Today's word is: enough
From Big 3 now just Big 2: A's trade Hudson to Braves for pitchers, outfielder:
"This sucks,'' Hudson said by phone Thursday evening, his voice cracking with emotion. "It just sucks. Obviously, the worst part is not being with those guys anymore. Right now, I'm sort of overwhelmed. I don't know what to think, I'm just trying to get my bearings.''
It does suck that the A's are losing Tim Hudson. And I believe that he is sad to leave a team full of friends, and that his friends are sad to see him go. I also think that relative to other major league clubs, the A's are cheap.
But cry me a river, Timmy. The reason the A's traded you is because they couldn't afford you. Call them Scrooge, but you're the one one who got too expensive. Like you couldn't live on $3 million a year? You'd be willing to compromise at maybe $11 or $12 million?
Please explain to me a lifestyle in which it is even remotely uncomfortable to live on that kind of money, which the A's would throw at him faster than you can say "this generation's Dave Stewart," which they have. So what does lowering the price of one's labor to below market level really mean?
Stature. You're not as much of a man if you don't make as much money as the men around you. Now, I'm not saying it's true (of course, it's not untrue); I'm just saying that's the human ego. I would be thrilled to be making $3 million a year right now, but to him it's like Clay Aiken kicked him in the balls.
I'd like to think that were I ever at a point in my life where I could command such wages, I would be content with $3 million a year, and wouldn't make myself and everyone around me miserable to make an even more ridiculous amount of money. And I sure as hell wouldn't bitch and moan in the papers, even if they made me a sandwich. At that point, the pursuit of wealth becomes an academic (and egoistic) exercise--I concede an occasional urge to roll around in gold doubloons, but my current net worth is in the negative five digits and I feel just fine, thanks. Even from this exalted financial position, it seems clear that past some number, the drive to withdraw as much money as possible from life's ATM is not only unnecessary, but unhealthy and unwise.
We don't fault the super-rich for the wealth they accumulate, provided they came by it honestly--although so few do, these days--but don't we as a society have a concept of enough? I'll be generous and give you up to the first $100 million. But after that, aren't you just kind of swinging your dick around? Aren't you basically glancing over at the ATM next to you and thinking to yourself, "Yeah, mine's bigger?"
I understand that for capitalism to work, you have to provide individuals with incentive to work, and that historically (when it has succeeded) "incentive" has meant "money." But there has to be a point at which capping the earnings limit in a society would have no demotivating effect on a large enough portion of the citizenry that the revenue earned from the brutal, horrible, totally worse-than-a-nation-full-of-people-in-crippling-poverty taxation of wealth above a certain level would more than make up for the slight lack of motivation that Bill Gates would feel.
Because Bill Gates doesn't really give a fuck about money, and neither do Larry Ellison, Donald Trump or the executive vice president of IBM, whoever the hell that is. It's not money. It's not even the acquisition of things, because these guys have more money than they can spend. It's a symbol of their worth. Money, to people who actually need to think about it, is a tool first and a signifier of their value as human beings second. I don't know about you, but I know that I have to judge myself by other criteria or I'll just never be happy.
Hey, Tim: You can't be wealthier than everybody. Isn't the fact that you can throw a split-fingered fastball better than 99.9% of the world enough? You worked your ass off to become a great pitcher, not to become a bank statement. Let that you do what most men dream of doing and that you do it extraordinarily well be enough.
"This sucks,'' Hudson said by phone Thursday evening, his voice cracking with emotion. "It just sucks. Obviously, the worst part is not being with those guys anymore. Right now, I'm sort of overwhelmed. I don't know what to think, I'm just trying to get my bearings.''
It does suck that the A's are losing Tim Hudson. And I believe that he is sad to leave a team full of friends, and that his friends are sad to see him go. I also think that relative to other major league clubs, the A's are cheap.
But cry me a river, Timmy. The reason the A's traded you is because they couldn't afford you. Call them Scrooge, but you're the one one who got too expensive. Like you couldn't live on $3 million a year? You'd be willing to compromise at maybe $11 or $12 million?
Please explain to me a lifestyle in which it is even remotely uncomfortable to live on that kind of money, which the A's would throw at him faster than you can say "this generation's Dave Stewart," which they have. So what does lowering the price of one's labor to below market level really mean?
Stature. You're not as much of a man if you don't make as much money as the men around you. Now, I'm not saying it's true (of course, it's not untrue); I'm just saying that's the human ego. I would be thrilled to be making $3 million a year right now, but to him it's like Clay Aiken kicked him in the balls.
I'd like to think that were I ever at a point in my life where I could command such wages, I would be content with $3 million a year, and wouldn't make myself and everyone around me miserable to make an even more ridiculous amount of money. And I sure as hell wouldn't bitch and moan in the papers, even if they made me a sandwich. At that point, the pursuit of wealth becomes an academic (and egoistic) exercise--I concede an occasional urge to roll around in gold doubloons, but my current net worth is in the negative five digits and I feel just fine, thanks. Even from this exalted financial position, it seems clear that past some number, the drive to withdraw as much money as possible from life's ATM is not only unnecessary, but unhealthy and unwise.
We don't fault the super-rich for the wealth they accumulate, provided they came by it honestly--although so few do, these days--but don't we as a society have a concept of enough? I'll be generous and give you up to the first $100 million. But after that, aren't you just kind of swinging your dick around? Aren't you basically glancing over at the ATM next to you and thinking to yourself, "Yeah, mine's bigger?"
I understand that for capitalism to work, you have to provide individuals with incentive to work, and that historically (when it has succeeded) "incentive" has meant "money." But there has to be a point at which capping the earnings limit in a society would have no demotivating effect on a large enough portion of the citizenry that the revenue earned from the brutal, horrible, totally worse-than-a-nation-full-of-people-in-crippling-poverty taxation of wealth above a certain level would more than make up for the slight lack of motivation that Bill Gates would feel.
Because Bill Gates doesn't really give a fuck about money, and neither do Larry Ellison, Donald Trump or the executive vice president of IBM, whoever the hell that is. It's not money. It's not even the acquisition of things, because these guys have more money than they can spend. It's a symbol of their worth. Money, to people who actually need to think about it, is a tool first and a signifier of their value as human beings second. I don't know about you, but I know that I have to judge myself by other criteria or I'll just never be happy.
Hey, Tim: You can't be wealthier than everybody. Isn't the fact that you can throw a split-fingered fastball better than 99.9% of the world enough? You worked your ass off to become a great pitcher, not to become a bank statement. Let that you do what most men dream of doing and that you do it extraordinarily well be enough.
posted by Hey, Barkeep at 1:27 AM
0 comments
