Blog Archives

There's Something Wrong

6/30/2022

The morning paper recently reported that in 2021 Walt Disney Company CEO Bob Chopek earned $32,500,000. That’s thirty-two and a half million dollars! His salary was a measly two and a half million dollars, with at least 20 million of the rest coming from a performance-based bonus. I suppose that reflects increased corporate earnings from entry charges soaking daily visitors, hotel costs, sales of Disney paraphernalia, and any number of other techniques designed to separate the public from its money. I’m sure the stockholders are appreciative and don’t begrudge him a penny.

Now I have no trouble with corporate leaders earning significant income. Their job can’t be easy and it’s one I would not like to have. Especially when the corporation is so huge and beloved by so many. And the axe is quick to swing if the company doesn’t do well.

Nevertheless, a simple calculation concerns me. Let’s consider an average Disney employee. Not one at higher levels or in skilled positions where pay is much higher. Rather one in that vast majority who are service personnel in some capacity or other. There are tens of thousands of them. Suppose they earn $15 an hour. That’s’ about $30,000 a year.

If we divide 32,500,000 by 30,000, we get approximately 1083. That means that the CEO of Disney earns over one thousand times the yearly income of most of his company’s employees.

In 1965 the average CEO earned 21 times the average employee. In 1989 that had risen to 61 times, in 2019 to 307 times and in 2020 to 351 times. It definitely is a rapidly increasing trend so perhaps we should not be surprised by the 1083 ratio.

In 2021 Disney had approximately 190,000 employees worldwide. That’s down from its pre-pandemic level and it is higher today. I tried to find the number in the United States but was unsuccessful. Just out of curiosity, I wondered what would be the case if Chopek’s income was limited to a paltry $2,500,000 in 2021 and how far the difference would go if distributed among all employees.

This can be obtained by dividing the difference in his income, 30 million dollars, by the number of employees, 190 thousand. This calculation produces $157.90. Not a significant amount so dividing that 30 million among all employees would not positively impact their lives in any significant way, except perhaps as an indication of good will.

So, is it silly to worry about that 1083 factor? I don’t think so. It seems to me it is a further instance of the separation of our society into the few who control most of the money and the many who do not, with the further erosion of the middle class which for so long has been the backbone of our nation.

And I suspect that in this day and age someone like Chopek would turn up his nose at accepting the CEO job for a tiny 2.5 million dollars.

It just seems wrong!

2 Comments

Athletes, Finances and Loyalty

6/20/2022

2 Comments

I used to enjoy sports. A few friends and I played pickup games of baseball, basketball, and football. Some of these friends were quite good. I was terrible. But they were kind to me and I had fun. It was a period when teen years offered time to be young. Unlike now where so many kids are focused on activities designed to get them accepted to the college of their choice
.
This love of sports extended to “spectatorship.” Rarely in stands except for high school football matches, but often attached to the amazing communication device called radio. Not a pixel was present. I learned the names of all the Brooklyn Dodger players as well as many of those on other teams. Like Joe DiMaggio, Warren Spahn, and Johnny Mize.

Once I had mastered the names, I could depend on them being constant. That is, rarely did an athlete hop from one team to another. If I hated the Yankees, I could take comfort in knowing I could hate the same players year after year.

Saturday afternoons, when not with my friends, were often spent in the basement of our New Jersey home where I had an O-gauge Lionel train setup to which I devoted many an hour. In the background was the play-by-play of a football game. Teams like Army, Navy, Dartmouth, and Harvard were common on those broadcasts. Glenn Davis and Doc Blanchard were well known army cadets at West Point and in their years there led their team to a 27 and 0 record with a single tie. Yes, back then ties did occur. It wasn’t essential to declare a winner. Two evenly matched teams could share the glory and go home with pride.

Another remarkable fact about that period was most of the players were student athletes. Stop laughing. I mean it. They were in school to study and played sports in addition.

Times have changed. In many ways. In my opinion often not for the better. I’ll be speaking in terms of football, but my comments apply to other sports.

I fear that, while there are still examples of student athletes, most on big name college teams these days dream of playing for a professional one rather than amassing extensive educational credentials. And the pro ranks is where the money is.

And that’s where the problems are.

But not completely.

For example, now it’s easier for athletes to make a bundle while still in college, at least if they’re famous enough or photogenic enough or business savvy enough. They can cash in on their name recognition earned by being outstanding in their sport or simply being clever at a marketing program based on their participation in a sport. As the money rolls in, I’m sure they think that’s better than spending the equivalent time on their education.

Nevertheless, it’s the pros where the big payoff lies. And many will do anything to get there, including tossing loyalty to the wind.

I recently learned of a feature of college football that has been around since 2018: the transfer portal. As I understand it, a college athlete can join it and essentially announce he’s available to leave the school where he made his name to be picked up by a school that he hopes will provide a better path to the pros. College coaches still have to recruit the old way: visit outstanding high school players and try to convince them to join their team. But now they also must recruit from this pool of unsatisfied college players. All while dealing with the loss to the portal of some of the best athletes on their own team. I understand there’s a natural tendency of coaches to prefer the seasoned athletes in the portal rather than high school seniors with no experience at the college level, and this hurts the prospects of those seniors. But for those in the portal, the lure of potential money trumps loyalty any day.

I’ve also learned that even a high school athlete, thinking he could find a better path to his desired college team, can switch schools as long as he doesn’t play for both schools in the same year. For them it’s the beginning of the long road seeking fortune and fame in the pros.

I recognize that for some families this search may seem like the path of escape from poverty, and I view their actions with sympathy. But I also know most kids won’t achieve professional status and perhaps concentrating on education would be a wiser choice.

Whatever, I find this lack of loyalty to one’s professional, college, or high school team disturbing. I think it erodes most of the joy of following one’s favorite team. I can’t understand why a fan’s loyalty would be higher than a player’s.

Is it any wonder I no longer have much interest in watching sports?

2 Comments

The Art of Diversion

6/6/2022

2 Comments

Twenty-one dead: nineteen fourth graders, two teachers.

Because of bullets shot from an AR-15 by an 18-year-old child.

If there had been no gun, there would have been vastly fewer deaths, even if the perpetrator had wielded some other type of weapon.

Let’s be absolutely clear. No gun, vastly fewer or no deaths.

The gun lobby and their Republican minions want no part of that view. They know their position looks untenable, so after any shooting they immediately begin directing attention away from the obvious statement, one worth repeating: No gun, vastly fewer or no deaths.

They’re good at it, this diversionary technique. After all, they’ve had plenty of practice. They’ve created many diversions, all designed to take our minds off the real problem.

Of them all, one—and only one— has merit. Improvement of mental health aid. This because it is needed to deal with so many of the problems that trouble us, only one of which is guns. Of course, the suggestion isn’t made to actually help people. Remember, it’s a diversion. And many of the politicians championing the argument control states with the worst mental health support in the country.

All other diversions offer nothing helpful. A few are:

·      The “I am a sympathetic and understanding person who deeply feels the despondency of the survivors” farce. These people send “thoughts and prayers,” a meaningless gesture meant to deflect from the fact they have done nothing to alleviate the real problem.
·      The morally superior stance. “We should not politicize this issue,” making sure we know that anyone who attempts to make changes in gun laws is acting with partisan goals and is ignoring the feelings of the suffering. This from the most politically divisive party I have ever observed personally.
·      The “practical” solution: Hardening of schools. I’m not sure what this means, but feel certain it turns schools into fortresses, the perfect comforting learning environment.
·      The conspiracy theories. Unbelievable claims that mass shootings never occur, and victims seen on television are actors. Or the shootings are the result of a liberal plot against the gun lobby with leftists causing the deaths. This last was voiced at the NRA convention held in Texas days after what was at the time the latest mass shooting (several others have occurred in the following days). It’s frightening people can believe such nonsense.
·      Offer state aid to the affected families, such as paying for funerals. But only for the funerals of the newsworthy event victims, not the funerals of the tens of thousands of others killed every year by guns.

Then there are all the explanations of why guns are not the nemesis, but rather are essential to prevent future mass shootings, as if that has been the slightest bit effective in the past.

·       Arm teachers. Even though most teachers don’t want to carry guns, will receive only minimal training, and didn’t really sign on for the task.
·       The NRA explanation number 1: “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” As if the number of deaths would be the same if guns weren’t available.
·       Look elsewhere to see why nothing should be done. Chicago and New York City, for example, have strict gun laws and also large gun related deaths. Of course, the problem in those cities is anyone can bring in a firearm from outside the city. And what kind of an argument is that, anyway? We should give up because things are bad elsewhere?
·       The NRA mantra number 2: “Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun.” That’s worked out well, hasn’t it, with guns currently everywhere and mass shootings on the rise? Like the police standing outside a classroom while the shooter mows down kids inside?
·       The Second Amendment guarantees our right to have guns. Does it give us the right to purchase a long range missile?

Every one of these arguments serves only a single purpose. To make us forget the real problem. They are nothing but diversions ranging from the comforting thoughts and prayers through the frightening arming of teachers and up to the truly bizarre conspiracy theories.

Creating these excuses carefully honed over mass shooting after mass shooting must be difficult because it’s hard to convince people that something horrible will be all right if we only do other things that ignore the real problem. They keep at it because they have been successful, with many buying into them.

It’s difficult to see why the diversions are so effective, because this problem is truly simple. The need for every one of them, except for better mental health aid, disappears if one simple fact were true.

If there had not been a gun readily available in the first place.

Go through all of them and realize what happens to them if there is not a gun around.

I don’t believe we’ll ever get to the point in this country that saner nations have achieved where guns are for the most part outlawed.

But that doesn’t mean we cannot improve the situation. Like raising age limits for purchasing, demanding meaningful background checks and training, creating safe storage requirements, curtailing the purchase of assault rifles and high-capacity magazines.

These are changes the majority of our citizens, including gun owners and members of every political party, endorse.

But those in power refuse to pass the required laws. Because they covet the dollars the NRA pours into their reelection campaigns more than they care about the lives of their citizens. Because they are too cowardly to stand up to that powerful lobby and their party leaders. Because they are unwilling to put their jobs on the line to do what is right. And because they know they have fooled their constituents who will return them to office term after term no matter what.

So every legislator and governor, and there are some in every party, who does not take action has blood on his or her hands. More blood every time a gun takes a life, either by a single homicide or a mass shooting.

They can send all the thoughts and prayers and offer all the other diversionary arguments they want, but it doesn’t alter the fact that every preventable death from guns that occurs will be etched on their record for eternity.

This means you, Governor Abbott. And you, Governor DeSantis. And you, Senators Cruz, Comyn, Scott, and Rubio. And all of you who promote the gun culture.

Shame!

2 Comments

There's Something Wrong

Athletes, Finances and Loyalty

The Art of Diversion

Author

Archives

Categories