The grim irony of investing, then, is that we investors as a group not only don't get what we pay for, we get precisely what we don't pay for. So if we pay for nothing, we get everything.
You need to be growing and getting better, and in L.A., it's so hard to get bookings. You literally have to pay clubs to book you. It's pay to play, and then you only get 30 minutes. That's no way to get good.
The president doesn't get an automatic pay raise, so they can't freeze it for him. But it also does extend the pay rate - they pay increases or pay freeze for pay increases for members of Congress. They've had a pay freeze since 2009, but most civil servants will see a small pay bump in 2016 thanks to a separate order from President Obama.
In investing, you get what you don't pay for. Costs matter. So intelligent investors will use low-cost index funds to build a diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds, and they will stay the course. And they won't be foolish enough to think that they can consistently outsmart the market.
In the salary-cap-free world of MLB, you get what you pay for... but only if you pay the most.
The past gives you no justice. Sentences are passed. But that doesn't mean you get justice. You can stand there forever and rail and say, 'Someone has to pay. I want what was taken from me.' But you're just going to get silence coming back at you. The past doesn't pay. We pay. And we're all free to decide when we've had enough.
Employees pay the highest percentage of taxes. Big business and investors pay the least.
I'm investing in myself, I'm investing in others and I'm investing in my cause. I know if I persist it will pay back in dividends and it always does.
Nobody wants to pay higher taxes. But do you want your kids to get a good education? You have to pay for that. Do you want Medicare for senior citizens? I do. We have to pay for it.
Venus Williams is a multi-millionaire not in spite of the fact that she is a woman, but precisely because she's a woman. She receives much higher pay than an equally skilled man. Isn't that precisely the opposite of what is meant by pay equity?
I don't think you should have to pay to look at graffiti. You should only pay if you want to get rid of it.
It's funny about men and women. Men pay in cash to get them and pay in cash to get rid of them. Women pay emotionally coming and going. Neither has it easy.
One of my rules is pay more, eat less. You do get what you pay for, and if you're willing to pay more for pastured eggs or grass-fed beef, you're getting something that's more delicious, and you'll feel better about eating it.
Any idiot can throw together a program or report and shove it out, but to get the balance and to get the skill set, that is what they pay us for. They don't pay us to prattle on the television; anybody can do that.
If I get married I get a tax break, if I have a kid I get a tax break, if I get a mortgage I get a tax break. I don't have any kids and I drive a hybrid, I think I should get a tax break. I'm trying to pay off my apartment so I have something tangible. I actually figured out if I paid off my place my reward would be that I would pay an extra four grand a year in taxes.
Basic US economics tells us that back-of-the-house workers are very unlikely to get more pay overall. The fact that workers are in those jobs means employers are already paying them what they need to pay them to get them in the current environment. If employers do share some tips with them, it will likely be offset by a reduction in their base pay.