That's an apples-to-oranges comparison. The average parking lot attendant is non-union. The 18,000 jobs will be union jobs, meaning significantly higher wages, benefits, etc.

Had you bothered to even do a cursory amount of research, you would know that.

Point taken, Brandon. I hope the guarantee holds - it would be a first for a new stadium to provide a good wage to the average worker.

David Dyte writes, "Good wage for the average worker"?

Average how? Height? Weight? Also, what's a "good wage"? Is this the obverse of an evil wage?

Event-day stadium workers ought to make what the markets shall bear for each job, e.g., the market for concession stand jobs, the market for parking attendant jobs, the market for janitor jobs.

Since event-day stadium workers do not use much, if any, sophisticated equipment or elaborate thinking skills, their productivity shall be low.

And always, productivity translates into wages deserved and earned.

After all, event-day stadium workers do not plan rocket trajectories nor do they operate robotics.

David, you ought to quit while you're behind since your own words convict you. In short, you don't economics, money, markets and work.

Why don't you take up poetry instead?

Considering the amount of money that will be charged for parking, I'd say the productivity of a stadium parking attendant is pretty high, regardless of the lack of training and skills required for the job.

Is there a good reason that "what the market will bear" is what something ought to cost? Perhaps the ability for the worker to put food on the table should also be considered? This project, like many others, is being sold as having countless benefits to the community, one of which is the provision of thousands of jobs with "middle class wages." I know enough economics to think a little Keynesian philosophy is good for tempering the so-called free market.

Also, Smack seems to be confusing two different things: If workers were really paid based on productivity, then unskilled but really important jobs (say, home health care aides) would be paid well. But they're paid based not on how much work they do, but on how many other people the employer can find to do it. Wages go down when unemployment goes up, after all, but that's not because workers are less productive.

Or as Marx would say: You're leaving out surplus labor value, dude. (Marx called everyone "dude.")

The minimum wage in Cali is $8 per hour and I imagine that with union representation the actual wage will be bigger than that.

@ David
Again David, you're 100% clueless about economics, the art of exchange, and the sciences that back it up -- the Science of Value, the Science of Money, the Science of Credit.

The value of a thing shows as the ratio of one thing for another said at a place and time. It's the
the ratio in which any two economic quantities exchange.

What causes this value?

Reciprocal demand is the true cause of value and manifests itself through exchangeability.
If someone offers for sale a thing, for it to be sold, someone else must desire it and demand it.
Reciprocal demand is the force that binds together society.

For reciprocal demand to happen, one man must have an offer in exchange which the other desires or demands what gets offered -- a reciprocal desire or demand by two for the products offered by both, simultaneously.

In the case of stadiums, a stadium operator sells his cash to a worker who buys his cash and sells his skills, his wit, his embodied energy, which, in turn the stadium operator buys.

You sit mired in muddled thought because you confuse two things, unrelated -- the price of a parking space and the money bought by a worker who parks cars.

The price of a parking space reflects the demand for parking spaces in the face of what's offered -- the supply. If event attendees find the prices too high, they'll car pool or ride transit to get there.

What's paid -- the clearing price of supply of parking and the demand for it -- have nothing to do with workers who park cars.

Workers who park cars sell their wit, their energy and their time, that is their labor, against others who do the same or would likely do the same if the clearing price is different. While they sell their labor, they are buying, simultaneously, the money from the stadium operator.

Likewise, stadium operator sells his money and buys the labor offered by those with a combo of wit, energy and time.

If the needed combo doesn't exist in the job marketplace for car parkers in the City of Industry, the stadium operator shall have to increase his money offer for sale to get the right combo.

Again, David, quit while you're behind.

@ Neil
The Theory of Labor Imputing Value, wrongly said by ignorants as "the (socialist) labor theory of value" has long been discredited. Marx derived his bogus conclusion from bogus premises that he took from David Ricardo.

Also, you're as clueless about economics as David is. This means, you're clueless about human nature, the way of humans. After all, economics is the art of exchange. Those who do well at the art get the sciences that back it up, much like the skilled painter gets the theories of color and perspective or the pick-up artist gets the theory about influence.

The job market for home health care aides has no correlative relation to the job market for parking lot attendees. However, the dynamics backing both markets is the same as well as the same for all markets.

The demand for Home health aides is not high relative to those who could buy such labor but instead buy other things.

All workers get paid based on demand for their work -- the exact combo of wit, time, energy -- that yields an amount of output, that is, of productivity.

Your beliefs are false, throughly, childlike in fact.

As to the creators of this website, they suffer from many intense false beliefs, most likely owing to severe indoctrination during their childhood.

The expressions put forth by the creators reflects superstitious false beliefs akin to those who thought the Black Plague of 1348 as the work of Satan.

In your previous reply you said, and I quote:

"productivity translates into wages deserved and earned"

In your last reply, you far more correctly argue that the market value of one's labor translates into wages. But it's a serious mistake to think that productivity (the amount of value you add to your employer's bottom line when you actually do the work) and market value (the amount your employer has to pay you to get your services, determined by the relative scarcity of skills and willingness to work) are the same thing.

Indeed, many bankers in 2008 were paid astronomical sums for losing their employers vast sums of money. Their productivity was hugely negative, although demand for their services and an almost collusive willingness to demand crazy money had driven salaries sky high.

This off-season, as with any other, a few free agents in baseball will command a very high price, largely based on the availability of players with their particular skill set. Other players, not free agents, of similar capability *and therefore similar productivity* will play in 2010 for much less - because they were content to take a longer term deal earlier. All of this is in the art of negotiation.

Once again: productivity and market value of labor are NOT one and the same. They may be related. In some professions they may have a 1 to 1 correlation. But they are not one and the same, however much you may try to insult my knowledge.

The basic premise of this site, and the book that gave rise to it, is that government gets a very poor deal for paying for sports stadiums. The individuals in government, however, may get a great deal. Good free seats and re-election for keeping the team in town. The city (state, county) coffers take a nasty hit. Every time. And we weren't told this in kindergarten by that nice Mrs. Stalin.

Foremost, free men get a raw deal by having government, which is nothing more than a collectivist mechanism controlled by those with power.

In living, each man has a limited, a finite amount of time.

Thus, all "public" stadium deals amount to a rip-off of the life of every man where each man gets compelled by force of government to pay for the instantiation of a stadium, especially through an income tax, which is theft of a man's time, hence his life. In short, income taxes make a man a slave to other, collectivist men who reap the benefits from the income absconded.

My statement stands: And always, productivity translates into wages deserved and earned.

Productivity is the amount of output per hour. Any many who does not produce output does not deserve wages nor has earned any, in spite of being given wages at times.

In spite of your rhetorical ploy of innuendo in trying to suggest to your readers that I have done something that I haven't, no where in my posts shall you find that I have mistaken productivity for
market value.

My posts put forth the logically consistent and correct understanding of economics. Yours and your friends do not.

What comes through from this site is the Politics of Jealousy, all rooted in the Effeminate Mind.

Brushing aside the abounding illogical contradiction that is replete in the site, any outside, indifferent reader can see that the creators of the site rail hard against collectivism for elites and their toys -- stadiums -- but not against collectivists and their collectivism against others in the meddling quest cloaked in Utopian rhetoric of equality.

Your enemy is collectivism, which undergirds the entire system you should be against, instead of a mere part manifestation from it.

Man has known since the ancient Greeks and the original scumbag eugenicist Plato that the true war of all-time has been waged by Collectivists against Individualists. Plato, who worshiped his two uncles, members of the 30 Tyrants, the "Vichy" government occupying Athens.

A read of his "Plato's Republic" should open your eyes to the grand schemes of Collectivists and eugenicists alike.

The problem with public stadiums is the same problem of bailed out bankers -- government and the men behind government who control it, who own it.

Wait, is my mind Effeminate or childlike? I need to know which to accuse my indoctrinators of.

@ Neil

Perhaps try Craigslist. Hire someone to teach you reading comprehension.

As stated above, your beliefs are childlike. Your mind is effeminate. The former is what you believe, the latter is how you think.

All in all, you amuse, Neil.