HawkShack.com

Vernon Davis is skipping 9ers OTA's and is reportedly seeking to rework the 6 year 43 million dollar deal he signed in 2010. Now thats a team oriented guy for you! Meanwhile Seattle has guys accepting huge pay cuts below market value to acquire more talent. Its good to be a Hawks fan.....Fun to watch that hair fire smoldering down in the Bay area.

Isn't one of their OL doing the same thing?
But it's early yet.
Let's see what happens at Training Camp where attendance is Mandatory.
If they're still not participating then it becomes a real issue.

He'll get it. He has earned more than what they paid him and he's certainly worth more than he is slated to make the next two years. That is the NFL these days, if you under perform a contract you will certainly be taking a pay cut. Players should have their hands out when they over perform.

FolkCrusader wrote:He'll get it. He has earned more than what they paid him and he's certainly worth more than he is slated to make the next two years. That is the NFL these days, if you under perform a contract you will certainly be taking a pay cut. Players should have their hands out when they over perform.

I see your point, but he's making 7 million/year on average.
How much should a TE get these days?

We should probably avoid judging VD to harshly, eventually, Seattle will be faced with similar situations. It's part of the NFL, and as much as we as fans want to believe "loyalty" plays into it, it really doesn't.

Besides it's just OTA's ... call me when he starts missing training camp.

NorthHawk wrote:

FolkCrusader wrote:He'll get it. He has earned more than what they paid him and he's certainly worth more than he is slated to make the next two years. That is the NFL these days, if you under perform a contract you will certainly be taking a pay cut. Players should have their hands out when they over perform.

I see your point, but he's making 7 million/year on average.
How much should a TE get these days?

I don't know but that sounds a bit steep.

Players should have their hands out when they over perform.

1. Asking for more is an entirely different animal than refusing to honor a contract *you* signed.

2. What is "over performing"? The player had no idea how he expected to play when he signed?

3. The team doesn't get the option of saying "We thought you'd catch 80 passes this year, but you only caught 40, so we're only paying you half."

4. If you want to reevaluate your contract every time you "over perform", sign one-year contracts.

Kind of have to disagree with you there Burrton.

Players can only negotiate what they have leverage to negotiate. They may have had an idea that they'd play better but couldn't get that price at the time when their contract happened to be up. Maybe they had a diminished role that will expand in the future years but their production doesn't reflect their ability. Maybe they signed their current deal when they were coming off an injury. Also teams force restructured contracts all the time when players don't perform up to their contract numbers (or give them their outright release like Sidney Rice). It's not realistic to expect players to sacrifice any kind of future security simply so they can negotiate year to year. Besides, they still wouldn't get a fair price if they did it that way because teams would have to fit their entire salary into the cap for one season. Only a player with the production and reputation of Darrelle Revis can get away with something like that and even he had to do a two year deal this season for the salary cap reason I was just talking about.

I get the whole ideal about, you signed your name to the contract and you should honor your word, but it's no where near that simple with NFL contracts. I'm not even saying that Vernon Davis' demands are justifiable but I do think there are definitely instances where demanding to renegotiate a deal is justifiable. And it's not like contracts never get ripped up and redone in the "real" world.

I would indeed agree with you Burton, if teams also "honored" the contract signed, they almost NEVER do, and so I seldom do. It would be one thing if these contracts were guaranteed for the length of the contract, but they aren't, and seldom "play out" there is certainly an uneven amount of disdain thrown players ways when they hold out to get the current market value, but seldom do fans ever bat an eye when a guy like Rice or Red or Clemmons get cut..... definitely a touch hypocritical to give the BILLION dollar owners and organisations a pass when they cut guys ( after all those SAME organisations have their names on that contract as well) yet claim greed when the millionaires hold out for more money.

Davis seems to have amnesia when it comes to remembering what an underachieving head case he was his first couple years.Maybe its all the kill shots Cam Bam has laid on him. Not to mention he only caught something like 53 passes last year, albeit 13 for TD's. Hes an athletic freak but hardly a complete player yet. I think hes paid just fine.

Players can only negotiate what they have leverage to negotiate.

