the kind used in weapons of mass destruction). For many years, the widgets were a well-manufactured, high-quality product sold in regional markets. During this time, many employees of ABC were not paid well, but they worked very hard and with great pride. (Their labor representative was a dirty rotten ******* who should rot in hell for stealing money from the employees to line his pockets and those of the board of directors. Unfortunately, Beelzebub isn't sure he wants the labor rep in hell, either.)

Word of the quality and workmanship of ABC spread. Aggregate demand for the product grew, and ABC realized that they had a great opportunity to expand business in a healthy manner. (More business= happy customers and a happier company!) They brought in a new CEO, Mr. X--one who knew nothing about widgets, but he seemed to understand something about selling BLT sandwiches (so he's got that going for him, which is nice).

Mr. X started to expand to new consumer markets to sell these widgets. He sold them on a boat, he sold them with a goat. When he realized that beach resorts weren't very interested in buying widgets, he changed the name of the widgets to "thingamajiggers." The old buyers liked the name widget--it rolled of the tongue so much more nicely; besides, the name "widget" had such a wonderful meaning because a kindly two kindly old men, Mr. Widnoomer and Mr. Poudget, donated a lot of time, effort, and money to help ABC get off the ground. (Without them, ABC would likely still be only the first three letters of the Roman alphabet.)

Changing the name didn't work to draw business--thingamajigger was too, too... well, it was too "done before." Mr. X decided to try something new--build new manufacturing plants near the beach resorts. Unfortunately, the raw materials used to build the widget were finite, so he began to institute that 20% of all widgets be made of soap. (An odd choice, but Mr. X was an odd man.) Thus the quality decreased, but the quantity increased. A success right? Not so much--the soap made widgets slippery, so people who bought them were forced to clutch and grab them in their hands in order to not drop them.

At the same, the employees were able to bring in a new labor rep, Mr. Z. This one was known as a battler, one who would make every employee rich. (He was also a successful thumb wrestler, something that may seem irrelevant until you realize that Mr. X had abnormally large thumbs.) He pontificated that the employees should make as much, if not more, than the board of directors. A noble effort, indeed.

After years of battling back and forth, Mr. Z had successfully helped the employees make more than quite a few of the board of directors. They made so much that ABC went into the red (that's losing money for those of you who are color blind.) While revenues rose, employee salaries increased at stratospherically greater rate. The pendulum had swung in the employees' favor. At the same time, consumers' demand for thingamajiggers waned. The soap would melt in warmer temperatures, thus rendering them useless (except in Tampa Bay for one year, when Brad Richards and Martin St. Louis miraculously turned soap into titanium). With less people interested in buying widgets, revenues were in danger of decreasing. Thus prices rose, forcing the original buyers to pay more for a lesser product in order to maintain a short-term image of economic success. Something had to be done. Mr. X, at the behest of the board, did something drastic. The staged a lockout.

Mr. Z was furious. He implied that the board did this because they didn't care, that they only wanted to squash the employees and force them into poverty. After all, who could live on an average of $1.3 MM per? The employees would have to give up one of their mistresses and sell their homes in Cabo San Lucas, leaving them only with 3 other homes! The reality, however, was that the majority of employees were fine with where they were, but a select few would be affected by the changes being implemented. But that wouldn't be true, according to Mr. Z (and his trusted sidekick Forget-Me-Not). All of the employees will suffer immeasurable harm, because money grows on trees--the revenues will always grow at high levels, even though the biggest buyer recently said "Thanks, but no thanks."

Mr. Z's argument was that all employees should be able to make as much money as they wish, regardless of the revenue stream. Mr. X's argument was that revenue growth was slowing and would soon become very nearly stagnant, so salary levels needed to be kept under control. What neither would recognize was three major issues:

1. The rate of economic growth had already begun to suffer;
2. The decreased quality of the product (despite leading to new jobs for underskilled employees) and overexpansion of manufacturing plants around the continent contributed greatly to the waning demand for the product;
3. The end users could find a new product to replace the thingamajigger--it may or may not be as good of a product, but quite a few didn't care that much (especially in the cities in and around the beach resorts).

History will show that the employees' desire for more money is moot, since there isn't enough money to run the business and support their growing salary demands. It will also show that quality is greater than quantity, since higher quality not only sustained a successful business plan, it also led to a controllable and steady growth of business in markets that would buy such a useful product in cold weather. Because of the hubristic nature of Mr. Z and the embodiment of the Peter principle in Mr. X, ABC would be lucky to get back to business levels supported before either man was hired to their respective position.
 

Morbo

The Annihilator
Jan 14, 2003
27,100
5,734
Toronto
Mr. X's argument was that revenue growth was slowing and would soon become very nearly stagnant, so salary levels needed to be kept under control.

Right.

And there really is more than one way to achieve that control, contrary to Bettman.
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
During the lockout, the union said "Cut our salaries by 24% and don't pay us more than you can afford ever again, stupidhead." ABC was back in business, everyone lives happily ever after.
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
PepNCheese said:
Right.

And there really is more than one way to achieve that control, contrary to Bettman.
There is only one way that protects the owners from charges of collusion, as part of the CBA.
 

salty justice

Registered User
May 25, 2004
7,194
0
Los Angeles
gc2005 said:
During the lockout, the union said "Cut our salaries by 24% and don't pay us more than you can afford ever again, stupidhead." ABC was back in business, everyone lives happily ever after.

Actually they said: "Cut our salaries by 24% but give us a 10% raise every year til we are 30 and then double it or we'll sit at home." ABC realized that they would be stuck in the same position they are in now within a few years so they refused.
 

EroCaps

Registered User
Aug 24, 2003
18,083
1,758
Virginia
gc2005 said:
During the lockout, the union said "Cut our salaries by 24% and don't pay us more than you can afford ever again, stupidhead." ABC was back in business, everyone lives happily ever after.

What checks do the Edmontons of the league have on the Rangers to make that a feasible proposal? None. Without a cap, owner X has his hands tied if owner Y can afford twice his budget. There has been almost no parity in the NHL for decades because of this, and it's not only a select group of expansion franchises that has trouble breaking even, it's the majority of teams.

So in effect, either the NHL owners create some inner "tribunal" where they have the power to oust an owner or handful of owners tipping the scales, (which I'm sure violates some free enterprise legality), or they lockout the players and enforce a cap.

That's basically the only hope the NHL has of being a successful league/business.

Of course, as they say, I could be wrong.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,715
14,573
Pittsburgh
gc2005 said:
During the lockout, the union said "Cut our salaries by 24% and don't pay us more than you can afford ever again, stupidhead." ABC was back in business, everyone lives happily ever after.

The trouble with that is that inherent in this business is factors that make self regulation impossible. Those factors:

1. the franchises have differing revenue streams
2. where winning matters more than profit to many owners
3. the spending and overspending by the have franchises sets the market and puts the have nots out of business
4. which would be fine except that the game requires two teams, so the franchises are interdependent
5. and the business as a whole could thrive a whole lot more, as shown by the NBA and NFL, when all cities, not just the small handful who are the biggest markets, feel a reasonable chance of competing. It is counter-intuitive NOT to believe that eventually you will not suppress the vastly larger aggregate markets of the small and midsized teams if you give them the feeling that they have a snowballs chance in hell of even making the playoffs, or if they do, winning the cup is a once in a life time thing, when five or six teams have a virtual guarenteed invite yearly. Welcome to baseball now, hockey's future absent changes.
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
EroCaps said:
What checks do the Edmontons of the league have on the Rangers to make that a feasible proposal? None. Without a cap, owner X has his hands tied if owner Y can afford twice his budget. There has been almost no parity in the NHL for decades because of this, and it's not only a select group of expansion franchises that has trouble breaking even, it's the majority of teams.

So in effect, either the NHL owners create some inner "tribunal" where they have the power to oust an owner or handful of owners tipping the scales, (which I'm sure violates some free enterprise legality), or they lockout the players and enforce a cap.

That's basically the only hope the NHL has of being a successful league/business.

Of course, as they say, I could be wrong.

I would dispute your claims of the lack of parity in the NHL over the past few decades, but more to point, there's two possible solutions that I see:

(1) Chop every team off at the level of a Carolina. That's the salary cap solution. If all teams can spend only what the crap ones can afford, then every team is equal. Who hurts? The players and only the players. They pick up the tab of the entire bill.

(2) The second spreads the wealth around a little bit, and tries to bring the Carolinas of the world up to the level of, I don't know, let's say the Canucks. This is the revenue sharing + luxury tax (and possibly high cap) scenario. Who hurts? The players get less, but they're happy. The rich owners lose too, but they still make money. The bill is split between players and owners. Problem solved.
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
theBob said:
Actually they said: "Cut our salaries by 24% but give us a 10% raise every year til we are 30 and then double it or we'll sit at home." ABC realized that they would be stuck in the same position they are in now within a few years so they refused.

Wrong. But anyway, the owner's solution is "Cut your salaries by 24%, and let us force you into accepting only 75% of your prior year's contract for the next 8 years until you're 30, and if you don't agree to your new lower wage by Sept 30, then you can't work or get paid til next year. And, if you agree, if our revenues go down during the year, we're clawing back 15% of your earnings to date to put in our own pockets."
 

kerrly

Registered User
May 16, 2004
811
1
Regina
gc2005 said:
Wrong. But anyway, the owner's solution is "Cut your salaries by 24%, and let us force you into accepting only 75% of your prior year's contract for the next 8 years until you're 30, and if you don't agree to your new lower wage by Sept 30, then you can't work or get paid til next year. And, if you agree, if our revenues go down during the year, we're clawing back 15% of your earnings to date to put in our own pockets."

The owners solution is, let the players accept 75% of their contracts, unless the revenues grow, then your contracts grow with them. The players solution is, let's cut back our salaries to the proposed amount, and put no real restraints on them, so they can continue to inflate and we'll be laughing all the way to the bank while the league suffers more and teams are lost.
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
kerrly said:
The owners solution is, let the players accept 75% of their contracts, unless the revenues grow, then your contracts grow with them. The players solution is, let's cut back our salaries to the proposed amount, and put no real restraints on them, so they can continue to inflate and we'll be laughing all the way to the bank while the league suffers more and teams are lost.

But why shouldn't the owners be held accountable for decreasing revenues? We all know they'll go down now, but that's because of an owner's lockout. They should be working their tails off to make sure revenues keep going up, instead of looking for a way to protect themselves in case revenue goes down.

If it was a cap system that could go up with revenues but never down if revenues decreased, and you scrapped the linkage and escrowing of players' salaries, then players could very well accept that deal. And owners would be responsible for ensuring revenues go up.
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
gc2005 said:
During the lockout, the union said "Cut our salaries by 24% and don't pay us more than you can afford ever again, stupidhead." ABC was back in business, everyone lives happily ever after.

Well the proper response to that would be, okay, we'll take your 24% roll back as long as you allow us to collude to the same level that the PA does. Once you allow the owners to negotiate in concert on a regular basis like the PA does, then you have a fair market system. Until then, you're wizzin' in the wind and doing nothing but getting your shoes wet and looking silly.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,715
14,573
Pittsburgh
gc2005 said:
But why shouldn't the owners be held accountable for decreasing revenues? We all know they'll go down now, but that's because of an owner's lockout. They should be working their tails off to make sure revenues keep going up, instead of looking for a way to protect themselves in case revenue goes down.

If it was a cap system that could go up with revenues but never down if revenues decreased, and you scrapped the linkage and escrowing of players' salaries, then players could very well accept that deal. And owners would be responsible for ensuring revenues go up.


Question:

.......... if you institute a system where fans of all teams feel that in any given year they can compete for the playoffs and a cup, that there is no thumb on the scale.

1. would revenues not logically increase in small and mid-markets where that perception is not currently there?

2. would revenues 'decrease' in big markets in any appreciable way if such a system is instituted, especially in those markets who are big because of the large number of people in the market?

If the answer to 1 is yes, and 2 is no, then how is a Cap bad for anyone? A larger pie to divide would offset any loss of players scrambling to get a huge share of a current pie that is getting smaller and smaller. The fans win overall in having a better more exciting product in far more cities, as opposed to now. The only losers are fans of cities that have a huge thumb on the scales now, and those should be of no concern for fairness reasons.
 

kerrly

Registered User
May 16, 2004
811
1
Regina
gc2005 said:
But why shouldn't the owners be held accountable for decreasing revenues? We all know they'll go down now, but that's because of an owner's lockout. They should be working their tails off to make sure revenues keep going up, instead of looking for a way to protect themselves in case revenue goes down.

If it was a cap system that could go up with revenues but never down if revenues decreased, and you scrapped the linkage and escrowing of players' salaries, then players could very well accept that deal. And owners would be responsible for ensuring revenues go up.

I thought the players wanted a partnership, having no risk when revenues decrease, is not a partnership. But I do agree that the owners should be exploring all areas possible to increase revenues. Its going to be a long road ahead to acheive the levels that we desire the NHL to have, and it will take a total revamp of the league on and off the ice and the players will be rewarded from tieing their salaries to revenue. I don't think the league will take out the decreasing factor due to decreasing revenues, although I don't thinks its a horrible idea. Its a gamble, and if the game suffers and is not able to recover, the league just falls into the toilet faster this way.
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
Jaded-Fan said:
Question:

.......... if you institute a system where fans of all teams feel that in any given year they can compete for the playoffs and a cup, that there is no thumb on the scale.

1. would revenues not logically increase in small and mid-markets where that perception is not currently there?

2. would revenues 'decrease' in big markets in any appreciable way if such a system is instituted, especially in those markets who are big because of the large number of people in the market?

If the answer to 1 is yes, and 2 is no, then how is a Cap bad for anyone? A larger pie to divide would offset any loss of players scrambling to get a huge share of a current pie that is getting smaller and smaller. The fans win overall in having a better more exciting product in far more cities, as opposed to now. The only losers are fans of cities that have a huge thumb on the scales now, and those should be of no concern for fairness reasons.

If all teams in the league are inherently mediocre, then the average team can expect to make the playoffs roughly every other year, win the Cup once in 30 years, and finish in the 7-10 range. Year in, year out. No sustained dominance, no sustained incompetence.

I don't think Carolina moving back and forth between 8th and 9th place would do a whole lot to vastly increase their attendance. If they won regularly, maybe. But with total parity, that's impossible.

Conversely, a team like Colorado could lose chunks of their fans, if and when the fall into mediocrity. Even Toronto would lose vast amounts of revenue if they made the playoffs one year and lost the next.

So no, I don't think that complete parity and, basically, completely random standings would help the overall pie grow.
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
The Iconoclast said:
Well the proper response to that would be, okay, we'll take your 24% roll back as long as you allow us to collude to the same level that the PA does. Once you allow the owners to negotiate in concert on a regular basis like the PA does, then you have a fair market system. Until then, you're wizzin' in the wind and doing nothing but getting your shoes wet and looking silly.

Back when the agent leaked the NHLPA's software to the press, what got horribly overlooked is that the league has virtually the same system, that is there and ready to document each offer made by a team to a free agent. It's completely voluntary, but it's there. The PA even filed an unfair labour practice over this, but it was shot down.

Does no one else remember this??
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Sponsor
Feb 27, 2002
5,603
586
mooseOAK said:
There is only one way that protects the owners from charges of collusion, as part of the CBA.
well, they could not collude and then there will be no charges of collusion.

duh.

dr
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,715
14,573
Pittsburgh
gc2005 said:
If all teams in the league are inherently mediocre, then the average team can expect to make the playoffs roughly every other year, win the Cup once in 30 years, and finish in the 7-10 range. Year in, year out. No sustained dominance, no sustained incompetence.

I don't think Carolina moving back and forth between 8th and 9th place would do a whole lot to vastly increase their attendance. If they won regularly, maybe. But with total parity, that's impossible.

Conversely, a team like Colorado could lose chunks of their fans, if and when the fall into mediocrity. Even Toronto would lose vast amounts of revenue if they made the playoffs one year and lost the next.

So no, I don't think that complete parity and, basically, completely random standings would help the overall pie grow.

How can the pie grow if over half of the teams fans feel that their chances are very small of the team that they follow having any kind of success? You really think that does not suppress revenues in those markets? Seriously? Granted, hockey is only slightly on that path now, but it is headed toward where baseball already is. And why not correct it before it arrives at that point.
 

YellHockey*

Guest
The Iconoclast said:
Well the proper response to that would be, okay, we'll take your 24% roll back as long as you allow us to collude to the same level that the PA does.

The players don't collude. You can say it all you want but it doesn't make it true.
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
DR said:
well, they could not collude and then there will be no charges of collusion.

duh.

dr

So, if no top free agent gets an offer over a certain amount of dollars that is less than what the top players are making now the NHLPA would let that go without a fight?

In a fantasy world maybe. The NHL has to protect themselves the appearance of collusion, to do otherwise would be stupid on their part becasue Goodenow would be all over that.
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
BlackRedGold said:
The players don't collude. You can say it all you want but it doesn't make it true.
I hate to recycle posts, but:

Here is what Keith Primeau said after signing his last contract for $4 million:

"I still don't look at it in that regard," he said. "I am captain of a hockey club, but I am also 33 going on 34 and scored only seven goals last season.

"I might have had a tremendous playoff, but I don't want to be rewarded for having a good two-month stretch... . It's ludicrous for me to think that just because I had a great playoff, I should have held out for $6 million."

That essentially is what the union would have preferred. Primeau said the union's executive director, Bob Goodenow, spoke to his agent, Don Reynolds, and voiced concerns about the deal before Primeau signed.

"When the players' association found out what I would sign for, they didn't want me to sign the contract," Primeau said. "I told my agent there were a lot of factors going into it, more than a dollar figure."

That is how the NHLPA helps with salary escalation. The owners can't get a better deal by shopping around, they can only outbid another team for the guy they want because the PA is setting the minimum salary.
 

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,518
2,560
Edmonton
Thats what

gc2005 said:
I would dispute your claims of the lack of parity in the NHL over the past few decades, but more to point, there's two possible solutions that I see:

(1) Chop every team off at the level of a Carolina. That's the salary cap solution. If all teams can spend only what the crap ones can afford, then every team is equal. Who hurts? The players and only the players. They pick up the tab of the entire bill.

(2) The second spreads the wealth around a little bit, and tries to bring the Carolinas of the world up to the level of, I don't know, let's say the Canucks. This is the revenue sharing + luxury tax (and possibly high cap) scenario. Who hurts? The players get less, but they're happy. The rich owners lose too, but they still make money. The bill is split between players and owners. Problem solved.

The owners suggested, but the players turned it down?

====> Minimum team salary!!!!!
 

YellHockey*

Guest
mooseOAK said:
I hate to recycle posts, but:

Here is what Keith Primeau said after signing his last contract for $4 million:

"I still don't look at it in that regard," he said. "I am captain of a hockey club, but I am also 33 going on 34 and scored only seven goals last season.

"I might have had a tremendous playoff, but I don't want to be rewarded for having a good two-month stretch... . It's ludicrous for me to think that just because I had a great playoff, I should have held out for $6 million."

That essentially is what the union would have preferred. Primeau said the union's executive director, Bob Goodenow, spoke to his agent, Don Reynolds, and voiced concerns about the deal before Primeau signed.

"When the players' association found out what I would sign for, they didn't want me to sign the contract," Primeau said. "I told my agent there were a lot of factors going into it, more than a dollar figure."

That is how the NHLPA helps with salary escalation. The owners can't get a better deal by shopping around, they can only outbid another team for the guy they want because the PA is setting the minimum salary.

I don't know what this has to do with colluding but anyways...

The owners can get a better deal by being flexible on player they want while the players can get a better deal by being flexible on the team they want to play for.
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Sponsor
Feb 27, 2002
5,603
586
mooseOAK said:
So, if no top free agent gets an offer over a certain amount of dollars that is less than what the top players are making now the NHLPA would let that go without a fight?

In a fantasy world maybe. The NHL has to protect themselves the appearance of collusion, to do otherwise would be stupid on their part becasue Goodenow would be all over that.
well of course.... but why would a top player not get an offer unless teams were colluding ?

i said, as long as team dont collude there is no problem.

duh.

dr
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad