Why do players care if they make say 8 million or 12 million?

[BradyFTW!]

Think about that, so in your example you would have to make 4 million dollars more in San Diego just to cancel out the difference between the cost of living in Fargo versus San Diego.

... cost of living doesn't work like that. That's only true if this hypothetical person's entire salary, more or less, is being treated as disposable income, and nothing is being saved/invested.

 

[50-yard-line]

Declining utility? Really? 1 million dollars is a million dollars. Maybe the player even donates it to charity....it still is a million dollars.

No it's not. A million dollars to a guy with nothing is life-changing. A guy in 8-figure income wouldn't notice the difference unless his broker told him.

The diminishing marginal utility of money is a basic economic principle. It's also why a graduated (marginal) income tax is preferable. You take 10% from a guy making $10,000 and you're literally taking food off his table. You take 10% from a guy making $100,000 and you're maybe changing his choice of car, or college for his kid.

You take 10% from a guy making a million and he doesn't even know it, other than the constant *****ing he'll do because the lazy poor people are stealing his money.

You take 10% from a guy making $100,000,000 and the only thing you might do is change his standing on the Forbes 500. He can still have his multiple $25 million homes and his yacht and his private jet.

And by the way, the very wealthy count upon the not-very-wealthy to never understand or appreciate this.

 

[BradyManny]

So your hypothetical employee would be an idiot to choose San Diego over Fargo.

That's absurd - there's plenty of people who would rather live in San Diego for a lot less money than in Fargo.

 

[meatface]

These guys don't have long careers and have to earn every cent they can before their brains are mush and they can't walk

 

[Tunescribe]

LOL, bad example...

San Diego's cost of living is 50.8% higher than Fargo, ND!

http://www.areavibes.com/cost-of-living-calculator/fargo, nd-vs-san diego, ca/

San Diego, CA is 50.8% more expensive to live in than Fargo, ND.
You would need to make $75,422 in San Diego, CA compared to $50,000 in Fargo, ND to maintain the same standard of living.

Think about that, so in your example you would have to make 4 million dollars more in San Diego just to cancel out the difference between the cost of living in Fargo versus San Diego. Plus that is not even taking into account California's 8.41 tax rate versus North Dakota's 6.5%. So your hypothetical employee would be an idiot to choose San Diego over Fargo.

Yeah, OK. So go ahead and change the amounts to whatever. You're focusing on just dollars and ignoring the other factors. The hypothetical was intended to illustrate that money isn't the only "quality of life" determinant -- things like environment, family, and personal job satisfaction can carry equal or greater weight.

 

[Rob0729]

I didn't twist your words. Re., the bolded statement: I said no such thing, I think you're mixing my post up with someone else's.

You are right. I thought I was responding to BradyManny. Sorry.

 

[fnordcircle]

"Why do people in the business world care if they make say, $80,000 or $120,000" -some dirt farmer in Kenya.

It's all relative. The morality doesn't change because of the number of digits to the left of the decimal sign.

 

[neuronet]

I am visiting from my ski bungalo atop Vail's Misty Titty mountain, where only three people are allowed to ski a day.

Please be patient with me as I must set down my delicate elephant-tusk china brimming with manatee-eye tea before answering this commoner. I had to un-don my monocle, as I did not believe my eye upon reading this post.

Who could want more than 8 million? How about anyone who wants to have a standard of living worth having? You must know that eight million is still just white trash. Maybe once you hit 8 billion, then you might start to think about giving some money to those less fortunate, fly buzzing around distended belly families that make less than a million a year.

I find the tone of this thread offensive, as it is asking people to settle for less, to settle for squalor, to settle for living a life among those jean-wearing beer-swilling go-nowherenicks that aren't fit to look upon my precious gold-infused feces, much less be in the same room as me.

So my answer to the question of why they care? Because they don't want to be part of the common rabble.

Please Jeeves, lift me out of this sewage hole back to the upper crust of Misty Titty where we belong.

 

[Rob0729]

I'm not assuming the money is the worse situation, in general. I'm saying that in our hypothetical it is, as you are asking me to find a scenario in which someone could reasonably turn down millions of dollars. My entire point was that the bottom line should be overall well-being for the person and or his family, and not money, and of course money is part of that evaluation. Naturally, if you are telling me the higher paying job B is going to satisfy the person as much as job A, then it's an easy choice.

Every situation is different and many variables are different, but when you are talking salaries that are millions of dollars apart, most people take the money over all other variables.

 

[50-yard-line]

"Why do people in the business world care if they make say, $80,000 or $120,000" -some dirt farmer in Kenya.

It's all relative. The morality doesn't change because of the number of digits to the left of the decimal sign.

No, that's not true - there is an actual lifestyle difference between 80k and 120k in the US.

The lifestyle difference diminishes exponentially with each added zero.

Apples and oranges - Kenya is not the US.

 

[Schmo]

I'm honestly confused as to why these free agents make such a big deal about these increments to their salary well beyond what they could possibly need, want, or spend. The whole point of making a lot of money is mainly to have a good life for yourself and your family, and I can't believe their lives are better uprooting themselves from a great team and region they've played for a while, force everyone to switch schools, buy new houses, and so on.

At that level of income, for one thing, the actual amount of money one has is going to depend on intricacies of tax law and how one structures one's investments. It's not like it's sitting in a checking account and you need that extra 2 million to buy a new car.

You might say it's "long term security" but surely the security of playing for a great team for a long time is better from a career standpoint or for preserving options post-career.

Finally, some people say "it's about respect". Maybe that's true without a salary cap, but with one, there's a finite amount of money, and paying some people too much will just kill a team's chances to win. Don't they get respect making more than just about anyone and winning championships besides?

I just, I really can't understand someone seriously considering uprooting their lives over an amount of money that won't make any difference in their lifestyle at all (but moving to some new town that doesn't know them and doesn't have a good team will probably be unpleasant for everyone).

You can afford the Internet. Why don't you go back to your job and renegotiate to lower your monthly salary by $40. You'd really help out all of your teammates (us).

 

[Tunescribe]

No, that's not true - there is an actual lifestyle difference between 80k and 120k in the US. Apples and oranges - Kenya is not the US.

The lifestyle difference diminishes exponentially with each added zero.

That last sentence is true and poses a fascinating question: what is the saturation point? I'd love to see someone attempt a formula for objectively defining "frivolous excess" in terms of wealth applied to need vs. want.

 

[BradyManny]

Every situation is different and many variables are different, but when you are talking salaries that are millions of dollars apart, most people take the money over all other variables.

That's fine - and I think $4 million is a rather extreme example. I just think too many people on this board think $$ is the only variable. In reality, there's plenty of examples of players who take less for these other variables we have talked about. They aren't insane, or naive, or whatever else has been said in this thread.

 

[Marinlik]

No it's not. A million dollars to a guy with nothing is life-changing. A guy in 8-figure income wouldn't notice the difference unless his broker told him.

The diminishing marginal utility of money is a basic economic principle. It's also why a graduated (marginal) income tax is preferable. You take 10% from a guy making $10,000 and you're literally taking food off his table. You take 10% from a guy making $100,000 and you're maybe changing his choice of car, or college for his kid.

You take 10% from a guy making a million and he doesn't even know it, other than the constant *****ing he'll do because the lazy poor people are stealing his money.

You take 10% from a guy making $100,000,000 and the only thing you might do is change his standing on the Forbes 500. He can still have his multiple $25 million homes and his yacht and his private jet.

And by the way, the very wealthy count upon the not-very-wealthy to never understand or appreciate this.

When your big career ends somewhere in your early thirties and this is the money you will spend the rest of your life on, then those extra $4M a year can be very noticeable as the years go by.

 

[50-yard-line]

When your big career ends somewhere in your early thirties and this is the money you will spend the rest of your life on, then those extra $4M a year can be very noticeable as the years go by.

My remark wasn't quoting a $4 million difference - in fact, I've said just the opposite. Were I Revis, it wouldn't matter as much, but he's already banked around 100 million. For McCourty, I would stay over 1m a year, but not over 3-4 m a year.

