Proof Employers don't pay their employees what they're worth.

[Slyhunter]

Why do Leftists never understand simple economics when it comes to employment (or anything else)?

Businesses spend as little as they can in order to get the goods and services they need. This principle applies to lumber, raw materials, services, professional services, utilities, fuel, and so forth.

If you own a "professional" women's soccer team, you will pay whatever is necessary to field a competitive team. If they paid Minimum Wage, they would get a shitload of players willing to play, but the "best" players would opt out. So they increase it incrementally until they reach a level that captures the players they want.

The only time REVENUE is relevant is when the aggregate players salaries are too high for profitability with the aforementioned $51 million in revenue. But they are nowhere near that point now.

Bottom line: if these players think they can make more money elsewhere, they should go there, make the money, and STFU.

When people bring up the topic of what an employee is worth, I tell them it's rather simple: You are only worth as much as the person your employer can replace you with.

If you leave your job at $15.00 because you didn't get a raise, and your employer hires somebody that does just as good as work as you did for the same wage, then you were paid what you were worth. If he has to pay somebody $17.00 an hour to replace you, then you were correct, you were underpaid. If he can find people to do your job for $12.00 an hour, you were overpaid.

The problem is we have too many people willing to work for slave wages with just enough to feed them most of whom will live in the streets or in tents, Like Amazon Employees, while working. Is that what you really want?

 

[Slyhunter]

Why do Leftists never understand simple economics when it comes to employment (or anything else)?

Businesses spend as little as they can in order to get the goods and services they need. This principle applies to lumber, raw materials, services, professional services, utilities, fuel, and so forth.

If you own a "professional" women's soccer team, you will pay whatever is necessary to field a competitive team. If they paid Minimum Wage, they would get a shitload of players willing to play, but the "best" players would opt out. So they increase it incrementally until they reach a level that captures the players they want.

The only time REVENUE is relevant is when the aggregate players salaries are too high for profitability with the aforementioned $51 million in revenue. But they are nowhere near that point now.

Bottom line: if these players think they can make more money elsewhere, they should go there, make the money, and STFU.

When people bring up the topic of what an employee is worth, I tell them it's rather simple: You are only worth as much as the person your employer can replace you with.

If you leave your job at $15.00 because you didn't get a raise, and your employer hires somebody that does just as good as work as you did for the same wage, then you were paid what you were worth. If he has to pay somebody $17.00 an hour to replace you, then you were correct, you were underpaid. If he can find people to do your job for $12.00 an hour, you were overpaid.

The problem is we have too many people willing to work for slave wages with just enough to feed them most of whom will live in the streets or in tents, Like Amazon Employees, while working. Is that what you really want?

Then they should be forced to charge less for the tv commercials to levels that equates to their costs. the same percentage they are ripping off their employees for.

 

[MAGAman]

The problem is we have too many people willing to work for slave wages with just enough to feed them most of whom will live in the streets or in tents, Like Amazon Employees, while working. Is that what you really want?

Freedom isn't the problem.

Freedom is the solution.

If people want something, who are you to deny them?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why do Leftists never understand simple economics when it comes to employment (or anything else)?

Businesses spend as little as they can in order to get the goods and services they need. This principle applies to lumber, raw materials, services, professional services, utilities, fuel, and so forth.

If you own a "professional" women's soccer team, you will pay whatever is necessary to field a competitive team. If they paid Minimum Wage, they would get a shitload of players willing to play, but the "best" players would opt out. So they increase it incrementally until they reach a level that captures the players they want.

The only time REVENUE is relevant is when the aggregate players salaries are too high for profitability with the aforementioned $51 million in revenue. But they are nowhere near that point now.

Bottom line: if these players think they can make more money elsewhere, they should go there, make the money, and STFU.

When people bring up the topic of what an employee is worth, I tell them it's rather simple: You are only worth as much as the person your employer can replace you with.

