The Paying College Athletes Issue

University of South Carolina football coach Steve Spurrier is advocating paying studentathletes a stipend of $3,500 to $4,000 per year. It sounds pleasant enough but, no matter the good intentions behind the concept, just won’t work. It may be true that the SEC can afford such payments but it isn’t likely that it can work for every other division 1 school. Football makes a lot of money and from a purely free market perspective it does not seem fair that the athletes playing don’t get a taste of that cash. However, these are student athletes and they are provided scholarships for up to five years that cover almost every expense. Because they are students as well as athletes (I know, I know but this isn’t a discussion comparing the ratio between student and athlete, however important), the money made from college football is effectively incidental. That money can be used to support other sports and sporting initiatives providing many other students with opportunities they wouldn’t otherwise have.

The most important reason though, is relative economics. UNM’s (36,322 students) University Stadium holds 40,094, with an average attendance in 2010 of 21,338. The most expensive individual tickets are $27. The University of Michigan’s (42,716 students) Michigan Stadium holds 109,901 and it costs $100 to get on a list to “beeligible to be offered individual game tickets” (in English this means one pays $100 to be able to purchase tickets if they are available), which I think answers the average attendance question. Notice a difference? The UNM football program doesn’t make enough to support paying its players; no doubt it’s not the only division 1 football team in the country in this situation.

And what of the loss of completion stemming from football teams unable to compete under this change and is it fair to not offer the same arrangement to other sports? Paying college athletes is a contentious argument and there are serious arguments in support of it. However, on balance it would be detrimental to college sports and unnecessarily blur the line between amateur and professional.

The Dogmatic Corporate Speech Police...

George Will’s latest column in the Washington Post examines the Montana Supreme Court’s decision to uphold a state ban of corporate political campaign contributions in defiance of the US Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision. Because of US Supreme Court precedence and the absence of any changes to the first amendment of the United States Constitution the Montana decision is unconstitutional and will be struck down on appeal. Will’s column is interesting in that it introduces Montana's issue to many who wouldn’t otherwise know about it. More interesting is the comments on the article. There are many people unhappy with the Citizens United decision and the biggest reason is that some claim that corporations do not have a right to free speech because corporations are not people and that the right to free speech in the first amendment is an individual and not collective right. This line of thought is a distinction without a foundation. The first amendment of the constitution reads in its entirety:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

There is nothing there about individual or collective rights, simply that congress shall (a legally binding word) make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Besides that, what is a corporation other than a group of people? If there is a desire to change the first amendment to divide rights between individuals and groups then those opposed to corporate personhood can try it (good luck with that), otherwise they have no validity. Just because they don’t like corporate speech doesn’t change that it’s speech.

The Danger in made up Conceptions

Being partisan as I am the President’s shtick on private equity and Mitt Romney’s work within that industry does nothing more than incite eye-rolling. However, I am starting to think that as the President’s campaign seems to coalesce about the notion that Romney is unfit to be President because of his work in private equity that more and more people will tire of this shtick as well. I think this because the President’s notion consists of simple invective statements repeated very often that require listeners to be uncurious and accepting. Over time it’s reasonable to think that many of these listeners will eventually be introduced to competing assertions and even seek them out.

They might wonder why it is that the President’s campaign is centered about the qualifications of his opponent and not about what it is that he has done over his term to deserve re-election and what policies he would pursue in a second term and how they would benefit the citizens of this country. Additionally, they might wonder qualifications the President has to credibly discuss the machinations of private equity and Romney’s record in the industry?

Next, they might contemplate the President’s conceptualization of private equity. How could any business make money by bankrupting companies? The simplistic idea of loading on debt and then exiting might seem believable but how exactly would that work and why would any lender continue to issue debt to a company that took out loans and then defaulted? It might be infuriating to learn that private equity firms focus on profit and not on the number of jobs created. But then consider, what is profit; crudely defined as revenue minus costs? How can profit even exist without some good or service being sold by a company invested in by private equity? And how could those goods or services exist without employees creating and managing them? At best the President might be able to convince some that job creation is incidental to business plans. This view does not change the fact that jobs result from offering more services and goods (which is how profits increase). They might learn that private equity firms target declining businesses and wonder what would happen to those businesses if not invested in by private equity. They might wonder how a declining businesses can continue without investment and contemplate the affect on jobs should a declining business cease to exist.

