I haven't had much creativity to write about new stuff recently, yet I felt obligated to the readers to post something recently. So, here's a recycled post from my previous job from several years ago.
Question: Let's say you're waiting on line at a drive-thru bank where there are 4 lanes in operation. All the lanes are being used, and 3 of those lanes have an extra car in them - so, on line, there are 2, 2, 1, and 2 cars in each lane. In this case, it's obvious where you'll drive - in the lane with only 1 car.
However, let's say that all of the lanes have 2 cars in them, meaning the one currently being served and one more car behind them. Here are the questions:
A) Do you have to take your chances and pick a lane? Or,
B) Can you just hang back so that whichever lane opens first becomes yours?
I vote for B). I think it's rude when a person comes to the drive-thru, sees me "hanging back", and rather than line up behind me to be filtered into the next-opening lane, swerves around me to arbitrarily pick a lane.
And, as an extension to this question, let's say you are waiting on a long line at a supermarket, and it's late hours so there are only 2 aisles open, both of which have long lines. Let's say that a cashier opens a new aisle and announces "I can take somebody over here". If you are towards the back of the line, are you morally obligated to offer the people in front of you first dibs at the newly opened aisle?
Here were comments from the original post:
Matt Dabney said...
Scenario A:
Hopefully the entrance to the drive thru is only wide enough for one car than fans out to accept the 4 lanes. In that case, I would hang back far enough to not allow someone to swerve around you to cut in front.
Scenario B:
Who ever moves their cart the fastest to the new open register wins. Hopefully you see the cashier walking with her till box to the closed register getting ready to open it. Then you can get a headstart and head over to the register before it even opens.
Joe said...
Switch to Scenario "A" as soon as someone appears behind you. There's no way they can read your mind.
If people did that at grocery-store checkout lines, or at toll booths, there would be a freaking mess. I mean what's so specail about the drive-through?
If I saw someone doing Scenario "B", I would tap the horn. And if they still didn't move I'd be pissed.
Luke said...
i think at the drive through you have to pick a lane but at the supermarket it's first person to the new cashier wins - you have no obligation to those in front of you
kimblog said...
I like Joe's comment on scenerio A. We spend too much time thinking that others can read our minds, while the party opposite us is thinking the same thing.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Is It Racist?
In conversing with quite a few people, as well as hearing a fair amount of commentary about the potential NFL lock out for next season, I have some thoughts. The consensus, of what I’ve heard seems to be that the players are selfish, overpaid, and should take less money to have the regular season start on time next year. Am I the only one who sees that this position as driven in a large part by race?
In order to examine this issue we should not ignore the fact that of active NFL players, almost 65% are black. This is widely disproportionate to the general population in which approximately 13% are back. Of the owners of the 32 NFL teams, 100% of them are white. So, we should note in this labor/owner dispute in this situation, it has white dominated owner represenatation, and a predominantly black labor population.
The most common argument I hear is that NFL players are overpaid. While my inclination is to agree with that presumption, shouldn’t the free market dictate the amount of compensation one receives based on their skill level, and desire of that skill in a free market? If we look at NFL salaries from the free market perspective, then perhaps players are not overpaid. I don’t believe NFL players are anymore “overpaid” than a stock trader, or a financial investor who makes a comparable salary. I don’t believe the skill level of some schmuck who works at Goldman Sachs to be more inherently more valuable than the skill set of an NFL player. After all, NFL players are the best at what they do in a highly desired marketplace. As an aside, is there anyone who makes more than a million dollars a year who is not “overpaid?”
If ticket prices, and the general revenue received by the NFL remain constant, I would prefer to see the players get a fair slice of that revenue pie. NFL owners have very little risk and skill in what they do relative to their workforce. There really is no risk of investment for an NFL owner. Think about it, 100 plus million people watched the Super Bowl! If you had the money and owner rights to a team, continuing to invest in a team, seems to be little risk given the immense popularity of the NFL. The players are the ones training, and risking permanent injury to play. By contrast, the owners watch the games from a box, literally. The owner essentially writes a check, and counts the money he makes from the labor of the players.
It seems to me, that the outcry against the player’s salaries may play into an underlying presumption, that a black labor force, where education and advantage is not the driving skill, should not be entitled to make millions of dollars. But, if we as consumers are willing to pay the price we do to watch the games, shouldn’t the people who put in the real work be compensated to an amount comparable to the profit of the league? We pay to see certain players when we watch a professional game, we don’t care who cuts their paychecks. We go to see Umenyiora slam a quarterback, not watch the rich white owner cut his check. So, we should give a decent percentage to Umenyiora.
If you proclaim that players are replaceable, and is you think replacement players would do little to impact the product of the NFL, trying going to a Nets game. Surprisingly people are able to sniff out an inferior product when it comes to sports. If watching a Nets game is not proof enough and you still think players are easily replaceable, watch a MLS game and then watch an English Premier game. It’s almost a totally different sport! And if you don’t think that’s proof enough, have fun watching Arena football. Also, if there is a lockout, think about the popularity of MLB following the lockout season of 1994 or NBA popularity following the 1999 lockout.
It seems to me that the owners should be willing to pay a fair share of their profit, back to the people who made them that money. Players need owners, but owners need players as well, and any old player will not due if the league is to maintain its popularity. Let’s not undervalue the labor that entertains us, even if they primarily have a different skin color than the people who are entertained by them. And, if we are willing to pay a ridiculous price to go see a game, let’s give the labor their fair share of that. If race doesn’t play a part of most people’s inclination to side with management in this labor dispute, than I don’t know what does.