Well, agreed, and it's not black and white, but it seems to me leverage comes with having played well.

If I haven't played well enough to get what I think I'm worth, why should the team pay me based on some 'maximum potential not realized'?

Maybe they had a diminished role that will expand in the future years but their production doesn't reflect their ability.

Yeah, and I'm sure that's pretty common, but again, you can make that argument to them when you're negotiating the contract, right? If you have an airtight argument, the contract will either take that into account or you can make the argument to another team.

Besides, I think most contracts *do* take things like that into account. I don't know many players who can legitimately consider themselves "taken advantage of" except maybe those under rookie contracts.

It's not realistic to expect players to sacrifice any kind of future security simply so they can negotiate year to year.

I think it is if they expect their pay to reflect their production every year.

That said, on some level I don't blame them for doing whatever they have in their power to make as much money as possible. I just think "not honoring your contract" falls a bit outside the bounds of honor.

Does that mean they should never do it? Eh, maybe not. But I don't have to pretend it's a cool thing to do, either.

And it's not like contracts never get ripped up and redone in the "real" world.

Agreed, and again, I find *nothing* wrong with asking them to renegotiate. It's when they say no and you decide you're not going to honor your side of things that I get antsy.

If you want your contract torn up every year, give up some security and sign the one-year contract.

HumanCockroach wrote:I would indeed agree with you Burton, if teams also "honored" the contract signed, they almost NEVER do, and so I seldom do.

Teams *have* to honor the contract signed.

What's miffing you is that the entire contract isn't guaranteed, or that they can be let go if they don't fit in the team's plans, but guarantees are exceedingly rare in every walk of life including pro sports.

Everyone can be fired/laid-off, including you, me, and football players.

[edit]

It's also worth noting that on a year-by-year basis, their money *is* guaranteed.

IOW, if they make the team (as the contract stipulates they must), the team is committed to paying them what the contract says they must.

The Seahawks still had to pay Alexander ~$40M in 2006-7 even though his production wasn't close to that which landed him that contract.

burrrton wrote:

HumanCockroach wrote:I would indeed agree with you Burton, if teams also "honored" the contract signed, they almost NEVER do, and so I seldom do.

Teams *have* to honor the contract signed.

What's miffing you is that the entire contract isn't guaranteed, or that they can be let go if they don't fit in the team's plans, but guarantees are exceedingly rare in every walk of life including pro sports.

Everyone can be fired/laid-off, including you, me, and football players.

[edit]

It's also worth noting that on a year-by-year basis, their money *is* guaranteed.

IOW, if they make the team (as the contract stipulates they must), the team is committed to paying them what the contract says they must.

The Seahawks still had to pay Alexander ~$40M in 2006-7 even though his production wasn't close to that which landed him that contract.

No, a team is obligated to pay guaranteed money, they are in no way shape or form, "having" to fulfill the contract. At this point Davis has "fulfilled" the guaranteed portion of his contract ( in essence fulfilled the SAME that a team is required). Teams aren't "firing" players because of play in every instance, and you know it. Pretend if you want that a player is being "greedy" for not wanting to continue to play on a contract that the team can dump whenever they wish ( as if teams keep players , that would be WHY there is dead money on caps) simply NOT going to pretend like the billionaires are suffering because a player wants the going rate for his ability.

Owners and franchises use players how they see fit, and then toss them aside for a new "tool" that is sharper or bigger, whenever and however they FEEL like doing so.

The idea that a CONTRACT ( not an at will agreement) can or should be terminated whenever one see's fit, but the other party should adhere to every sentence is simply, kind of offensive and short sighted. For a CONTRACT to work, BOTH parties agree and adhere to the words laid out in the contract, if you only HOLD ONE party accountable, you don't have a contract. At least not a valid one.

I think what's really happening is VD wants a Kam Chancellor clause in his contract where if he suffers another concussion due to the brutal punishment Kam deals out the rest of his contract becomes guaranteed. He doesn't want to get paid for his performance as much as he wants to ensure that he's well compensated just in case he ends up drinking the rest of his meals through a straw. :p

No, a team is obligated to pay guaranteed money, they are in no way shape or form, "having" to fulfill the contract.

"Fulfill" doesn't mean he's guaranteed a position every year.

Teams aren't "firing" players because of play in every instance, and you know it.

So? You think I got laid off from my last employer because I was a shitty programmer? No, it was because they wanted to move all ops to the east coast and I was too expensive to move.

Sometimes employees don't fit into plans.

Owners and franchises use players how they see fit, and then toss them aside for a new "tool" that is sharper or bigger, whenever and however they FEEL like doing so.

Ah. You're taking it personally.

I'm not saying you need to feel sorry for billionaires when a shitty player has a big contract- what I'm saying is that in the moral discussion, you're only 'owed' what your contract states.

If the player (on the roster) isn't going to let the team tear up the contract mid-season if he's playing poorly, it's pretty weak to say the team should let the player tear it up between seasons if he plays well.

The idea that a CONTRACT ( not an at will agreement) can or should be terminated whenever one see's fit, but the other party should adhere to every sentence is simply, kind of offensive and short sighted.

*sigh*

HC, if a team cuts a player, did they violate the terms of the contract?

Players usually get the guaranteed money in the form of a signing bonus which is pro rated over the length of the contract for CAP purposes.
Sometimes teams can claw some of it back if a player is suspended or quits.
The Cards have just picked up the option bonus on Daryl Washington at 10 million $ but he is now suspended for a year.
They've only paid him 5 million so far and if he never plays again they might be able to get back half (according to PFT).
It has happened before as when Barry Sanders retired, the Lions tried to get the remainder of the guaranteed money back.
I believe if the team had cut a player he would retain the signing bonus - or guaranteed portion of the contract.

All true, North.

The point is guaranteed money and all that go according to the terms of the contract (with disputes settled in arbitration or court).

If someone wants to feel sorry for a guy for having the privilege of making many hundreds of thousands of dollars (or millions) per year for "only" 3 years instead of 13, go ahead.

It doesn't mean the team acts in bad faith if a player doesn't fit into their plans anymore and he's cut without violating terms (of either the contract or the CBA).

Ah, and here's the crux. Vernon Davis ( or any athlete) has not "violated" anything either, you say that cutting said athlete when he is no longer "useful" is the same as an employer firing you/ laying you off because of poor work, or because it is to expensive to move you, or any other varying degree's or reasons, fine, than what Davis is doing is no different from an employee walking in and saying "pay me more" or I am not working for you anymore. It is up to the boss to decide whether they will or won't, and the Niner or any other team can indeed say goodbye for any reason the feel like doing so, so in what way has Davis done anything different than millions of other employees of millions of other companies? He set a line, and it's up to management to make the decision of whether they want their "asset" or not.

Attempting to get "more" money IS after all how the billionaires became billionaires in the first place, I don't adhere to the "special" rules policies for the uber rich theory. They don't like their employee asking for more, then fire him, another employer will either hire him or they won't, trade him, or pay him, but to vilify him for not "playing out his contract" is stupid IMHO, and that has been consistent from me in every situation.

This issue is discussed in every off season, and people end up on the same side of it each and every year. The NFL IS A BUSINESS, and the players ARE assets they know they have to get what they can, WHILE they can, and do so sometimes in this way. It doesn't make them bad people, in fact IMHO it makes them NORMAL Americans.

Hawktawk wrote:Vernon Davis is skipping 9ers OTA's and is reportedly seeking to rework the 6 year 43 million dollar deal he signed in 2010. Now thats a team oriented guy for you! Meanwhile Seattle has guys accepting huge pay cuts below market value to acquire more talent. Its good to be a Hawks fan.....Fun to watch that hair fire smoldering down in the Bay area.

Well, we did have Golden Tate, whom after saying he'd take a home town discount, spurned us for a greener pasture in Detroit. This is just standard business practice, and all teams have to deal with it, including us. Since we're coming off a SB season, we don't have to deal with it to the same degree that other teams do this year as players want that ring and being that we're the favorites to win it all again in 2014, we have a distinct advantage in that regard, but so would the Raiders or Browns if they happened to be the defending SB champs.

