INCOME INEQUALITY, BABE RUTH, MIKE PIAZZA AND LADY THATCHER

SOME FACTS:

By the end of the 1990s the average major league player was earning over $1.4 million a year, 35 times the $41,000 average of 25 years earlier. 

... In 1947 the average baseball player earned $11,000 a year, a little more than four times the pay of the average American worker.  

In 1967 the average player earned $19,000, about 3.5 times the $5,500 average for workers.  

In 1973 baseball salaries had jumped to $36,000, but workers too had generally experienced a large gain (to $9,500), leaving the player-worker ratio still a little under the 1947 level.  

But by 1999 the average baseball player was earning $1.57 million, while the average worker earned just $28,000: a ratio of 56 to one.

AND THIS FACT:

... Mike Piazza signed his then-record seven-year, $91 million contract with the Mets on Oct 26, 1998...

THAT MEANS PIAZZA EARNED ABOUT 58 TIMES WHAT THE AVERAGE BALLPLAYER EARNED. (LOTTSA FACTS HERE.)

IN 1930, BABE RUTH ONLY EARNED $900,000 IN PIAZZA ERA DOLLARS.

IN OTHER WORDS, THE GREATEST PLAYER OF ALL-TIME RUTH EARNED LESS THAN THE  AVERAGE PLAYER DOES TODAY.

WHEN RUTH MADE $80,000 THE AVERAGE BASEBALL SALARY WAS $6000. 


SO, RUTH ONLY MADE 14x MORE THAN AVERAGE.


THEREFORE, THERE WAS LESS INCOME INEQUALITY IN 1929, BUT ALL PLAYERS MADE LESS - AND - ALL MADE LESS THAN THEY DESERVED.

AS INCOMES FOR THE VERY BEST IMPROVED, SO DID INCOME FOR THE AVERAGE PLAYERS - BUT NOT AS FAST SO THAT BY TODAY, THE BEST MAKE MANY TIMES MORE THAN THE AVERAGE PLAYER.

THE FACT THAT PIAZZA MADE 56x WHAT THE AVERAGE PLAYER MADE DIDN'T MAKE THE AVERAGE PLAYER POORER. 


IF ANYTHING, IT MADE THEM RICHER.


THERE IS MORE INCOME INEQUALITY IN BASEBALL TODAY THAN IN THE 1930'S, BUT NO SANE PERSON WOULD ARGUE THAT ALL PLAYERS OR EVEN JUST THE AVERAGE PLAYERS ARE WORSE OFF NOW AS COMPARED TO THE 1930'S.

AND NO SANE PERSON WOULD ARGUE THAT THE BEST PLAYERS SHOULD SHARE MORE OF THEIR SALARIES WITH AVERAGE PLAYERS ON THEIR TEAM OR ON OTHER TEAMS.

BUT THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT SOCIALISTS LIKE OBAMA ARE ARGUING WHEN THEY SAY THAT INCOME INEQUALITY IN THE USA AS A WHOLE HAS GONE UP AND THAT THIS INDICATES WE ARE SOMEHOW A LESS FAIR ECONOMY.

AND THAT WE NEED FEDERAL POLICES TO REDISTRIBUTE THE WEALTH.

IT'S BULLS*IT.

DON'T FALL FOR IT.

ALL PEOPLE ARE BETTER OFF WHEN THE ECONOMY GROWS - WHEN THE PIE GROWS.

THE RICH MAY DO BETTER AT A HIGHER RATE THAN THE POOR, BUT THE POOR'S INCOME AND QUALITY OF LIFE IS ALSO IMPROVING.

LADY THATCHER WAS RIGHT WHEN SHE CAUGHT LEFTISTS IN PARLIAMENT ACTUALLY ARGUING THAT SOCIETY WOULD BE BETTER OFF IF EVERYONE WAS POORER: