MTR wrote:Skarp wrote:All of that said, you do get what you pay for. Umpires don't deserve more, but paying more will probably attract more competent persons to the profession.
That just fact. Paying more may attract more umpires, but it doesn't make them good. I deal with this first hand and as logical as it seems, it just doesn't work that way.
As far as
deserving more, it all depends on where you are standing in the country and the expectations & commitment of the umpire. There are still places in this country where umpires are barely getting more than $12 a game and others where $40 per game is a good average. Some umpires deserve much more while others barely deserve a hot dog and soda.
People deserve what they are willing to accept. If I offer you $10 to mow my lawn, and you agree to do it for that price, then that is what you deserve for mowing my lawn.
You don't "deserve" more just because $10 isn't very much money, or because someone someplace else gets paid more for the same work, or because mowing a lawn is worth more money based on some third party's abstract assessment of value. You are worth the lowest price that
you are willing to accept and still get the job...period.
Now if I up the price, I can expect to have a lot more people bid on the job...and they will present me with their various credentials, achievements, etc., and I will choose who I think is best. And if they don't work out, I will have plenty of other options to turn to.
So raising the rate attracts a larger pool to choose from, allowing you to weed out those that don't perform to your expectations and to give repeat business to those who do. The providers that survive and thrive are inevitably more competent (or at least better salesmen) than those who don't. That's how a working market functions.
Conversely, paying people based on misplaced notions of "desert" is the quickest way to impede a functioning market. Exhibit A = Teachers.
