Tiger Woods Makes How Much??

“I can’t believe that America pays athletes and movie stars so much!”

The presumption in this statement is that “America” is some single entity that has decided it values athletes more than police or teachers and that if only “America” changed its mind, this could somehow be “fixed.” However the reality is that in economics, having an available substitute usually drives prices down. For example, despite the importance of Police Officer Smith’s job, he is far easier to replace than Michael Jordan. The same can be said for teachers, nurses, firemen and even soldiers. In most cases, there is no shortage of applicants possessing the necessary skills to fill these important roles.

The movie-star effect is also a product of mass media. There are two ways to get rich: bring a million dollars’ worth of value to one person, or bring a dollar’s worth of value to millions of people. When an actor’s effectiveness was limited to the number of people you could fit in a single theater, their economic position was similarly poorer. Once they were able to bring their performance to millions of people through movie reels, their value and wealth increased dramatically.

So, why are athletes paid so much? Because you, me and millions of other people are willing to pay a few dollars for their performance, and that adds up. But when someone complains about their salaries, what are they suggesting? Are they willing to launch a campaign to convince millions of people to stop paying to watch sporting events? Or are they suggesting that by fiat, dictate or some other law we should place a cap on how much we value those individuals?

I’m often torn on whether people who make such statements are simply ignorant of basic economics or truly desire to wield power over others to bring into existence their own world view. I’d prefer to think it’s the former.

You Gotta Live

The "cost of living increase" was a brilliant scam to disguise the insidious effects of inflation.  The powers that be convinced the masses that each year they had to work harder and get bigger raises just to maintain their standard of living.
That flies in the face of common sense. Every year we come up with more efficient ways to build better products. Technology improves, allowing us to make more goods more quickly while consuming fewer resources and taking less working hours. According to the laws of supply and demand that means the consumer should enjoy more and cheaper goods.
That was the result during the agricultural revolution and the industrial revolution, where food and goods became cheaper and more plentiful. Why is that not the case today? Because the government intercepts these gains.  By printing more money to finance deficit spending, they create inflationary pressure causing prices to rise.
In some cases like the tech field, the downward pressure of innovation is able to overcome inflationary pressures, but in other areas that are more stagnant (notably oil and food) we see prices continue to rise.
This is not the "cost of living" it is the cost of inflation created by government debt and the working class bears the burden most of all. The sooner people realize there is no free lunch the sooner we can work to change this pattern and return the fruits of progress to the People.