Wednesday, April 23, 2003

In what seems like a previous life, I used to be a sports radio talk show host. The calls that you take on the air in that job pretty much all fall into only about five categories. I won't ennumerate them all here, but perhaps the most common is the "overpaid atheletes" call. The basic idea is "it's ridiculous for Michael Jordan to make $30 million per year while for throwing a ball through a hoop while teachers and fireman make next to nothing."

Certainly, on a cosmic scale of importance, there is truth to this. A good fireman will actually put his life on the line to save others, while the only thing Mike puts on the line are his feet, while making a free throw. But these callers fail to understand how the free market works, and why the way it works is a very good thing. The entire essence of modern liberalism is to take these gut-level value judgements and force them on society via law.

Today, economics professor Walter Williams writes a wonderful column that every student in the country ought to be required to read, explaining in very basic terms why it's right for Michael Jordan and the firemen to make what they make. For some, this is foundational stuff. But for many, there's no understanding of why things cost what they do.

Williams writes:
Why is it that Michael Jordan earns $33 million a year and I don't even earn one-half of one percent of that? I can play basketball, but my problem is with my fellow man, who'd plunk down $200 to see Jordan play and wouldn't pay a dollar to see me play. I'm also willing to sell my name as endorsements for sneakers and sport clothing, but no one has approached me.

The bottom line explanation of Michael Jordan's income relative to mine lies in his capacity to please his fellow man. The person who takes exception to Jordan's salary or sees him, as my letter-writer does, as making "little contribution to society" is really disagreeing with decisions made by millions upon millions of independent decision-makers who decided to fork over their money to see Jordan play. The suggestion that Congress ought to take part of Jordan's earnings and give it to someone else is the same as arrogantly saying, "I know better who ought to receive those dollars."
It's as if it were a page torn out of Thomas Sowell's wonderful Basic Economics textbook, which I will be working through with my own kids in the not-too-distant future.

No comments: