He’s not overpaid. You probably aren’t either

The labor market's biggest bargain

 

This post is written in response to a fellow financial blogger who argues that

“(Pro athletes) are all overpaid in my view… they should be paid for performance… $100K base salary… if you play well, you make more. Play bad, and we take money from you.”

She (I’m assuming it’s a lady. I hope it’s a lady) isn’t the first person to take this position, nor the first to put standard English usage through a cheese grater, just the most recent.

Jim Irsay, who owns the Indianapolis Colts, pays Peyton Manning $14 million annually. For that, Irsay gets about as indestructible a force as there is in pro football, the linchpin of an offense that’s a threat to go to the Super Bowl every year. Before Manning got to town, the Colts were the laughingstock of the league and the franchise value nowhere near what it is now.

Irsay didn’t remain rich enough to own a football team by overpaying people. If having Manning around is worth $14 million to Manning, you can be sure it’s worth more than that to Irsay.

Here at Control Your Cash, we neither idolize Manning nor disdain him (same goes for any pro athlete.)  But what good would result from paying him a base salary of <1% of what he commands on the market? Would the author have the remaining 31 NFL owners collude and refuse to pay any more than that to an athlete who could enrich their teams by tens of millions of dollars?

Begrudging athletes their salaries is nothing more than jealousy – the same activities we grew up doing for fun, these people worked so hard to get proficient at that they can command lots of money. Meanwhile, I’m punching a clock, getting yelled at by the boss and trying to figure out how to pay the mortgage. It’s so unfair.

Even years after high school is over, the star quarterback still receives a mixture of adulation and envy. Besides, how do you “pay for performance”, anyway? Say you tie LeBron James’ salary to his scoring and rebounding averages. In other words, you’d encourage him to shoot every time he touches the ball, even when the game situation calls for him to pass: or you’re giving him incentive to always play close to the basket, rather than ever defend someone on the perimeter. And yes, let’s put a coach in a position where he can draw up plays that have a direct negative financial impact on certain players. That won’t cause any resentment.

So, you argue, pay athletes for winning. Then how do you determine how much of each victory each player is responsible for? Should a player who works so hard in a game that he injures himself risk further injury by coming back earlier than he should, just so he can get paid more? Maybe you could just trust that the majority of pro sports owners know what they’re doing. And the few stupid ones (like the guy in Minnesota who just signed Darko Milicic for $20 million) are engaging in an exchange that doesn’t affect you or me in any direct way.

Instead, take this as a lesson: for the most part, how much an employee gets paid correlates to how much he’s helping his boss get paid. The salesman is the standard example, because sales is so easily quantified: bring $x to the company, keep $yx for yourself where y is a number between 0 and 1 (a lot closer to 0.)

Do you want more money? Let’s do a flowchart:

If you’re salaried, it’s a little more convoluted. Sometimes it’s a case of determining how much it would cost the company to not have you around. Even a receptionist or a custodian provides some value, in that respect. (If either of those happen to be what you do for a living, don’t let anyone tell you that it’s a “non-revenue” position. Ask how much revenue your company would be amassing if the grounds were filthy and the phones unanswered.)

If you’re a cubicle toad, it can be harder still. Your humble blogger used to work as a $45,000/year advertising copywriter. For this, the ad agency got:

-550 collateral pieces (or as normal people call them, “junk mail and flyers”)
-887 headlines
-223 radio commercials
-34 television commercials
-11 long-form presentation pieces

In other words, the agency was getting the biggest deal since the guy who bought Manhattan from Peter Minuit*. That work output was what about 2.2 ordinary writers could have done in the same period. An ordinary writer got paid around $40,000 (if you want to find out these things, it helps to make friends with the girls in the accounting department.) So in return for the $5,000 “surplus”, said writer was leaving an additional $43,000 on the table.

The agency billed its clients over $25 million that year. $45,000 was hardly a fair representation of a prodigious writer’s value. It was more fair than paying Peyton Manning “$100,000 base salary” would be, but not by much.

The point of all this? Know your worth. 99.something% of salaried employees don’t. Your employer knows exactly how expendable (or valuable) you are. If it’s the former, you’re about to get fired. If it’s the latter, he’s in no rush to share the details of that information with you.

And if you’re in business for yourself, you get to transcend this entire stupid charade.

*Minuit got the island for $24, we all know that. But his heirs don’t own it today, right? He must have unloaded it at some point.

If a Containment Dome Doesn’t Work, Try Screaming

Pun level: 0.0 Rhyme level: 0.0 Scapegoating George W. Bush level: 0.0 All in all, a disappointing protest sign.