RiverDog wrote:

Hawktawk wrote:Vernon Davis is skipping 9ers OTA's and is reportedly seeking to rework the 6 year 43 million dollar deal he signed in 2010. Now thats a team oriented guy for you! Meanwhile Seattle has guys accepting huge pay cuts below market value to acquire more talent. Its good to be a Hawks fan.....Fun to watch that hair fire smoldering down in the Bay area.

Well, we did have Golden Tate, whom after saying he'd take a home town discount, spurned us for a greener pasture in Detroit. This is just standard business practice, and all teams have to deal with it, including us. Since we're coming off a SB season, we don't have to deal with it to the same degree that other teams do this year as players want that ring and being that we're the favorites to win it all again in 2014, we have a distinct advantage in that regard, but so would the Raiders or Browns if they happened to be the defending SB champs.

Tate was a very productive, tough and durable punt returner and very good reciever. He would block like a mack truck too, all for a relatively low paycheck. And he was a free agent. I'll miss him.He made some plays, but with Stafford and Megatron he will be a star in Detroit. I don't blame the guy.Plus he needed to get away from Ashley:-)

Davis on the other hand has 2 years left on a deal that pays him 7 million + per year. And if he has a brain he understands the dire cap situation and Kaepernics looming contract.
My point is it highlights the glaring difference between Seattle and Frisco in terms of sacrifice for a common goal

And RD I beg to differ on the impact of winning a Super Bowl. A year after winning it all the Ravens were a train wreck of arrests, Flacco doing a face plant after signing a 120 million dollar deal. Rice dissapearing on the field. The Giants went down the toilet after their last SB win.Its been the same for a lot of teams, which is why the Patriots were the last team to repeat ten years ago.

Seattle has a different vibe. I think guys have really bought in. The Hawks might be better this year.

HC, I don't want to go back and forth on this (it's really not that interesting), so suffice it to say this:

Two parties sign a contract. There are specific terms- what each is and isn't allowed to do. Nobody holds a gun to the other's head to get a signature.

When a player is cut, that contract isn't violated. When a player refuses to play (while insisting on the right to continue to play in the league), that contract *is* violated.

If you don't like the terms, don't sign it.

If you don't like the fact that they're not guaranteeing you a position regardless of performance or other considerations, don't sign it.

It's really that simple an evaluation, and that's really all the more worked up I can get about it (I don't think it's out of bounds to ask for a new contract, and so on).

Attempting to get "more" money IS after all how the billionaires became billionaires in the first place, I don't adhere to the "special" rules policies for the uber rich theory.

Generally speaking, violating and/or otherwise refusing to honor a contract is *not* a good way to become rich (quite the opposite, in fact).

Oohhh maybe a conspiracy, all the Niners are holding out for raises so they can't pay Kap..... I like the spin on that... LOL....

Tate was a very productive, tough and durable punt returner and very good reciever. He would block like a mack truck too, all for a relatively low paycheck. And he was a free agent. I'll miss him.

Seconded.

HumanCockroach wrote:Oohhh maybe a conspiracy, all the Niners are holding out for raises so they can't pay Kap..... I like the spin on that... LOL....

Heh. Future?

burrrton wrote:HC, I don't want to go back and forth on this (it's really not that interesting), so suffice it to say this:

Two parties sign a contract. There are specific terms- what each is and isn't allowed to do. Nobody holds a gun to the other's head to get a signature.

When a player is cut, that contract isn't violated. When a player refuses to play (while insisting on the right to continue to play in the league), that contract *is* violated.

If you don't like the terms, don't sign it.

If you don't like the fact that they're not guaranteeing you a position regardless of performance or other considerations, don't sign it.

It's really that simple an evaluation, and that's really all the more worked up I can get about it (I don't think it's out of bounds to ask for a new contract, and so on).

Attempting to get "more" money IS after all how the billionaires became billionaires in the first place, I don't adhere to the "special" rules policies for the uber rich theory.

