Re: Does it, Cecil?
- ***** Chris, Apparently the concept of "greed" has simply left the
planet for many Americans today. You all seem to feel that there is no
such thing as "enough". Well, I don't agree. I think there IS a point
at which making more money can and should take a back seat to the
personal satisfaction achieved from a combination of giving and
producing at the highest level of your chosen profession.
***** You can, and will most certainly choose to disagree. But those
are the principles that drove the vast majority of the people who moved
the human race from the cave to the age of automation.
***** I'm not suggesting that "subsistance" is enough, Chris. I'm
saying that a person who earns, in a year or two, enough money buy a
large home, a few cars, a plethora of luxury items, and a few solid
investments really has all the material things that he should need for
an enjoyable material life. What he reaches for beyond that is, purely
and simply, greed and gluttony.
***** I agree that we who are getting into this again are beating a
horse that's been dead for some time here. So, fear not, I'm done with
it. At least as a part of the discussion on this issue. But I did think
it was appropriate to remind some of you that there are those who feel
that super rich athletes and their leaches are what a religious man
(which I certainly am not) would call greedy to the point of being
sinful. Those of us who believe that, also believe that Lawyer Milloy's
departure was the net result of that greed, as it has "matured" over
--- Christopher Robert Woods <chris@...> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, George R wrote:
> > I still come back to the fact that Lawyer Milloy was about to make
> > somewhere in the neighborhood of $2 million this year with a
> > re-negotiated contract (according to the rumors), with more
> millions to
> > come in years ahead. That is enough money to allow any American to
> > himself up for a life of luxury for the rest of his life. WTF more
> > material wealth does an individual need? Why isn't the opportunity
> > continue playing with a team that has recently won a SB, and is in
> > excellent position to contend for at least one more immediately,
> > to provide all the satisfaction a person needs? Why isn't a couple
> > million dollars a year, AND "the product on the field" enough?
> Behaviour is good or bad regardless of how many zeros are in the
> George, I am going to pay you $20 this year and $40 next year to
> bring this topic up again.
> Next year I'm going to change my mind and promise you $20 for that
> and $45 the following year.
> The year after that, I'm going to offer your $18 and promise you $46
> dollars the following year.
> At which point do you wake up and smell the coffee and realize that
> jerking your chain?
> Who here wouldn't leave a job to get more money? Or, even worse,
> happily leave a job where your employer kept coming back to
> your contract to cut your pay this year, but promise to make it up to
> next year?
> Serious, keep the amount out of your brain here, for just one second.
> Lawyer is betting that he can do better somewhere else. Its
> capitalism at
> work. I won't even start on your 'utopian' view of players having a
> and static market value locking them into a job they might grow to
> I guess you forfeit the freedom to choose to change jobs after you
> making a certain amount of money, huh?
> Funny how capitalism is all fun and games until you stop gaining from
> Christopher Robert Woods