IBJOpinion

MARCUS: How much is too much when it comes to compensation?

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Morton Marcus

This month, as you watched the gallant Butler University basketball team uphold the honor of the Hoosier state, did you wonder about the compensation of college coaches and their future NBA stars? I wanted to focus on the game, but Cousin Candy Marcus was asking her usual question, “Now how much does that one get paid?”

She wanted to know about the compensation package for Coach K of Duke University and “that cute boy who coaches Butler.” She had heard that Coach Tom Crean of Indiana University made more than the IU president and was filled with wonder.

“Is it all ‘supply and demand’?” Cousin Candy asked, drawing on her vast knowledge of catch phrases.

“Yes,” I replied, determined to watch a key free throw and not to be drawn into a discourse on economic intricacies.

“But,” she continued, “basketball coaches are not all the same, not like tons of coal, not—as economists would say—‘homogeneous factors of production.’ They are different, one from the other, and the circumstances under which they will have to perform in their future jobs are likely to be dissimilar from those of their past positions. Aren’t the ‘information costs’ in such circumstances unknown and incalculable?”

“Yes,” I mumbled as an inbound pass by Duke turned into an easy layup.

“As I see it,” Candy proceeded, “the pay people get for their jobs is still a mystery despite two centuries of work by economists.”

“True,” I replied, after prying my teeth from my bleeding tongue.

“You economists like to teach that compensation is set by the value of the addition to output provided by the last worker added. How does that work in sports, or any part of the real world?” she said.

“It’s a concept,” I blurted as a timeout was called. “It’s a simplified way of understanding complex relationships involved in many diverse interactions.”

“But,” Candy insisted, “how does any employer know what the value of something will be? How does the board of a corporation know what added profit will be generated by a new CEO? How does the general manager of a football team know what a new running back will do for the team? Wouldn’t it be better to base pay on accomplishments rather than the uncertainties of expectations? And how does the boss separate out the contribution of an individual from that of the team?”

“Experience!” I cried in desperation.

Candy smiled and said quietly to emphasize my outburst, “Oh, I know all about experience; it’s what you gain from making mistakes.”

All was silent in the room except for the TV announcers and the crowd’s frenzy at Lucas Oil Stadium. Then Candy spoke softly, as to herself: “These are the central questions of our times. How much should teachers, doctors and politicians be paid and on what basis? What is appropriate compensation for executives compared to workers? What part of the revenue of a firm should go to the owners now as dividends and what part should be put aside for debt reduction, product or efficiency improvements, or societal concerns?”

“Let the market decide,” I whispered, exhausted by both the game and her incessant interruptive questions.

“Isn’t that the problem?” she asked. “We have stopped asking these questions and given the default answer that the market should decide. Isn’t that admitting we don’t have any standards or set of values? Letting the market decide means accepting a form of chaos, yielding to a quasi-religious belief in a mysterious supernatural power. Is that what you are saying?”

“Candy!” I lost control. “I’m not saying anything! I’m watching a basketball game! Let me do that in peace!”

But she would have the last word. “There won’t be any peace until we find a better way of determining who gets what in this world.”•

__________

Marcus taught economics for more than 30 years at Indiana University and is the former director of IU’s Business Research Center. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at mmarcus@ibj.com.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Gay marriage is coming, whether or not these bigots and zealots like it or not. We must work to ensure future generations remember the likes of Greg Zoeller like they do the racists of our past...in shame.

  2. Perhaps a diagram of all the network connections of all politicians to their supporters and those who are elite/wealthy and how they have voted on bills that may have benefited their supporters. The truth may hurt, but there are no non-disclosures in government.

  3. I'm sure these lawyers were having problems coming up with any non-religious reason to ban same-sex marriage. I've asked proponents of this ban the question many times and the only answers I have received were religious reasons. Quite often the reason had to do with marriage to a pet or marriage between a group even though those have nothing at all to do with this. I'm looking forward to less discrimination in our state soon!

  4. They never let go of the "make babies" argument. It fails instantaneously because a considerable percentage of heterosexual marriages don't produce any children either. Although if someone wants to pass a law that any couple, heterosexual or homosexual, cannot be legally married (and therefore not utilize all legal, financial, and tax benefits that come with it) until they have produced a biological child, that would be fun to see as a spectator. "All this is a reflection of biology," Fisher answered. "Men and women make babies, same-sex couples do not... we have to have a mechanism to regulate that, and marriage is that mechanism." The civil contract called marriage does NOTHING to regulate babymaking, whether purposefully or accidental. These conservatives really need to understand that sex education and access to birth control do far more to regulate babymaking in this country. Moreover, last I checked, same-sex couples can make babies in a variety of ways, and none of them are by accident. Same-sex couples often foster and adopt the children produced by the many accidental pregnancies from mixed-sex couples who have failed at self-regulating their babymaking capabilities.

  5. Every parent I know with kids from 6 -12 has 98.3 on its car radio all the time!! Even when my daughter isn't in the car I sometimes forget to change stations. Not everybody wants to pay for satellite radio. This will be a huge disappointment to my 9 year old. And to me - there's so many songs on the radio that I don't want her listening to.

ADVERTISEMENT