View Single Post
Old
12-09-2012, 08:20 PM
  #59
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 10,071
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myron Gaines View Post
That's exactly what I was trying to say on the other thread, but some people can't make the difference between actual requirements and benefits.

Every expense from the owners is grouped into one category, but it doesn't mean it's all requirements to do the job they're supposed to do, which is playing professional hockey at the highest level. And when people point that out, it doesn't mean they're envious or that they wish players didn't benefit from those things. It's ludicrous to think that way.
Problem is, you have not demonstrated that the players are receiving any ridiculous benefits, and even if they were, they are concessions the players received in exchange for accepting a 57% salary cap, whereas previously they were getting the free market rate of 76%.

Yes it's a benefit that Saku Koivu got good cancer treatment -- for both Koivu and then-owner George Gillette and the Montreal fans. You can be sure that Gillette made back the money he paid into Koivu's medical care many times over. The losers from that arrangement are Joe Thornton and the Boston Bruins of that era.

It's simply facetious to imply that owners don't benefit from giving their employees better medical care. They certainly benefit. The owner ends up with a superior labor force.

There's also a general economic rule, which is kind of common sense. Employees tend to be paid less if they have more benefits, because the benefits are somewhat equivalent to pay. This came up in arguments two years ago over striking teachers. Some right-wingers were complaining that public school teachers get free pensions. An economist argued this was not correct, as the concessions they got in pensions inevitably meant lower base pay as well. In the case of the players we see this explicitly: they get better working conditions as a concession for lower base pay. The reality is that both employees and employers pay for benefits, as counter-intuitive as that may be.


Last edited by DAChampion: 12-09-2012 at 09:05 PM.
DAChampion is offline