Generally speaking, violating and/or otherwise refusing to honor a contract is *not* a good way to become rich (quite the opposite, in fact).

Generally speaking I agree, unless you are the one with the leverage, which happens far more than I think you are willing to admit. Maybe my perception is skewed from speaking with players or former players about this issue, I guess that could be the case, though to be fair, I often feel that fans views are just as skewed the other way, because the players make substantially more than regular fans, playing a game that they love.

Generally speaking I agree, unless you are the one with the leverage, which happens far more than I think you are willing to admit.

A contract is a legally binding document- "leverage" isn't a factor to a judge when deciding who did or didn't violate its terms.

Maybe my perception is skewed from speaking with players or former players about this issue, I guess that could be the case, though to be fair, I often feel that fans views are just as skewed the other way, because the players make substantially more than regular fans, playing a game that they love.

Yeah, I think you're sympathizing a bit too much maybe.

I don't want anybody getting screwed, and I'm not asking you to feel sorry for a billionaire beyond acknowledging that he's running a business, but maybe remember that most of these guys have been handed two things:

1. A college education.
2. A chance to earn more in a few years than most of us will earn in a lifetime (even with a *great* career) ON TOP of whatever their education will bestow on them.

Don't lose any sleep over a player getting cut- he's still probably going to have more in the bank than you or I will ever see.

They'll work out a new deal.
Davis wants to stay, and the 49ers can't really afford to lose him.
It's SB or bust for SF right now.
3 straight years of being a bride's maid, and some of their cornerstone pieces aren't getting any younger.

Maybe, though with me personally, I think it is far more a disdain for the billionaire owners than sympathy for the players ( though to be fair you also left off all sorts of nasty things the players get as well).

Maybe, though with me personally, I think it is far more a disdain for the billionaire owners

I've never gotten this. What is it about, say, Paul Allen making popular computers that you find worthy of disdain?

Do you think all, or most, billionaires came about their money illegitimately? If so, could you let me know? I don't mind being a little "illegitimate".

though to be fair you also left off all sorts of nasty things the players get as well

Like me putting up with the musculo-skeletal disorders that come with sitting at a desk all day because I like the paycheck, rather than working for less as a PT so I can walk around all day and not have to put up with that risk?

Would you put up with the risk of a broken arm or a concussion for a few hours 16 times a year if someone would pay you a million dollars to do so? I would. So would every NFL player.

LOL. Yeah, OK Burton. Not going to get into a debate about what does or doesn't come with the job in the NFL. Believe if you want that the pain you feel from sitting at a desk all day equates to what most players experience in their lives....

As for the owners, simply don't like people that are allowed to live by separate set of rules and while not all of them do so, nor do they all look to make their billions off the backs of others while looking down on those that provide the wealth, there HAS been in my life at least, a pretty solid display of that.

I'm tired of the UBER rich pretending like they are the "lifeblood" for every "little person" walking the earth. It's a MUCH deeper subject than I am willing to get into. You like Billionaire's be my guest, I just don't. They aren't all bad guys, and I'm not saying they all didn't come by their billions honestly, but I'm certainly not convinced that the idea to squash every company in your field is ethical, legal? Sure, ethical? Sorry, I don't agree with that practice which is a big part of how MANY of those Billionaires got where they did ( well at least those that didn't walk into it because their fathers, or grandfathers did so)

Believe if you want that the pain you feel from sitting at a desk all day equates to what most players experience in their lives....

Most? HC, I'm friends with a former NFL #1 pick. He's not experiencing anything but financial security and a few maladies I have worse than he does in the neck.

...while looking down on those that provide the wealth

The employer, the one who's made the effort, taken the time, made the sacrifice to create jobs is the one "providing the wealth" for those who work for him.

The employee, as an individual, is replaceable. If I quit, my employer could have another equally qualified worker in my chair within a month.

HC, don't give in to that adolescent view of economics. You're smarter than that.

I'm tired of the UBER rich pretending like they are the "lifeblood" for every "little person" walking the earth.

Tired or not, it depends who you're talking about.

