The Market Sets the Price, Not Our Feelings

Entitlement vs. Economic Reality

There has been a lot of chatter these recent days on what some people believe they deserve, what a fair outcome ought to be. For many of us, much of this has the sound of entitlement. Most of us live within a structure where profit and loss are real things. If your source of employment is losing money hand over fist, you generally have to find another way to make a living. One thing you are unlikely to do is trash your employer and demand more for yourself.

“Fair” Is an Elusive Concept

For many years, my employer at the time had a tradition of the senior executives taking a brief walk after lunch. On one of these jaunts, a colleague commented that something was unfair. My friend, Tom Peacock (now deceased), made an observation that has stuck with me to this day. “Fair? Hell, the last thing we want is fair. If life were fair, Greener and I would be arguing over whose turn it was to mow and which of us had to do the raking.”

It appears some folks do not accept basic economic realities, along with failing to grasp that “fair” is, at best, an elusive target. Three recent examples of this sort of entitlement stand out as not quite connecting the money to what individuals believe they “deserve” in return for their labor.

The WNBA and the Illusion of “Deserved” Pay

A generational talent, Caitlin Clark, joined the Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA) in 2024. Despite an open hostility shown by several of the players, Clark was responsible for an unprecedented growth in the league. All the while, she was under constant pressure to apologize for her white privilege. For the most part, Clark toed the politically correct dogmatic attitude expected of her by the chattering class.

Largely as a result of her presence, the WNBA saw a $200 million increase in revenues. However, as a whole, the league, subsidized by the men’s National Basketball Association (NBA), annually loses between $40 and $50 million. The reaction of the players? A demand to “pay us what we are worth” as the new collective bargaining agreement (CBA is being negotiated. Hopefully, it does not make one a sexist to urge the women in the league to get a grip. Businesses losing this much money ordinarily do not toss out pay increases.

The players seem to feel huge increases to salaries are “deserved,” that they have been “earned” and represent what is “fair.” Given the actual numbers, this attitude seems to reflect a sense of entitlement. By what logic are big increases in salaries justified?

Hollywood’s Disconnect from the Bottom Line

The world of Hollywood is hardly immune from a belief that they deserve what they desire. The Stephen Colbert program lost $40 million last year. After Charlie Kirk was assassinated, Colbert took to the air to essentially treat the killing as justice served. There was an outcry when he was briefly suspended. Not lost is the irony of screaming that his freedom of speech entitled him to say these things while simultaneously showing zero empathy for another person killed exercising their freedom of speech. The Colbert program is in its last months, not for being a xerox machine for progressive doctrine and dogma. It is going off the air for one reason. Money. Ask for it by name. It is Alice in Wonderland to pretend anything otherwise.

The Washington Post and the Price of Denial

The Grand Champion trophy for self-righteous entitlement has to be awarded to the employees recently laid off by the Washington Post. The Post has annually been losing in the neighborhood of $100 million. Owner Jeff Bezos (of the Amazon world) decided enough was enough. Journalists at the Post loudly made known their displeasure when the paper did not endorse Kamala Harris for President. Reporters and editors alike repeatedly have insisted the publication is fair and not attached to anything partisan, in need of no major adjustments in their approach. Readers demonstrably felt differently. Last week, it was announced that 300 of the 800 journalists in the newsroom were being terminated.

A lot of times, people might think remarkable restraint was evidenced by Bezos. How many times can you be expected to lose this sort of money and not take action? According to folks with ties to the Post (current and past), a whole lot longer. Glenn Kessler, formerly the “fact checker” at the publication, indignantly proclaimed that losing money at this rate, given Bezos’ wealth, would take 2500 years before he would have to close up shop, as though that should be the basis for making decisions. Longtime editor and Pulitzer Prize winner Bob Woodward denounced the cuts by saying the staffers did not “deserve” this treatment.

Put Some Skin in the Game

Here is a thought. How about all these folks who know so well what they deserve put some skin in the game? The WNBA players could be given the league and allowed to do things however they see fit. Stephen Colbert could create and distribute content however he chooses, recouping costs any way he desires. For the journalists let go at the Post, let them create their own platform and attempt to monetize it. Nothing is holding anyone back, save for the imbalance between incoming revenues and what someone thinks they are worth. Yelling that you are not being compensated as you feel you should be is unlikely to change very much.

Common Sense About What the Market Will Bear

Common Sense: A very wise person once commented that the cost of a given product or the services of an individual is determined by what the market allows. Self-assigned worth for the job you are doing is not part of the calculus.