If you leave your job at $15.00 because you didn't get a raise, and your employer hires somebody that does just as good as work as you did for the same wage, then you were paid what you were worth. If he has to pay somebody $17.00 an hour to replace you, then you were correct, you were underpaid. If he can find people to do your job for $12.00 an hour, you were overpaid.

The problem is we have too many people willing to work for slave wages with just enough to feed them most of whom will live in the streets or in tents, Like Amazon Employees, while working. Is that what you really want?

It's not what I want, it's what it is.

If you ask 100 working people if they are paid enough, I guarantee you at least 95 will say they're not. I don't think I make nearly enough money. But as long as my employer can replace me for what he's paying me, it's all I'm worth to him.

Wages are like E-bay. The product goes to the highest bidder. If you had Archie comic books you saved since a child, and wanted to sell them today, you will only get what the bidders on E-bay will pay for them. You paid 50 cents a copy, but believe they are worth at least 100 dollars a copy today. It doesn't matter what you think. It matters what they are worth to those wanting to buy them.

Employment works exactly the same way. It's not what you think you are worth, it's what your future employer thinks you're worth to him or her.

 

[MAGAman]

Then they should be forced to charge less for the tv commercials to levels that equates to their costs. the same percentage they are ripping off their employees for.

Fascism has been tried before, by people smarter than you.

It didn't work

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why do Leftists never understand simple economics when it comes to employment (or anything else)?

Businesses spend as little as they can in order to get the goods and services they need. This principle applies to lumber, raw materials, services, professional services, utilities, fuel, and so forth.

If you own a "professional" women's soccer team, you will pay whatever is necessary to field a competitive team. If they paid Minimum Wage, they would get a shitload of players willing to play, but the "best" players would opt out. So they increase it incrementally until they reach a level that captures the players they want.

The only time REVENUE is relevant is when the aggregate players salaries are too high for profitability with the aforementioned $51 million in revenue. But they are nowhere near that point now.

Bottom line: if these players think they can make more money elsewhere, they should go there, make the money, and STFU.

When people bring up the topic of what an employee is worth, I tell them it's rather simple: You are only worth as much as the person your employer can replace you with.

If you leave your job at $15.00 because you didn't get a raise, and your employer hires somebody that does just as good as work as you did for the same wage, then you were paid what you were worth. If he has to pay somebody $17.00 an hour to replace you, then you were correct, you were underpaid. If he can find people to do your job for $12.00 an hour, you were overpaid.

The problem is we have too many people willing to work for slave wages with just enough to feed them most of whom will live in the streets or in tents, Like Amazon Employees, while working. Is that what you really want?

Then they should be forced to charge less for the tv commercials to levels that equates to their costs. the same percentage they are ripping off their employees for.

What do commercials have to do with it? Most companies don't run commercials.

 

[Dragonlady]

Revenue should not be confused with adjusted net income. So what did these clubs actually earn before paying wages? Are the stadiums full? It is a unfortunate fact womens sports do not have the fan based appeal mens sports have. Go to a WNBA game some day.

This isn't "ajusted net income". The US women's soccer team are the defending world cup champions and get a lot more advertizing and sponsorships than the men, who can't even make the World Cup. They bring in more money than the men. National teams don't doesn't make money on fan attendance. Teams make money on sponsorships, of which the women have many as wo. They should at least be paid the same as the men.

 

[Polishprince]

Men's soccer league has a revenue of 49 million and they pay their players a minimum wage of 50k a year.
Women's soccer league has a revenue of 51 million and they pay their players a minimum wage of 16k a year.

Pay Disparity in U.S. Soccer? It’s Complicated

I bet the problem is that men won't put up with that shit and go out on strike while women don't want to make waves and don't fight for their just desserts.

But regardless to the reason of the disparity, the ultimate disparity is employers are cheap and won't pay their people more than they absolutely have to, to keep them fully staffed. It's not based on revenue of the company or how much money their employees make them. It's based on how easy it is to replace them with someone cheaper.

There is more competition for the services of male soccer players.

Here in the United States, neither women's or men's soccer is really worth a shit. I wouldn't turn it on.