After thinking about business and determining that it just doesn’t make any sense for a company to make money by bankrupting companies over and over again. After coming to the conclusion that business make money by selling things and that those things require workers to offer and create them. They might consider Mitt Romney as a successful businessman who led a private equity firm, Bain Capital, which still exists and has invested in many businesses that are still around today making money by selling things to people that are made by other people. Finally, once they realize these things they might just realize that the President’s campaign is implausible.

Film Union Nativism

It can’t be easy to be a union representative in a right to work state. Union supporters ignore that private sector unions only have significant membership where those in certain industries and professions are forced to join. In a right to work state, like New Mexico, private sector unions often resort to bitterly protesting any work not awarded to one of their affiliates regardless of requirements, cost, qualifications or consumer choice. Many of the unions in New Mexico are subsidiaries of those in forced unionization states resulting in this attitude of entitlement. One of the tactics often employed is nativism, attempting to tar any non-union work as unsatisfactory because it supposedly enriches those outside of the state at the detriment of New Mexicans.

Local film workers union business agent Jon Hendry has mined the nativism well in a flaccid attempt to prompt controversy over recent NMDOT anti-drunkdriving advertisements done by an Albuquerque firm who brought in a producerand director from California. "There's no reason to bring in the production from out of state" because it’s “like bringing in green chile from Texas", According to Hendry in a logic defying opinion playing on the historical New Mexican distrust of Texans. He continues by stating that brining in out of state producers discourages New Mexico students pursuing film careers here, offering no proof whatsoever. Hendry’s thinnest gruel comes when he supports his assertions by citing the box office success of “The Avengers” movie, of which much (but not all) was filmed in New Mexico. I didn’t realize that director Joss Whedon was a New Mexican. He isn’t. Maybe Marvel Studios is based in Corrales. It isn’t. Paramount perhaps? Nope. To Hendry, it’s apparently reasonable to cite a production that involved a Non New Mexican director and producers in support of a nativist argument against the same.

But of course, that’s not the point. Nowhere does Hendy mention any actual names of qualified New Mexicans or make any objective arguments against the personnel chosen for the NMDOT advertisements. That does not mean that there are no New Mexicans who could have done them, but NMDOT stated a certain preference and the firm charged with carrying out that preference made a decision based on experience. It happens and is a result of the free market. To the International Association of Theatrical Stage Employees Local 480, the free market doesn’t matter. That’s because in right to work New Mexico, the local 480 is nothing but a parasitic entity. Hendry’s argument is nothing but a bullying tactic to coerce others into hiring their members. The local 480’s very existence relies on such tactics because if their members aren’t getting paid, neither are they.

Obvious if not Absolute Conclusions - 5/21

There’s a posting on the Today show’s health blog titled “Doesorganic food turn people into jerks?” In the post, the author describes someone’s outing to an organic market in Seattle that unnecessarily turned into a hassle. The author used this story to introduce a study in the journal of Social Psychological and Personality Science that purportedly finds that organic foodies can become self-righteous. One wonders if this finding was a surprise to anyone, including those who produced the study. The study in itself is interesting in that it observes the moralistic labeling of organic foods and links it to smug behavior based on assumptions of altruism on the part of both the merchant and consumer. It seems doubtful that this study could truly be considered a complete piece of work. Certainly not everyone who sells or purchases organic goods thinks they are saving the world, they might prefer them for any number of impossible to know reasons. And those consumers and shop keeps most deserving of eye-rolls in light of their own absurd self-regard might just be the kind of people who are attracted to products that allow them to feel magnanimous. Unfortunately these altruistic feelings often manifests in overtly preachy behaviors leading to not entirely accurate perceptions of perfectly tasty, if costly, organic foods. Maybe the conclusion should be that jerks ruin everything.