Paris Hilton, inheriting her parents' wealth, isn't the lifeblood of anyone but her sh*thead groupies. But trust-fund babies are a negligibly small part of the "one percent" or whoever comprises your evil group.

My company, however, with its "rich" CEO and its "rich" founder, sure as H3LL *is* the "lifeblood" for every dmn one of us who work for it.

To think otherwise is preposterous.

burrrton wrote:

Believe if you want that the pain you feel from sitting at a desk all day equates to what most players experience in their lives....

Most? HC, I'm friends with a former NFL #1 pick. He's not experiencing anything but financial security and a few maladies I have worse than he does in the neck.

...while looking down on those that provide the wealth

The employer, the one who's made the effort, taken the time, made the sacrifice to create jobs is the one "providing the wealth" for those who work for him.

The employee, as an individual, is replaceable. If I quit, my employer could have another equally qualified worker in my chair within a month.

HC, don't give in to that adolescent view of economics. You're smarter than that.

I'm tired of the UBER rich pretending like they are the "lifeblood" for every "little person" walking the earth.

Tired or not, it depends who you're talking about.

Paris Hilton, inheriting her parents' wealth, isn't the lifeblood of anyone but her sh*thead groupies. But trust-fund babies are a negligibly small part of the "one percent" or whoever comprises your evil group.

My company, however, with its "rich" CEO and its "rich" founder, sure as H3LL *is* the "lifeblood" for every dmn one of us who work for it.

To think otherwise is preposterous.

Good for your friend ( and I mean that)

and good for you ( and I mean that as well). My experiences haven't in the least echoed yours, and so I suppose I'll be a child, adolescent and preposterous. I suppose I should be insulted, but I'll choose to allow you to think I'm stupid instead I guess, as you obviously are set in your opinion, as am I. I can live with that, I hope you have nothing but continued success and wealth provided for you and yours, your pain is less, and your friend continues on his healthy post football life.

peace.

burrrton wrote:

Believe if you want that the pain you feel from sitting at a desk all day equates to what most players experience in their lives....

Most? HC, I'm friends with a former NFL #1 pick. He's not experiencing anything but financial security and a few maladies I have worse than he does in the neck.

...while looking down on those that provide the wealth

The employer, the one who's made the effort, taken the time, made the sacrifice to create jobs is the one "providing the wealth" for those who work for him.

The employee, as an individual, is replaceable. If I quit, my employer could have another equally qualified worker in my chair within a month.

HC, don't give in to that adolescent view of economics. You're smarter than that.

I'm tired of the UBER rich pretending like they are the "lifeblood" for every "little person" walking the earth.

Tired or not, it depends who you're talking about.

Paris Hilton, inheriting her parents' wealth, isn't the lifeblood of anyone but her sh*thead groupies. But trust-fund babies are a negligibly small part of the "one percent" or whoever comprises your evil group.

My company, however, with its "rich" CEO and its "rich" founder, sure as H3LL *is* the "lifeblood" for every dmn one of us who work for it.

To think otherwise is preposterous.

burrrton - PM me on who this is:)

Hate to burst your economic understanding Bubble Burton but the 1 percenter's and the mutli-billion corporations and CEO's that they control are not "Job Creators" - they are the "Job Destroyers". And they have been very successful in destroying millions of good paying middle class jobs that once existed in the USA over the past 30 years.

You need to get some help - your fawning love affair with corporations "CEO's" is creepy. Most of these CEO's are worthless - and certainly not worth the 10's of millions in annual compensation that they receive - there are usually many others people in the same company who can fulfill their role just as easily as the current CEO. There are exceptions to that Statement though and some CEO's are special such as Mullaly at Ford, Bezos at Amazon and Jobs at Apple - these guys do deserve their compensation.

Today, the Gap between the average Pay of a large corporation workers and the CEO and his top lieutenants has never been greater. It is significantly higher that what it was 30 - 40 years ago which just also happens to be the peak time of the success of the Middle Class in the USA. Maybe you heard of the term "Banana Republic" Burton? One of the attributes of a Banana Republic is a country where the majority of the wealth created is kept by those on top - i.e. the Ruling Class - and the workers only receive a small pittance of the wealth that is generated. And oh yeah - there is no real middle class in a Banana Republic.