But if an American team wants a quality male player, they have to compete with Italian or English teams, and other countries where it is popular. Chick soccer isn't nearly as popular abroad.

 

[FA_Q2]

Men's soccer league has a revenue of 49 million and they pay their players a minimum wage of 50k a year.
Women's soccer league has a revenue of 51 million and they pay their players a minimum wage of 16k a year.

Pay Disparity in U.S. Soccer? It’s Complicated

I bet the problem is that men won't put up with that shit and go out on strike while women don't want to make waves and don't fight for their just desserts.

But regardless to the reason of the disparity, the ultimate disparity is employers are cheap and won't pay their people more than they absolutely have to, to keep them fully staffed. It's not based on revenue of the company or how much money their employees make them. It's based on how easy it is to replace them with someone cheaper.

And why should they or how do you even determine what they are worth if you want to link it with something as fickle as total earnings.

This is not proof they are not paid what they are worth.

 

[FA_Q2]

Why do Leftists never understand simple economics when it comes to employment (or anything else)?

Businesses spend as little as they can in order to get the goods and services they need. This principle applies to lumber, raw materials, services, professional services, utilities, fuel, and so forth.

If you own a "professional" women's soccer team, you will pay whatever is necessary to field a competitive team. If they paid Minimum Wage, they would get a shitload of players willing to play, but the "best" players would opt out. So they increase it incrementally until they reach a level that captures the players they want.

The only time REVENUE is relevant is when the aggregate players salaries are too high for profitability with the aforementioned $51 million in revenue. But they are nowhere near that point now.

Bottom line: if these players think they can make more money elsewhere, they should go there, make the money, and STFU.

When people bring up the topic of what an employee is worth, I tell them it's rather simple: You are only worth as much as the person your employer can replace you with.

If you leave your job at $15.00 because you didn't get a raise, and your employer hires somebody that does just as good as work as you did for the same wage, then you were paid what you were worth. If he has to pay somebody $17.00 an hour to replace you, then you were correct, you were underpaid. If he can find people to do your job for $12.00 an hour, you were overpaid.

Such a basic economic fact that it really should not have to be explained.

 

[Polishprince]

If the chick American soccer players think they are worth more money, Soccer is a world wide sport.

There are teams throughout Europe, Latin America and elsewhere where they can play. Pele didn't like what he was being paid in South America, so he went to a NY team. These broads can do the same, if they think they can make more someplace else.

 

[2aguy]

Men's soccer league has a revenue of 49 million and they pay their players a minimum wage of 50k a year.
Women's soccer league has a revenue of 51 million and they pay their players a minimum wage of 16k a year.

Pay Disparity in U.S. Soccer? It’s Complicated

I bet the problem is that men won't put up with that shit and go out on strike while women don't want to make waves and don't fight for their just desserts.

But regardless to the reason of the disparity, the ultimate disparity is employers are cheap and won't pay their people more than they absolutely have to, to keep them fully staffed. It's not based on revenue of the company or how much money their employees make them. It's based on how easy it is to replace them with someone cheaper.

They do not do the same work....

But Is It Equal Work?
Not exactly. To qualify for the Women’s World Cup, for example, the United States women’s team plays five games in a single two-week tournament.

The men’s qualifying road is a two-year, 16-game slog across North and Central America and the Caribbean. U.S. Soccer argues that the roster bonuses for successful qualification — $15,000 for the women in 2015, $55,000 for the men in 2014 — reflect that.

 

[2aguy]

Men's soccer league has a revenue of 49 million and they pay their players a minimum wage of 50k a year.
Women's soccer league has a revenue of 51 million and they pay their players a minimum wage of 16k a year.

Pay Disparity in U.S. Soccer? It’s Complicated

I bet the problem is that men won't put up with that shit and go out on strike while women don't want to make waves and don't fight for their just desserts.

But regardless to the reason of the disparity, the ultimate disparity is employers are cheap and won't pay their people more than they absolutely have to, to keep them fully staffed. It's not based on revenue of the company or how much money their employees make them. It's based on how easy it is to replace them with someone cheaper.

