And they say they don't try to buy championships

[The Brain]

Originally posted by JimmyBlueEyes
Say you and I are neighbors, I work for a big fortune 500 company, you punch a clock at the post office. I buy tons of stuff and day in day out, flaunting my riches. You try to make ends meet on your salary, and treat yourself occasionally. Tell me you wouldn't be jealous of my riches and my goodies?? This is the same situation as what has become baseball today. Fans of teams can't be happy when their teams can't afford to \"keep up with the Jonses\" as it were.

Eh... I can see the point in your analogy, but at the same time I see the flaw in it.

Let me try this analogy:

You work at one construction company. I work at another. Your construction company purchases Grade-D (I'm making this up, I have no clue about construction material) lumber to build its houses. Grade-D lumber is certainly solid enough (the house won't fall down), but it's inferior quality-- but it's also inexpensive, and your company is willing to use it to keep overhead cost low.

My company always goes out of its way to import Grade-A lumber. It's highly expensive, but the quality is unmatched, and it shows in the final product. And my company is willing to risk always buying such expensive lumber, because the houses made from it sell at a higher price. And as a side benefit, more consumers purchase houses built by my company than yours. The more Grade-A houses sold, the more money my company has to buy more Grade-A lumber, to build more Grade-A houses, in a very profitable cycle.

Even if both companies started out with the same budget, yours never takes the risk to upgrade all the way to Grade-A, deeming it too expensive. Yet they complain that my company always overspends, and doesn't need to have such expensive lumber, when they could (or should?) be able to get by on lower grade material.

Now: is it my company's fault for always going to get the best material, or your company's fault for trying to play it close to the vest (or wallet, in this case)?

*Bonus hypothetical: Our companies both belong to some huge construction union, where we all have to pay dues which directly correlate with our overall spending. Because my company spends more, it pays a higher due, which gets divided among all the companies with significantly lower overheads (including yours). Your company president, instead of using this money to upgrade to Grade-A lumber (or at least Grade-B or -C), instead goes out and buys his mistress a new Mercedes, and a couple of furs to keep his wife's mouth shut about the mistress.

His reasoning is that if he spent the money on better lumber, your company's overhead would go up, and <i>his company</i> would either end up paying larger dues to the union, or at the very least receive less of a cut of the dividend from my company's dues. And why do that when every year, my company is handing yours cash on silver platter?

Now: who is still at fault? My company for spending above every other company? Or your company for not taking an opportunity to upgrade your materials with what essentially amounts to free money. Remember that with every lumber upgrade, your houses improve in quality, and people will purchase them at higher prices, giving you more money to buy better lumber to build better houses.