As I was reading Thomas Friedman's column today (NYT) I was remembering working at Sears in Macon, Ga. when I was in college at Mercer. The manager would have a "pep rally" with the employees every Saturday morning, cheering us on to higher and higher sales. The goal for each week was to be ten percent higher than the same week a year ago. I always wondered how that upward growth line could be sustained. Could it go on forever? What would happen if we sold less than we did a year ago? Was there some kind of correction that would zap us and make us start over again?
Friedman suggests that this is what happened in 2008. That our consumption of unnecessary "things", the building of more and more stores in which to sell these "things" (a salad thrower?), the sameness of the malls and strip malls that caused one to wonder where he was if he woke up slightly hung over, that all this came to a screeching halt in 2008. In a sense, the economy has reset us to zero, a new start in a new economy that is necessity-based rather than desire-based. This is a chance to learn how to care for natural resources so that those resources are sustained rather than wasted. This is a chance to downsize. To downsize the "stuff" we possess and is crowding us out of our homes. To downsize the the monstrous houses we build on quarter acre lots to sell to overpaid managers and athletes.
For the past six months I have held to the principle that if I do not absolutely need something I will not buy it. The problem, though, is how easily our "wants" become our "needs". One must be ever on guard.
The downsizing we need seems not to have had an impact on one aspect of our society, and that is entertainment, especially entertainment from professional sports. There seems to me to be something fundamentally wrong in our culture when a football player can get a hundred million dollars to play football for seven years. I wonder how such salaries in professional sports can be sustained and whether or not that market is in for a downsizing too. I hope so.
Oh well, time to eat a homemade muffin with my homemade coffee and not go to Starbucks, which I really need to do.
So you were one of the early alarmists about the fallacy of infinite acceleration of the economy. You knew this concept was wrong, not going to fly in the long run. The rest of the world has caught up, as least most parts of it. Why not professional sports? The rules of supply and demand must be at work, setting the price points for all sorts of good and services. Those big salaries are maintained by the public’s desire (need?) to watch these football/basketball/baseball players compete. Watching these athletes mix it up in a confined, controlled setting, where only they may get hurt or lose or fail – it’s an anesthetic that works for many (like me), a great escape, a band aid.
ReplyDeleteWhat would cause these enormous salaries of pro athlete to decelerate or even deflate? I wonder how that might happen, or when, or why. If those salaries downsize, what will that say about our economy, values, culture?
Keep up the good blogging.
It is obvious that supply and demand is at work in the world of professional sports. Obviously, the owners must be making tons in order to pay the high salaries. Their revenues come not only from those who attend live events, but from the networks who televise them to all us sofa jocks who are entertained and anesthetized. I don't know if it will implode or not, but I think the current economic situation will eventually reach even into the world of professional sports. We'll see.
ReplyDeleteNow I must go watch the basketball games for the next 12 hours.