And, of course....no one watches women's soccer......that is the reason they don't make as much as the men...

It doesn't matter how many games they win, or if they win a championship.....if no one is watching, it doesn't matter, and it doesn't make the Benjamins......

No, it isn’t ‘sexist’ that women’s World Cup teams don’t get equal pay

But this isn’t evidence of deeply-ingrained sexism. It’s a reflection of the relative commercial status of men's and women's soccer, and each one's ability to draw a consistent audience. This is the core factor driving merit-based compensation in the entertainment industry. When judged on their merits, the Women’s World Cup teams don’t deserve to be paid as much as their male counterparts.

People don't want to hear this, but the women’s teams are simply not nearly as good as all-male teams. They can be exciting, and rooting for them is equally patriotic, but the market has spoken quite loudly on this topic (more in Europe than in the U.S.), as have the rare high-level competitions between men and women. It’s politically incorrect to say so, but there are differences between the sexes, and sometimes those differences manifest themselves in the outcomes of professional sports.

For example, the U.S. women’s team is one of the best women’s teams in the world, and has been ranked in the top three women’s teams internationally for much of the last several decades. But in 2017, an under-15 professional men’s academy team, and an American club's team at that, beat them 5 to 2. Yes, that’s right: Teenage boys beat the women’s top players in the world, and the result wasn't even close.

That’s not necessarily the women’s team’s fault, and in fact, they didn't take it as cause for alarm about the team's abilities. The loss did not mean they the U.S. women weren't highly skilled. It does illustrate that even the best women's soccer in the world doesn't feature the same level of speed, size, strength, and skill as men's soccer at lower levels. That isn't sexism, it's nature.

Men’s teams are generally paid higher in top-level soccer because they bring in substantially larger audiences on average than women’s teams.

They also tend to bring in higher revenues — and that includes national teams. It is telling that for 2015, when the U.S. women's team actually won the World Cup, its revenue was just a bit larger than that of the men's team, which was in the middle of an off-year.

World Cups are the pinnacle of soccer competition, and so ratings from these tournaments represent a good point of comparison. But it's also worth noting that there are no women's pro leagues with the kind of viewership or revenue that even Major League Soccer, which just recently became profitable, brings in.

Almost half the world watched the men’s 2018 World Cup, with nearly 3.6 billion total viewers tuning in to watch some part of the tournament. The final match alone reached an audience of over 1.1 billion people. Subsequently, the tournament’s sponsor, FIFA, brought in a profit of over $6 billion.

The women’s team garners significant but substantially lower viewership. We don’t have data for the 2019 tournament, as it’s currently underway, but during the women’s last World Cup in 2015, 764 million viewers tuned in for some portion of the tournament. This is quite good, but it still pales in comparison to the men’s tournament's audience.


Seeing as professional sports is an entertainment industry, it’s not at all unfair — let alone sexist — to pay teams more if they bring in larger audiences. With an audience five times as large, the men's World Cup is simply a bigger affair.

 

[FA_Q2]

Men's soccer league has a revenue of 49 million and they pay their players a minimum wage of 50k a year.
Women's soccer league has a revenue of 51 million and they pay their players a minimum wage of 16k a year.

Pay Disparity in U.S. Soccer? It’s Complicated

I bet the problem is that men won't put up with that shit and go out on strike while women don't want to make waves and don't fight for their just desserts.

But regardless to the reason of the disparity, the ultimate disparity is employers are cheap and won't pay their people more than they absolutely have to, to keep them fully staffed. It's not based on revenue of the company or how much money their employees make them. It's based on how easy it is to replace them with someone cheaper.

And, of course....no one watches women's soccer......that is the reason they don't make as much as the men...

It doesn't matter how many games they win, or if they win a championship.....if no one is watching, it doesn't matter, and it doesn't make the Benjamins......

No, it isn’t ‘sexist’ that women’s World Cup teams don’t get equal pay

....

The post you quoted has figures that show your contention is not correct.

