The Official NBA Season Thread: USA vs Serbia at 11:15 ET on NBC/Peacock | Durant Cleared for Action

addict4sneakers said:
Me about to to turn down this promotion next week

IMG_1013.gif
Click to expand...
Image of I'm gonna actually be asking for a pay decrease.
 
osh kosh bosh said:
hmm interesting, If I had to bet I think there would be almost no correlation.


I think most of the happiness would be derived from the status, or respect money is proxy for in the NBA.
but being able to buy a bit bigger house, or a slightly bigger boat, whatever increased utility you get from extra money I think would be basically nothing.
Click to expand...
So being an NBA is no different than having a white collar job one second. (as far as money and happiness)

And they are unique the other (as far as a championship providing the same happiness as working a fulfilling full time job)

-One of the reasons I find the money thing with NBA players not fitting neatly with the research you used is because of the uniqueness of being an NBA player.

NBA salaries are public knowledge. Someone that takes a 50% paycut to be on a team will get to see players of equal or even lesser value get paid more than them. 50 million over 10-12 years career is a ton of money to the average person. But an NBA player could blow through that money given a certain lifestyle. If it was impossible to do, then their wouldn't be documentaries about athletes going broke. Or they wouldn't have to tell dudes "lockout is coming, save your checks".

50 million vs 100 million over a long career means minding your lifestyle and spending in some areas. While seeing people just as good or not as good as you get paid more.

Yes someone can have a mansion, luxury cars, designer clothes and eat at high end places. But taking that paycut might mean no PJ, not big car collection, no insane Jewelry collection, no estate, no helping every family member, a limit on support staff you can hire. Which by itself would be no big deal, but you have to watch you teammate have those things you willing put out of reach.

To me, it seems being in the NBA, and how NBA players spend their money, is unique to the white collar person.

Isn't the average millionaire in their 50s? I would think those decades might play a part too.

I don't know, I just don't think it is easy as "Read a paper on research....it applies to every NBA player".

I feel not getting paid your full market value is something that has the potential to make players unhappy.

-Second, you talk about the dimishining returns of money, what about championships.

One chip is supposed to keep dudes happy for an entire career? I find that hard to believe. To me the value of a chip to a player is higher for people closer to the end of their career, especially for those dudes that already cashed out and have zero chips. And it wears off over time, especially for younger players.

Like if a player took a pay cut to play on a championship team, and wins one, and say they are extension eligible. We really expect them to say "I'll take another pay cut, to be happier with another championship" or are they gonna be like "it is time to get paid". By your theory, they would sign up for another paycut. I would guess if we did an experiment on this, more people would want the money if they previously took a large paycut to win a chip.
 
RustyShackleford said:
So being an NBA is no different than having a white collar job one second. (as far as money and happiness)

And they are unique the other (as far as a championship providing the same happiness as working a fulfilling full time job)

-One of the reasons I find the money thing with NBA players not fitting neatly with the research you used is because of the uniqueness of being an NBA player.

NBA salaries are public knowledge. Someone that takes a 50% paycut to be on a team will get to see players of equal or even lesser value get paid more than them. 50 million over 10-12 years career is a ton of money to the average person. But an NBA player could blow through that money given a certain lifestyle. If it was impossible to do, then their wouldn't be documentaries about athletes going broke. Or they wouldn't have to tell dudes "lockout is coming, save your checks".

50 million vs 100 million over a long career means minding your lifestyle and spending in some areas. While seeing people just as good or not as good as you get paid more.

Yes someone can have a mansion, luxury cars, designer clothes and eat at high end places. But taking that paycut might mean no PJ, not big car collection, no insane Jewelry collection, no estate, no helping every family member, a limit on support staff you can hire. Which by itself would be no big deal, but you have to watch you teammate have those things you willing put out of reach.

To me, it seems being in the NBA, and how NBA players spend their money, is unique to the white collar person.

Isn't the average millionaire in their 50s? I would think those decades might play a part too.

I don't know, I just don't think it is easy as "Read a paper on research....it applies to every NBA player".

I feel not getting paid your full market value is something that has the potential to make players unhappy.

-Second, you talk about the dimishining returns of money, what about championships.

One chip is supposed to keep dudes happy for an entire career? I find that hard to believe. To me the value of a chip to a player is higher for people closer to the end of their career, especially for those dudes that already cashed out and have zero chips. And it wears off over time, especially for younger players.

Like if a player took a pay cut to play on a championship team, and wins one, and say they are extension eligible. We really expect them to say "I'll take another pay cut, to be happier with another championship" or are they gonna be like "it is time to get paid". By your theory, they would sign up for another paycut. I would guess if we did an experiment on this, more people would want the money if they previously took a large paycut to win a chip.
Click to expand...

I'd guess there are massive diminishing returns to a championships.

I have to think the massive gains in life satisfaction probably come from the difference between zero and 1 chip.

So if I had to pick between 50 million and 2 ring vs 100 million and 1 ring. I think I'd take 100 million.


Also I feel like there is an "induced demand" (if I'm using that term correctly) element to the players who go broke after making over 50 million dollars

Like is it really the case if I gave Antoine Walker and extra 50 million he would have blown through the other 200 but that 50 would have been enough of a surplus? I doubt that.

But I take your point there are a bunch of factors that make the comparison imperfect.
 
storm2006 said:
The guy who is saying he would leave $50MM on the table for $100MM and also previously argued that slavery was beneficial thinks that he would form a lasting connection, business or otherwise, with Jay-Z over the course of a meal.

You can’t make this up.
Click to expand...

You seem to struggle so deeply with reading comprehension.

That you have concocted entire fantasy about me and things I haven't said.

I don't kink shame but I must say; your fantasy is just a fantasy.

I implore you to find God.
 
storm2006 said:
The guy who is saying he would leave $50MM on the table for $100MM and also previously argued that slavery was beneficial thinks that he would form a lasting connection, business or otherwise, with Jay-Z over the course of a meal.

You can’t make this up.
Click to expand...

Like I know you aren't stupid, so you either are lying or you literally can't read.

I address that in my response and I come to the exact opposite conclusion that you are attributing to me here.


how well would I be able to convert that dinner into a connection with no prior relationship with him?
Click to expand...


but prob too much uncertainty in the Jay-Z dinner.
maybe he just tells about the time he lost 92 bricks for 45 mins and calls it a night?

so Ill prob take 50k.
Click to expand...

So you are either, stupid, lying, or you simply can't read,...which is it?
 
Based Jesus said:
I thought this man was disputing the slavery comment and he's double-posting over the Jay Z dinner :lol::smh:
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty instructive.


Given his inability to accurately restate my premise in this thread. For something I said 5 minutes ago...


How accurate do you think his summary of something I said months ago is?

I obviously said no such thing.
Again either he is stupid, or he's lying. But I'm not sure which it is.
 
aint noway dudes still crying over embiid getting MVP - a Regular sesaon award at that

i dont even be in here everyday so who knows what i miss but man get the **** over it

its just hate at this point
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Thread Gallery

View Full Gallery

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom