Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Would it not be more fair to distribute income among all employees/participants of a money making venture, by percentages, and such that the highest paid is (arbitrarily) paid 300x of the lowest paid? This does not put a limit on income that can be earned, but awards all participants. In this way, the camera man reaps the rewards of his labor and is not exploited for being one of a million camera men willing to work for food and shelter.
It is funny how upset people get over CEO pay vs. celebrity pay. I wonder what the difference is between the two...
Hmm is it possible that the media and certain politicians are telling people to hate one of those groups, but not the other? And people think they're not brainwashed..
It is funny how upset people get over CEO pay vs. celebrity pay. I wonder what the difference is between the two...
Hmm is it possible that the media and certain politicians are telling people to hate one of those groups, but not the other? And people think they're not brainwashed..
If this is irony, then OP is going about it the wrong way. I don't know any 'liberal' who defends celebrity pay as being fair... but we need to make it clear that Hollywood is democrat, not socialist... they tend to glom onto environmental causes, civil rights and charity, but you don't see a lot of celebrities actively calling for wealth redistribution. They're just as out of touch with the working class as the CEOs, they just tend to care more about presenting a softer, more humane image.
It's no secret that a lot of the **** that Hollywood churns out succeeds primarily through fascist-style marketing tactics and has very very little artistic merit. Capitalist culture has completely dulled the minds of the populace to the point where they will eat up anything that's loud enough, shiny enough and 'familiar but different'. Celebrities (including athletes, actors and even politicians like Trump) succeed primarily through the media, not through their 'inner talents' or 'hard work'... certainly not through any inherent superiority to anyone else.
I can't say they haven't played the game very very well, but that's pretty hard to admire when the game itself is so messed up.
If this is irony, then OP is going about it the wrong way. I don't know any 'liberal' who defends celebrity pay as being fair... but we need to make it clear that Hollywood is democrat, not socialist... they tend to glom onto environmental causes, civil rights and charity, but you don't see a lot of celebrities actively calling for wealth redistribution. They're just as out of touch with the working class as the CEOs, they just tend to care more about presenting a softer, more humane image.
It's no secret that a lot of the **** that Hollywood churns out succeeds primarily through fascist-style marketing tactics and has very very little artistic merit. Capitalist culture has completely dulled the minds of the populace to the point where they will eat up anything that's loud enough, shiny enough and 'familiar but different'. Celebrities (including athletes, actors and even politicians like Trump) succeed primarily through the media, not through their 'inner talents' or 'hard work'... certainly not through any inherent superiority to anyone else.
I can't say they haven't played the game very very well, but that's pretty hard to admire when the game itself is so messed up.
I don't disagree on the quality of popular movies and music, but it all comes down to value. If millions of people will pay good money to see a movie with X actor/actress, the makers of that movie will pay good money to hire that person over someone less valuable. I probably agree with you that it shouldn't be that way, and that there are more deserving artists or causes to give your money to, but who am I to decide what people spend their money on? That's the bottom line for me.
who am I to decide what people spend their money on? That's the bottom line for me.
Some people would consider this to be 'defending freedom', but personally I think the less we demand from others (and ourselves), the worse things will get.
An enlightened society would seek to elevate humanity, not cater to its basest impulses in the name of profit.
Too many people have made too much money giving us things we don't actually need-- things that don't improve our lives, the environment, or society in the slightest. They isolate us from everything around us while making everyone stupider, angrier, more distracted, more entitled, etc.
But of course, now someone will just interject with the whole 'who are you to decide what's good for people?', 'everything's subjective', 'why are you trying to take my junk food and iPhone away from me?' etc... as if consumer choice is paramount, even though it's actually an illusion and is more determined by social pressures than free will.
At some point everyone is going to be forced to admit that the advertisers and marketers understand us better than we understand ourselves, that they have an arsenal of tactics that are highly effective at overriding our free will, and for which most people are not as prepared as they think. Our vision of ourselves as dignified, capable, freethinking individuals isn't as true to reality as we want to believe it is.
I don't want to take away anyone's freedom... I just want people to recognize the difference between being empowered and being manipulated.
If this is irony, then OP is going about it the wrong way. I don't know any 'liberal' who defends celebrity pay as being fair... but we need to make it clear that Hollywood is democrat, not socialist... they tend to glom onto environmental causes, civil rights and charity, but you don't see a lot of celebrities actively calling for wealth redistribution. They're just as out of touch with the working class as the CEOs, they just tend to care more about presenting a softer, more humane image.
It's no secret that a lot of the **** that Hollywood churns out succeeds primarily through fascist-style marketing tactics and has very very little artistic merit. Capitalist culture has completely dulled the minds of the populace to the point where they will eat up anything that's loud enough, shiny enough and 'familiar but different'. Celebrities (including athletes, actors and even politicians like Trump) succeed primarily through the media, not through their 'inner talents' or 'hard work'... certainly not through any inherent superiority to anyone else.
I can't say they haven't played the game very very well, but that's pretty hard to admire when the game itself is so messed up.
I disagree:
Patricia Arquette's "Women's Rights" and "income inequality"
agreed. the entire entertainment industry is ridiculous!! and then they have 100 awards shows so they can further pat themselves on the back.
smh
Yup. When i was younger, I loved watching the Oscars. Once I became an adult and realized its a party thrown by famous millionaires to give awards to other famous millionaires, to praise each other and to make left-wing political statements, and they take over network TV for a whole evening to broadcast it to us little people, I started to despise the Oscars.
Are some CEOs overpaid? Yes. But those are typically CEOs of companies that provide vital services like food, medicine, financial services and housing. Nobody needs TV or movies to survive.
And with all those screams of income inequality, nobody seems to care that someone like Jon Stewart was making 300 times more money than the staff that produces his show. He gets a pass. Its absolute hypocrisy -- only criticize people on the other side, while giving a pass to people on our side that do the same things we hate.
I don't see Kim Kardashian on the list and she is not even an actress. In 2015, she made $53 millions.
maybe Kanye should go beg for money from his wife instead of tweeting about it
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