 

[2aguy]

Men's soccer league has a revenue of 49 million and they pay their players a minimum wage of 50k a year.
Women's soccer league has a revenue of 51 million and they pay their players a minimum wage of 16k a year.

Pay Disparity in U.S. Soccer? It’s Complicated

I bet the problem is that men won't put up with that shit and go out on strike while women don't want to make waves and don't fight for their just desserts.

But regardless to the reason of the disparity, the ultimate disparity is employers are cheap and won't pay their people more than they absolutely have to, to keep them fully staffed. It's not based on revenue of the company or how much money their employees make them. It's based on how easy it is to replace them with someone cheaper.

And, of course....no one watches women's soccer......that is the reason they don't make as much as the men...

It doesn't matter how many games they win, or if they win a championship.....if no one is watching, it doesn't matter, and it doesn't make the Benjamins......

No, it isn’t ‘sexist’ that women’s World Cup teams don’t get equal pay

....

The post you quoted has figures that show your contention is not correct.

Again....no one watches women's soccer......

 

[2aguy]

Men's soccer league has a revenue of 49 million and they pay their players a minimum wage of 50k a year.
Women's soccer league has a revenue of 51 million and they pay their players a minimum wage of 16k a year.

Pay Disparity in U.S. Soccer? It’s Complicated

I bet the problem is that men won't put up with that shit and go out on strike while women don't want to make waves and don't fight for their just desserts.

But regardless to the reason of the disparity, the ultimate disparity is employers are cheap and won't pay their people more than they absolutely have to, to keep them fully staffed. It's not based on revenue of the company or how much money their employees make them. It's based on how easy it is to replace them with someone cheaper.

And, of course....no one watches women's soccer......that is the reason they don't make as much as the men...

It doesn't matter how many games they win, or if they win a championship.....if no one is watching, it doesn't matter, and it doesn't make the Benjamins......

No, it isn’t ‘sexist’ that women’s World Cup teams don’t get equal pay

....

The post you quoted has figures that show your contention is not correct.

The truth...

They also tend to bring in higher revenues — and that includes national teams. It is telling that for 2015, when the U.S. women's team actually won the World Cup, its revenue was just a bit larger than that of the men's team, which was in the middle of an off-year.

 

[Polishprince]

Men's soccer league has a revenue of 49 million and they pay their players a minimum wage of 50k a year.
Women's soccer league has a revenue of 51 million and they pay their players a minimum wage of 16k a year.

Pay Disparity in U.S. Soccer? It’s Complicated

I bet the problem is that men won't put up with that shit and go out on strike while women don't want to make waves and don't fight for their just desserts.

But regardless to the reason of the disparity, the ultimate disparity is employers are cheap and won't pay their people more than they absolutely have to, to keep them fully staffed. It's not based on revenue of the company or how much money their employees make them. It's based on how easy it is to replace them with someone cheaper.

And, of course....no one watches women's soccer......that is the reason they don't make as much as the men...

It doesn't matter how many games they win, or if they win a championship.....if no one is watching, it doesn't matter, and it doesn't make the Benjamins......

No, it isn’t ‘sexist’ that women’s World Cup teams don’t get equal pay

....

The post you quoted has figures that show your contention is not correct.

Again....no one watches women's soccer......

Maybe if the lady soccer players played in lingerie , like the Lingerie Football League does, they'd get more viewers?


People need to remember that professional sports is just entertainment. And if more provocative uniforms for the gals of ladies' soccer is thought to be more entertaining, the players will command a higher salary.

 

[Slyhunter]

Men's soccer league has a revenue of 49 million and they pay their players a minimum wage of 50k a year.
Women's soccer league has a revenue of 51 million and they pay their players a minimum wage of 16k a year.

Pay Disparity in U.S. Soccer? It’s Complicated

I bet the problem is that men won't put up with that shit and go out on strike while women don't want to make waves and don't fight for their just desserts.

But regardless to the reason of the disparity, the ultimate disparity is employers are cheap and won't pay their people more than they absolutely have to, to keep them fully staffed. It's not based on revenue of the company or how much money their employees make them. It's based on how easy it is to replace them with someone cheaper.

And, of course....no one watches women's soccer......that is the reason they don't make as much as the men...

It doesn't matter how many games they win, or if they win a championship.....if no one is watching, it doesn't matter, and it doesn't make the Benjamins......

No, it isn’t ‘sexist’ that women’s World Cup teams don’t get equal pay

....

The post you quoted has figures that show your contention is not correct.

Again....no one watches women's soccer......

Then explain why they make more in revenue than men's soccer does?

 

[2aguy]

Men's soccer league has a revenue of 49 million and they pay their players a minimum wage of 50k a year.
Women's soccer league has a revenue of 51 million and they pay their players a minimum wage of 16k a year.

Pay Disparity in U.S. Soccer? It’s Complicated

I bet the problem is that men won't put up with that shit and go out on strike while women don't want to make waves and don't fight for their just desserts.

But regardless to the reason of the disparity, the ultimate disparity is employers are cheap and won't pay their people more than they absolutely have to, to keep them fully staffed. It's not based on revenue of the company or how much money their employees make them. It's based on how easy it is to replace them with someone cheaper.

And, of course....no one watches women's soccer......that is the reason they don't make as much as the men...

It doesn't matter how many games they win, or if they win a championship.....if no one is watching, it doesn't matter, and it doesn't make the Benjamins......

No, it isn’t ‘sexist’ that women’s World Cup teams don’t get equal pay

....

The post you quoted has figures that show your contention is not correct.

Again....no one watches women's soccer......

Then explain why they make more in revenue than men's soccer does?

Here.....

The truth.....

U.S. women’s soccer outperforms the men in every way possible. Why are they paid less?

The fact is, the men’s World Cup brings in much more money for both FIFA and the U.S. Soccer Federation than the women’s World Cup — and that’s how the federation justifies the pay differential.

US women's soccer games now generate more revenue than men's—but the players still earn less

According to The Journal, this difference can largely be attributed to ticket sales. The USSF sells broadcast and sponsorship rights for the men’s and women’s teams together, and as a result, it can be difficult to determine the exact broadcast value of the two teams.

 

[2aguy]

Men's soccer league has a revenue of 49 million and they pay their players a minimum wage of 50k a year.
Women's soccer league has a revenue of 51 million and they pay their players a minimum wage of 16k a year.

Pay Disparity in U.S. Soccer? It’s Complicated

I bet the problem is that men won't put up with that shit and go out on strike while women don't want to make waves and don't fight for their just desserts.

But regardless to the reason of the disparity, the ultimate disparity is employers are cheap and won't pay their people more than they absolutely have to, to keep them fully staffed. It's not based on revenue of the company or how much money their employees make them. It's based on how easy it is to replace them with someone cheaper.

And, of course....no one watches women's soccer......that is the reason they don't make as much as the men...

It doesn't matter how many games they win, or if they win a championship.....if no one is watching, it doesn't matter, and it doesn't make the Benjamins......

No, it isn’t ‘sexist’ that women’s World Cup teams don’t get equal pay

....

The post you quoted has figures that show your contention is not correct.

Again....no one watches women's soccer......

Then explain why they make more in revenue than men's soccer does?

Not so much.....

Revenue Disparity Explains Pay Disparity Between Soccer World Cup's Men And Women

As Dwight Jaynes pointed out four years ago after the U.S. women beat Japanto capture the World Cup in Vancouver, there is a big difference in the revenue available to pay the teams.

The Women's World Cup brought in almost $73 million, of which the players got 13%. The 2010 men's World Cup in South Africa made almost $4 billion, of which 9% went to the players.

The men still pull the World Cup money wagon. The men's World Cup in Russia generated over $6 billion in revenue, with the participating teams sharing $400 million, less than 7% of revenue. Meanwhile, the Women's World Cup is expected to earn $131 million for the full four-year cycle 2019-22 and dole out $30 million to the participating teams.