I posted this link in another thread earlier as it saves me a lot of work. See for yourself in an easy to understand series of charts just how the Ruling Class has won the war on the Middle Class in the USA over the past 30 years - For those who click on this link - please note that what you are looking at are "Facts" and not some mindless opinion or ruling class propaganda lines that are being fed to you by the Koolaid Drinking\Ruling Class CEO worshiping members of what's left of the middle class such as Burton.


http://www.businessinsider.com/dear-ame ... 012-6?op=1

Hate to burst your economic understanding Bubble Burton but the 1 percenter's and the mutli-billion corporations and CEO's that they control are not "Job Creators" - they are the "Job Destroyers".

LOL. Yeah, keep on trucking with the OKKUPY TEH WALL STREETS nonsense, savvy. You'll do well.

You need to get some help

Thanks, Mr. CompaniesAreJobDestroyers.

these guys do deserve their compensation.

How benevolent of you. I'm sure they'll be glad to hear you approve.

There is something very wrong when 1 person can get a multi million dollar bonus for laying off thousands of his countrymen and sending their jobs overseas.

NorthHawk wrote:There is something very wrong when 1 person can get a multi million dollar bonus for laying off thousands of his countrymen and sending their jobs overseas.

Not to hear some tell it. As always, I think it depends on where people stand. No one is "right" IMHO, but we as a whole have an issue seeing both sides of the coin ( and I'm obviously not exempt from doing so either, so I hope people don't take this as a judgement of any sort) it DOES happen, whether Burton wants to acknowledge it or not, but I don't think it is common practice, it just effects thousands upon thousands of people when it does.

It certainly is narrow sighted on my part, to dislike billionaires as a whole, but it is just as short sighted to think that 1% of 1% should hold 60%+ of the entire nations wealth. It just doesn't work, and there is going to be a serious general population dislike for the status Quo when the middle class dissapears, while the lower class drastically grows. If history teaches ANYTHING it's that that is a recipe for disaster, and is not a viable system for continued health of a Nation.

This was a good thread until someone couldn't resist hijacking it to push their political views.

it DOES happen, whether Burton wants to acknowledge it or not, but I don't think it is common practice, it just effects thousands upon thousands of people when it does.

Of course it happens, HC, and it's disheartening- the question is what do you think can be done to stop it? Companies being able to move is a reality of life.

They don’t just bend over and take it, or when they do, the pain will usually be felt more by their employees and customers than any “fat cat” that so upsets some people.

It certainly is narrow sighted on my part, to dislike billionaires as a whole, but it is just as short sighted to think that 1% of 1% should hold 60%+ of the entire nations wealth.

Serious question: can you name *anybody* ever who has said, or even implied, any percentage "should" hold any percentage of a nation's wealth at any given time?

I sure as h3ll haven't, because nobody can say whether they should or shouldn't with any confidence.

I'll say again, I'm not trying to portray rich people as necessarily sympathetic figures (contrary to someone else's strawman). They'll be able to weather most storms, or be able to bail comfortably if they can't.

That said:

When Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Warren Buffett, Mark Cuban, etc, became wealthier than guys like us can even imagine, no one got poorer as a result! In fact, them doing so made many other people's lives better, either in small ways with computers they liked for prices they liked, or in large ways with jobs at companies that made *them* rich as well (maybe not as rich as the founder, but it's only children that should engage in such juvenile envy).

This attitude that a group of guys like them having gotten wealthy is a bad sign is complete and utter hooey.

We've got a group of people in this country sitting around butthurt that a bunch of guys got fabulously wealthy, but can never explain why that's such a crime to them (assuming there was no crime committed amassing that wealth).

Further, the top 1%, 10%, and in fact all brackets are transient. A significant percentage of people who are in the top 10% at any given time won’t be there 5 years, or even 1 year, later. The same goes for every other bracket.

That means focusing on the fact that they are so fabulously rich compared to others is just pointless ‘politics of envy’ nonsense meant to get people to vote more power to the government.

And some fall for it.