There is very little difference between $9m and 10M (particularly since it's really a difference between around 500k after taxes, agent fee, ect...).

 

[BobDigital]

I don't usually fault players for taking more. However sometimes I believe they have their priorities wrong but it all depends.

If a player making 10M can make an extra 500K by moving to a new team which is something his family does not want him to do and he is doing it just out of ego then that to me is silly and selfish.

However what if his family wants to move? What if that is where he wants to live or has family there? Now it is not silly or selfish but just makes sense for that player.

The truth is we have no idea when players move how much these factors play into it. Maybe moving makes more sense. Maybe they are just unhappy with the guys they have in the locker room and so want a change of scenery. Making slightly more at another place could be the least important factor.

I am sure these factors come up for moving just as much as staying.

 

[JarOfMayo51]

You're only federally insured up to a 100k. Gotta put it somewhere.

http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/athletes/athletes-bankrupt/

My favorite-
Basketball player Latrell Sprewell first made headlines during his tenure with the Golden State Warriors. During a 1997 practice, he choked his coach, P.J. Carlesimo, and earned a 68-game suspension. Sprewell still went on to a substantial career, earning almost $100 million.

It all came to an end when he turned down a a three-year contract extension from the Minnesota Timberwolves worth $30 million. According to Sprewell, this was simply not enough money. He said, “I have a family to feed … [team owner Glen Taylor] better cough up some money. Otherwise, you’re going to see these kids in one of those Sally Struthers commercials soon.” (Sprewell was referencing ChildFund International commercials, which provided sponsorship to deprived children around the world.)

The Timberwolves’ upper management, unmoved by his family’s tragic situation, didn’t offer him one more cent, and by the end of the 2005 season, he was unemployed. By 2007, his yacht, “Milwaukee’s Best,” had been repossessed by federal marshals after missed payments and insurance worth over $1 million. In 2008, he defaulted on the mortgage on his Milwaukee home, sending it into foreclosure. His Westchester mansion went into foreclosure two years later.

More-
http://www.60maxpowero.com/patriots..._medium=referral&utm_campaign=crowdignite.com

Haha I don't feel one ounce of sympathy for people that stupid.

If you had $50 million, you could invest it in low risk, low return rates of 4 or 5% and have about 2 million in income off the interest without spending a dime of the principal.

When your lifestyle is costing you millions and millions of dollars a year and you go bankrupt you're just a #*÷&ing drooling idiot that shouldn't have had that kind of cash to begin with

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

That last sentence is true and poses a fascinating question: what is the saturation point? I'd love to see someone attempt a formula for objectively defining "frivolous excess" in terms of wealth applied to need vs. want.

Easy, you have more than I have = frivolous excess

I have more than you have= I have needs

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

My remark wasn't quoting a $4 million difference - in fact, I've said just the opposite. Were I Revis, it wouldn't matter as much, but he's already banked around 100 million. For McCourty, I would stay over 1m a year, but not over 3-4 m a year.

There is very little difference between $9m and 10M (particularly since it's really a difference between around 500k after taxes, agent fee, ect...).

What if they want to donate what they make over 8 million to charity? Or just donate 25%? Does it matter then?

 

[fnordcircle]

No, that's not true - there is an actual lifestyle difference between 80k and 120k in the US.

Actually, there isn't but I can't find the study I read that proved it so you'll just either believe me or not.

But the study indicated that quality of life did not have a dramatic change between different thresholds (I think the thresholds they used were like 60k and 90k)

Essentially people with 60k who were able to pay their bills lived according to their means. People with 90k lived according to their means as well but showed no distinct increase in quality of life because, like all of us, people who make 90k a year are still idiots about money. The 90k income people spent more money on stupid ****, on average, and did not have a net worth that, percentage wise, as high above the 60k people as it should be.

The reason why I brought up the dirt farmer is because, relatively speaking, you and I (i assume) are dirt farmers compared to someone making millions. And likewise I'm sure if some poor person living in Thailand crammed into a shack with a bottle of water jammed into the roof for solar lighting would look at my lifestyle and see nothing but waste and excess.

That's why these conversations where people get self-righteous about how much athletes earn crack me up.