How many times could you fill the world’s largest supertanker with the oil that’s spilled since the Deepwater Horizon disaster began?

Come on, guess.

Okay, let’s make it multiple-choice. Is it:

  1. 20,000
  2. 100,000
  3. 600
  4. .2

The answer is 4), although that’s using the low estimate. At the absolute most, the oil that’s spilled so far would barely fill the TI Africa once.

Whoever says America’s education system is in shambles is wrong: in the last 7 weeks, we’ve become a nation of 300 million petroleum engineers. Still, that leaves the number of economists dangerously low.

British Petroleum is not evil. Joseph Stalin slaughtered people for the pleasure of it. O.J. Simpson too, on a smaller scale. The worst you can call BP is negligent, and even that implies that there’s no such thing as an unavoidable disaster.

11 BP employees died*, in case you forgot or never knew. Also, now is not a great time to be a shearwater. The human and animal costs notwithstanding, there remains an economic impact. If that sounds crass, denying the existence of said economic impact doesn’t make it any less real or eliminate the need to acknowledge and minimize it.

So let’s pretend that the people who are screaming that SOMETHING MUST BE DONE are willing to replace rhetoric with logic. Here are facts, not opinions:

  • It’s not the worst spill in Gulf of Mexico history. (That’d be the Ixtoc I spill of 1979, which lasted 9 months.)
  • It’s not the worst spill in American history. (Lakeview Gusher, California. 101 years ago. You’ve never heard of it, which should give you an idea of its lasting impact.)
  • It’s not even close to the worst oil spill in world history: we can still thank Saddam Hussein for that. At least Deepwater Horizon wasn’t deliberate.
  • Some people are convinced that there’s nothing the federal government can’t do.
  • Wishing, even demanding, is never enough to solve a problem.
  • BP stock has lost most of its value since the spill began, with a floor to be determined. (“Good! Teach those planet-rapers what’s what!”)

Voluntary exchanges of stock have already cost BP $97.9 billion, to say nothing of the costs involved in cleaning up the mess. If that’s not enough for you, what would be?

Seize their assets!

Their rapidly dwindling assets? To what end? So federal bureaucrats with zero accountability and zero experience can manage those assets? Never mind that BP, as its acronym would indicate, is headquartered in the United Kingdom and harder for the federal government to claim than, say, General Motors.

Wiping BP from the face of the earth would make a bad situation worse. BP has created 92,000 jobs around the world without requiring taxation or a confiscatory stimulus package to do so. Is employment important?

And if BP went broke, then what?

Bankruptcy court!

According to its 2008 balance sheet, BP has $228 billion in assets including $103 billion in “hard” assets – property, plant, equipment etc. Those would go to the highest bidder. Which would be a company that has not only a use for supertankers, rigs, and a distribution network, but the wherewithal to bid for them. Someone like, say, ExxonMobil. Yes, let’s increase the market share of the only company that environmentalists hate more than Amalgamated Lead Paint & Plastic Grocery Bags, Inc.

Solar and wind!

It’ll take more than a blog post to expose the holes in that argument, but for now, there’s no denser and more efficient way to transport potential energy than via petroleum and its derivatives. If there is, whoever discovered it is keeping awfully quiet and must hate money.

Perhaps it makes you feel good to join the “Boycott BP” Facebook group, even though all the BP stations in the United States are owned by franchisees. If you organize a protest, or pull an Ashton Kutcher and draw a connection between an oil spill and a political convention, think about what that does as far as solving the problem.

BP wants to stop and clean up the Deepwater Horizon spill a lot more than you do, so much so that they’re actually putting workers on the job. The next Code Pink volunteer who helps to float a containment boom up the Mississippi Delta will be the first.

Unless you’ve attempted to cap a drilling rig – one under a mile of water – you almost certainly don’t know if BP management is doing a good job or not.

They’re working on it. Sorry if that’s an unsatisfactory answer, but sometimes unfortunate events happen, and maybe laying blame is less important than solving the problem.

Any man-made disaster is like this. Exactly what are you supposed to do with the benefit of hindsight? If doctors didn’t prescribe thalidomide for pregnant women from 1957 through 1961, thousands of babies wouldn’t have been born with deformities. If a series of bureaucrats at the Federal Aviation Administration had refused to prohibit commercial pilots from carrying firearms, the World Trade Center would still be standing, 2743 civilians wouldn’t have been murdered, and there would have been less cause to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

To write about Deepwater Horizon and say anything other than “hang BP’s CEO by his thumbs” might not be judicious, but there is a larger point. The stock is trading at a 13-year low. (Which might be a great buying opportunity. See here.) President Obama can show all the grave concern he wants. He can temporarily move the White House to Gulfport, Mississippi: it won’t stop the flow of oil. Nor will tarring and feathering BP chief Tony Hayward, to coin a phrase.

Righteous anger works fine when you punch out the guy who slapped your girlfriend. It works horribly with problems that are harder to fix. It takes composure, reason and hard science to make the Gulf of Mexico livable. If you can’t offer any of that, at least get out of the way.

——-

* Adam Weise, Dale Burkeen, Don Clark, Roy Kemp, Jason Anderson, Steve Curtis, Gordon Jones, Blair Manuel, Dewey Revette, Karl Kleppinger and Shane Roshto.

A post with no dollar figures

 

Came early. Stayed late. Died.

The firmly entrenched and the entrepreneurs can read the archives this week. We’re concentrating on the recent college graduates and the people switching jobs. For you, we offer a stratagem that’s so simple to execute that most people never see it. It takes a few minutes, and it cannot be more important. It’s one of the biggest examples of leverage you’ll ever find.

Time is money, right? What Ben Franklin meant by that, in case it’s not obvious, is that you have the opportunity to put every hour to its best economic use. Giving away the store to your boss is not one of them.

Get to work on time, not before. Take the time off you’re entitled to. Punch that clock like it’s the nose of a shark. If you don’t, you’re setting yourself up for a lifetime of servitude. Your employer is your employer, not your massa. Set the terms out at the start of your tenure. We can’t overemphasize this. (Yes, you can set terms, instead of having them dictated to you. Accepting the job in the first place was your decision, right?)

Once you’re on the job there’ll be pressure, and not a little of it, to do the opposite of the advice you’re currently digesting from a disembodied voice on the internet. Who gives less than everything yet expects to get ahead? If you’ve never thought about this, hearken. The employees with the least going on in their lives, and the least ambition (or at least, the least ambition outside of trying to do as much as possible for the company) often dictate the workplace conditions. Along with complicit bosses.

Whether your directive is a written contract, a relevant phrase in an employee handbook, or just the climate of the workplace you’re joining, more often than not you’re still expected to come early, stay late, work through lunch and sacrifice the occasional weekend. Unless you absolutely live for what you do, which the overwhelming majority of us don’t, do not do any of the above. Your job shouldn’t define you, but neither should the overage on your commitment to your employer. You owe your employer a fixed number of hours. Your employer owes you a fixed number of dollars. The ratio of dollars to hours should thus stay constant until both parties agree to change it.

It gets far harder to do this the longer you stay in the job. If you’ve been donating labor to your employer labor every week in your six months on the job, superiors and coworkers who have come to expect your charity will notice when you deny it to them. Make it clear on your first day, when it’s 5:01 and you’re nowhere to be found, that you’re playing a more complicated game than the one in which you nail yourself to a crucifix in the hopes of getting noticed. Of course, this means you really have to bust it during the time when you are on the job, which you should be doing anyway.

If you spend 3 years in your position, getting there 10 minutes early every day, working a mere 7 minutes into lunch, and sticking around 23 minutes after the de jure end of the average workday, congratulations. You’ve sacrificed an entire quarter’s salary in the hopes that your employer noticed you and recommended you for advancement. You know, so you can do more of the same, for each tier of middle management you choose to slog through.

Sure, the promotions usually go to the employees who make the biggest show of their loyalty. That’s not how capitalism is supposed to work. You say you have to donate your time to preserve your job? Nonsense. Even when 9.7% of the nation is out of work, this strategy doesn’t affect your individual case. If you’re so incompetent that giving away additional time is the only way you can get your work output up to an acceptable level, you need to find something or somewhere else.

But if you’re capable in your job, spend that extra 40 minutes a day that you would have spent at the office reading the Control Your Cash archives. Or shopping mutual funds. Researching discount brokers. Looking for investment properties. Anything to spur passive income, rather than the active income that you will almost certainly never get wealthy off.

The traditional means of getting ahead is self-defeating. There’s more to life than hoping the person who gives you your active income notices you, which is a form of prostitution. (Or what else would you call giving away time, equated with money, in exchange for attention?) If you truly love what you do for a living, whether it’s selling radio air time, mining coal, preaching the Gospel, playing an instrument, determining who holds title on property, or cooking short-order meals, step back and examine where you are for a second.

Congratulations on finding your calling, if that’s what you want to call it. Why are you doing it for someone else, who takes a cut?