In order to examine this issue we should not ignore the fact that of active NFL players, almost 65% are black. This is widely disproportionate to the general population in which approximately 13% are back. Of the owners of the 32 NFL teams, 100% of them are white. So, we should note in this labor/owner dispute in this situation, it has white dominated owner represenatation, and a predominantly black labor population.
The most common argument I hear is that NFL players are overpaid. While my inclination is to agree with that presumption, shouldn’t the free market dictate the amount of compensation one receives based on their skill level, and desire of that skill in a free market? If we look at NFL salaries from the free market perspective, then perhaps players are not overpaid. I don’t believe NFL players are anymore “overpaid” than a stock trader, or a financial investor who makes a comparable salary. I don’t believe the skill level of some schmuck who works at Goldman Sachs to be more inherently more valuable than the skill set of an NFL player. After all, NFL players are the best at what they do in a highly desired marketplace. As an aside, is there anyone who makes more than a million dollars a year who is not “overpaid?”
If ticket prices, and the general revenue received by the NFL remain constant, I would prefer to see the players get a fair slice of that revenue pie. NFL owners have very little risk and skill in what they do relative to their workforce. There really is no risk of investment for an NFL owner. Think about it, 100 plus million people watched the Super Bowl! If you had the money and owner rights to a team, continuing to invest in a team, seems to be little risk given the immense popularity of the NFL. The players are the ones training, and risking permanent injury to play. By contrast, the owners watch the games from a box, literally. The owner essentially writes a check, and counts the money he makes from the labor of the players.
It seems to me, that the outcry against the player’s salaries may play into an underlying presumption, that a black labor force, where education and advantage is not the driving skill, should not be entitled to make millions of dollars. But, if we as consumers are willing to pay the price we do to watch the games, shouldn’t the people who put in the real work be compensated to an amount comparable to the profit of the league? We pay to see certain players when we watch a professional game, we don’t care who cuts their paychecks. We go to see Umenyiora slam a quarterback, not watch the rich white owner cut his check. So, we should give a decent percentage to Umenyiora.
If you proclaim that players are replaceable, and is you think replacement players would do little to impact the product of the NFL, trying going to a Nets game. Surprisingly people are able to sniff out an inferior product when it comes to sports. If watching a Nets game is not proof enough and you still think players are easily replaceable, watch a MLS game and then watch an English Premier game. It’s almost a totally different sport! And if you don’t think that’s proof enough, have fun watching Arena football. Also, if there is a lockout, think about the popularity of MLB following the lockout season of 1994 or NBA popularity following the 1999 lockout.
It seems to me that the owners should be willing to pay a fair share of their profit, back to the people who made them that money. Players need owners, but owners need players as well, and any old player will not due if the league is to maintain its popularity. Let’s not undervalue the labor that entertains us, even if they primarily have a different skin color than the people who are entertained by them. And, if we are willing to pay a ridiculous price to go see a game, let’s give the labor their fair share of that. If race doesn’t play a part of most people’s inclination to side with management in this labor dispute, than I don’t know what does.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
New York Knicks - An Extremely Quick Look Back on Eddy Curry
How quickly things change in professional sports. Check out this post from Where's Luke's own ChuckJerry about the Knicks - dated four years ago, and how it's ancient history already. I don't think anybody he refers to is even on the team anymore!
Among the gems in his post about Mr. Curry:
"I do have hope for the Knicks to improve this year and also the next. The reason: Eddy Curry is unstoppable."
"There have been two bright spots for the Knicks this year in an otherwise mediocre to ppor season. First is that David Lee is incredible.... The second bright spot for the Knicks this year is Eddy Curry. To say that he's turned the corner this season would be a huge understatement."
"It might be an overstatement, but I think [Curry]'s the most underrated offensive player in the league. He throws down alley oop passes better than anyone this side of Dwight Howard and is better than anyone I can ever recall with his back to the basket."
... and...
"Quentin Richardson... does everything at an above average level without really being a star."
"Renaldo Balkman is pure energy and no focus at this point. He might be a David Lee Lite type of guy eventually."
Note: this is not to pick on ChuckJerry at all - again, this just illustrates how quickly things change in sports. I've said / written identical things in the past as well. Case in point: my Quad Who point from this past off-season, discussing why the Knicks are god-awful, when infact they have proven to be decent.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
BOTG's NBA All Star Team
Here are my picks for this year’s NBA All Star game, starters and reserves.
East:
PG- Rondo
SG- Wade
SF- Bron
PF- Amare
C- Howard
Reserves:
Rose
Ray Allen
Joe Johnson
Paul Pierce
Carlos Boozer
Kevin Garnett
Andrew Bogut
West:
PG- Chris Paul
SG- Kobe
SF- Melo
PF- Kevin Durant
C- Tim Duncan
Reserves:
Deron Williams
Ginobili
Blake Griffin
Dirk
Pau Gasol
Kevin Love
Steve Nash
I think Griffin and Love both deserve a spot. Also, I think Rondo is ahead of Rose, as the Celtics are better than the Bulls and Rondo leads the NBA in assists. BTW, it’s very whack that Yao was voted as a starter for the actual all star game. On that note, it may be time to stop letting the fans vote, if they are going to do things like vote in Yao.
What are your picks?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)