Quote:
Originally Posted by jwwashburn
Paying MILB umpires more money makes no sense for the owners because they don't have to pay them more money. People are willing to work for what they are paying.
The owners have no need or desire to give them more money. Business owners want to have less expenses, not more.
This is simple economics.
|
Thanks for that quick snapshot of Econ 101. I get the idea that lower expenses are A Good Thing to owners; perhaps our differences, then, are the semantics of your statement. To wit:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jwwashburn
They are paid what the market will bear.
|
Yes, in a simple reading, MiLB umpires getting paid what they are
is what the market will bear because a) owners won't pay more and b) umpires have no real leverage.
But to me, the market could and should 'bear' more for the service provided. Not least of which because baseball (meaning: MLB and its owners) could certainly swing the costs of a living wage. Also, given they a) expect perfection in each game and every call, and b) have told umpires "you have to take all
kinds of %^&$% from every yahoo player and coach that wouldn't know the rules if they were introduced, and you can't give it back" ... then they should pay for that level of service.
I realize my take on it is perhaps more a philosophical point versus simple economics, but if you want quality, you should pay more for it - and I think that's also simple economics.