Quote:
Originally Posted by HokieUmp
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:
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.
|
Exactly! They have no real leverage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HokieUmp
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.
|
Whether they 'should' or not is an interesting discussion. The MILB umpires are trying to get to the MLB. They are willing to work for peanuts for the chance. You think the owners 'should' pay higher wages because you think that the owners have too much money. How about the ticket takers, ball girls, beer guys, grounds crew, souvenir shop cashier, etc? 'Should' they make more, also? And who 'should' decide how much? 'Should' the owner have any say so in how he spends his money? After all, for now, the government is not running baseball...yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HokieUmp
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.
|
The umpiring at the Minor League level is good enough for the owners to not want to pay any more.