Expired

[bender]

.

[former player]

Because we can see what they do?  Also, that they do it themselves rather than having others do it for them?

And either value it (see current fuss about Dylan, Stones, etc at Coachella) or recognise that others value it (One Direction)?

Also recognise that fakes/freeloaders/the untalented tend to get found out and disappear as quickly as they rose, which is not true of the corporate world.

Most of us not very sophisticated thinkers, most of the time.

[Doubleh]

How about that we like and identify with our favourite stars, so we are happy for them to do well and turn a blind eye to their inequality. Whereas corporate CEOs are just a group of faceless fat cats.

I suspect if you asked about a specific, high profile CEO such as Steve Jobs or Tim Cook say, or maybe Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates / Satya Nadella, people would give them a much easier time since they have faces and people have at least a partial understanding of what then do and feel that we have derived value from their work. But not those faceless fat cats, no way.

Note that I'm not arguing in favour of inequality, just equally fascinated by the disparity noted by the OP. Here in the uk we see it most sharply with premier league footballers (soccer to those of you in Usa). People will slate a CEO who runs a multibillion organisation that employs thousands for their earnings, then turn around and cheer a 20 year old kid who kicks a pigs bladder around a field for a few hours and earns in a month what the CEO makes in a year.

[ahoy]

Big time actors/actresses annoy me.  Their income is just ridiculous.   Last time I went to the movie theater was Jan 2015.  The time before that was 2002.  I will happily let another decade go by before I go again.  I really don't care about sitting in a darken room with the big screen and paying too much for the privilege.   I guess I'm just not a movie person.

I love concerts but have only been to a few due to the cost.  I actually scored a free ticket to Bruce Springsteen in 2003. That would have been worth paying for though.

[TabbyCat]

Because we can see what they do?  Also, that they do it themselves rather than having others do it for them?

And either value it (see current fuss about Dylan, Stones, etc at Coachella) or recognise that others value it (One Direction)?

Also recognise that fakes/freeloaders/the untalented tend to get found out and disappear as quickly as they rose, which is not true of the corporate world.

Most of us not very sophisticated thinkers, most of the time.

Completely agree, but this does bug me too. I'm a bit selective on who I respect as an actor/actress because of this as well. Some are generous with donations and raising awareness for causes, some are living large and give the impression of self importance. In general though, I agree that there isn't a public uproar about wealthy entertainers because the public understands what they do and they do it on their own. Many people see the higher-ups in an office environment as not doing much, maybe based on personal experience. Clearly many CEOs work long hours doing good things, but it can be hard to see from outside who does that vs. who just spends all day putting pressure on others without any real, personal input.   

[Lyssa]

I find th double standard rather annoying as well. And it even extends to legal and illegal tax evasions. So many German sport stars live in Switzerland for tax reasons and are still presented as role models because they kick around a ball with a few kids once every year.

TV moderators make ridiculous salaries while hosting public debates about rising inequality and capping salaries of corporate officers.

It's a huge weakness of the human mind. High earners with a celebrity status who feed our need for watching, observing and gossiping about some kind of 'aristocracy' get away with much more than mere, faceless merchants and carreerists.

[libertarian4321]

Entertainers are usually "liberal," and therefore represent everything that is good and wonderful in the world.  Loved by the "soak the rich" crowd.

CEO's are usually "evil Republicans."  Bad people who want to keep their own money.

Or, at least, that seems to be the general idea.

[Metric Mouse]

How about that we like and identify with our favourite stars, so we are happy for them to do well and turn a blind eye to their inequality. Whereas corporate CEOs are just a group of faceless fat cats.

I suspect if you asked about a specific, high profile CEO such as Steve Jobs or Tim Cook say, or maybe Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates / Satya Nadella, people would give them a much easier time since they have faces and people have at least a partial understanding of what then do and feel that we have derived value from their work. But not those faceless fat cats, no way.

Note that I'm not arguing in favour of inequality, just equally fascinated by the disparity noted by the OP. Here in the uk we see it most sharply with premier league footballers (soccer to those of you in Usa). People will slate a CEO who runs a multibillion organisation that employs thousands for their earnings, then turn around and cheer a 20 year old kid who kicks a pigs bladder around a field for a few hours and earns in a month what the CEO makes in a year.

I think this is a pretty good take on the subject. Putting a face on the problem really helps people understand that ceos and actors are people just like them. It's much easier to hate a vague, amorphous group of ceo's than it is that pretty blonde girl who was so funny in that movie you like.

[Mmm_Donuts]

Entertainers are usually "liberal," and therefore represent everything that is good and wonderful in the world.  Loved by the "soak the rich" crowd.

CEO's are usually "evil Republicans."  Bad people who want to keep their own money.

Or, at least, that seems to be the general idea.

This is probably a big factor, along with the fact that people can understand and value what an entertainer does, while not so for the CEO.

Great question, OP. I often wondered about this myself. My FB feed is often full of "the lament of the 99%" type articles, and how unequal the ditribution of wealth is in the world. Yet when celebrities die (Prince! David Bowie!) everyone is so sad that these Great People are gone. Prince lived in a mansion and had a vault for his massive shoe collection! How is that so different from how the evil 1%ers live??

The difference is, Prince had liberal values and made popular music. He wasn't greedy; he was talented. People showered him with wealth because he was popular, so he didn't seek it out. The rich bastards at the helm of corporations have no skill or talent; they're just greedy. That's the perception anyway.

In fairness though, actors and musicians didn't cause the 2008 crash. It was investment banker types who were playing games with the system for their own benefit.

[Beridian]

I don't think that actors and entertainers (lets not forget athletes) get a free pass, I see plenty of criticism about the ridiculous sums of money some of them are paid.

One factor that makes billionaire CEO's more scorn-worthy is that they employ large groups of people and have a great degree of control over the well being of these people.

 

[dcheesi]

I think part of it is that entertainers don't create the system that makes them rich. There's a general perception that "fat cats" rig the system in their favor at the expense of the little guy. Entertainers, on the other hand, are just beneficiaries of a system that someone else constructed. In fact in some parts of the entertainment industry (e.g., music), the wealthy performers are the few that  have managed to achieve high incomes in spite of a  system that's actively rigged against them.

[phwadsworth]

But it turns out these same actors are just as rich as the CEOs.

  I'm not an expert on what entertainers are paid so I asked Google.  According to this list the richest entertainer is worth less than half of what the poorest person on the Forbes 400 list is worth.  I'm not sure how many people are in between Herb Chambers and Jerry Seinfeld in terms of worth (nor do I really care), but I'm betting it's on the order of many thousands, hence these actors are NOT just as rich.

All that said, to answer your question directly, why do we vilify CEO's and not others? Because "CEO" is an easy short hand term that we can use to "other" a group and blame them for problems.  Just like some people vilify "welfare recipients"  or "immigrants"  or "gays".  It almost every case it's because the person doing the vilifying does not have much first hand experience with the group and is looking to cast blame elsewhere.  Most of us know someone who have played in a bar band, or have seen a comic at a local stand up joint, so obviously we can't use a blanket statement about entertainers, right?  But, people fail to realize that there are tons of businesses in their own town, and all those businesses have CEOs.....it's a logical blind spot shared by all humans.  We are very imperfect and we all fall back on generalities in times of weakness.  That's it, that's all.

[ender]

I don't think that actors and entertainers (lets not forget athletes) get a free pass, I see plenty of criticism about the ridiculous sums of money some of them are paid.

One factor that makes billionaire CEO's more scorn-worthy is that they employ large groups of people and have a great degree of control over the well being of these people.

A lot of people also can more easily think, "I could do the job of being a CEO!" than "I could be a movie star" or "I could be an NFL player."

It's easier to become jealous of people where you feel capable to do their job than otherwise.

[EricL]

Adam Sandler. Adam Sandler makes (as of late) mediocre to horrible comedies for stupid amounts of money. In the end the only people who suffer are those sitting through Jack and Jill.

Too many CEOs of late are Sandlers in their respective fields. But unlike Sandler their reach goes beyond movie audiences.  They destroy their companies, their companies' brands, employees' livelihoods, shareholder equity, and hurt the economy. And to be clear, being a CEO isn't necessarily the same as being a company founder. Nobody gives a damn Steve Jobs or Bill Gates rake fat wads of cash off the top to fund exorbitant life styles. But too many CEOs are hired guns whose only interest is to milk the corp that hire them for all its got.  These aren't John Gaults though we'd all be better off if they went on strike.

[Yaeger]

Entertainers, sports stars, they're income is based on their popularity. You are offered more roles in movies if they believe the public has a favorable opinion of them and will contribute to making them dough.

You never hear about the CEOs who do their job adequately, only the ones that screw up royally or make headlines. Thus, the vast amount of exposure the average person has with a CEO is nothing but negatives so I think it's easier to form biases that fit the stereotype of the greedy, selfish fat cat. Plus, I think we have a history of blaming business leaders and bankers for our past economic problems, when they're usually just part of it, yet offer the easiest target for the public.

[forummm]

I don't think that entertainers do get a free pass on being uber rich. I think there are a lot of people who idolize both CEOs and entertainers for their wealth/power/ability. And there are a lot of people who say they make too much money. Of course, the really rich people in sports (the owners) have put caps on how much the top athletes are allowed to get paid. Those athletes often make much more through endorsements than in their team contracts.

But I see the two categories as a little different substantively, while also similar. Some CEOs are worth their paycheck. They actually provide incredible value to their firms. I think Elon Musk and Steve Jobs are excellent examples. Also Buffett. Without Musk, none of his businesses would even exist today. And interestingly, he doesn't get paid a salary. Similarly, Buffett gets paid $350k. However, other CEOs are not only not worth their paycheck, but they destroy shareholder value. Like Carly Fiorina torpedoed HP but they still paid her over $100M. I don't think too many people begrudge Musk, Jobs, and Buffett their fortunes. They feel they legitimately earned them. But a lot of the other CEOs just milk the system and don't provide value. They get the top job at a company that's already doing great and they just get paid a ton regardless of whether they do a great job or suck tremendously.

I don't think it's crazy that Tom Cruise makes $20 million for doing a movie because his name on the project will bring in maybe $50 million or more just because he's the star. And people who aren't big box office draws don't get $20 million a film.

[wepner]

Big time actors/actresses annoy me.  Their income is just ridiculous.   Last time I went to the movie theater was Jan 2015.  The time before that was 2002.  I will happily let another decade go by before I go again.  I really don't care about sitting in a darken room with the big screen and paying too much for the privilege.   I guess I'm just not a movie person.

I love concerts but have only been to a few due to the cost.  I actually scored a free ticket to Bruce Springsteen in 2003. That would have been worth paying for though.

I NEED to know what movie brought you out of a 13 year hiatus, my money is on Dumb and Dumber to.

[gaja]

Entertainers often have a short shelf life, and most of them go long periods with 0 pay between gigs. You don't get paid to practice or go to auditions. Female actors seldom get gigs after the age of 40, while CEOs often get more expensive the older they are. A lot of athletes get injured within a few years, and if they haven't saved some of those ridiculous salaries, they have a problem.

[Gin1984]

Well, entertainers don't control the workers salaries so that also may be a difference.  When your employer says all your salary will go up is by 2-3% and yet the CEO gets stock options plus a huge salary increase, I could see how people are pissed.  They see the CEO as keep money from them, not so much for entertainers.

[rocketpj]

Well, thank heavens those poor maligned CEOs have someone to look out for their feelings. 

The simple fact is that CEO salaries in the US specifically have ballooned far more than elsewhere.  I don't care what people get paid if they add comparable value - whether they are an entertainer or a CEO. 

If a comedian makes money from me it's because I chose to pay or watch them in some way.  I own no shares in comedy.  If an actor in a movie or a musician makes cash from me it's because I chose to pay them (sometimes incorrectly).  And I harbour no illusions about the movie industry - many of my relatives work there and it is a high pressure grind.

However, I do own shares in most US companies through my Vanguard indexes.  If those companies are overpaying their executives at the expense of profits then that directly affects me.  If they are overpaying executives that are also incompetent then I have a definite issue with that.  If they overpay an executive who is incompetent, and then said executive gets a hundred million dollar golden parachute when he or she is fired, I have a gigantic issue with that.

I would find it hard to argue that Steve Jobs or Elon Musk were not earning their pay.  I have less confidence in many less successful CEOs who have also earned absurd paychecks.

[winkeyman]

I work for a Fortune 500 company in the oil and gas business. Over the last several years, raises, bonuses, perks etc were very good.

When the oil price crashed, those things stopped. MOST people in the industry understand and accept this. It's part of the industry.

A few people however grumble and complain about the greedy CEO lining his pickets by cutting their perks. These people invariably have Hillary or Bernie bumper stickers on their expensive clown cars.

If they are still in the industry when this downturn is over, they will be all smiles about their 10 percent raises and 20k bonuses. The next time the price crashes they will be complaining about the CEO again. Go figure.

[shelivesthedream]

1. People perceive the CEOs as being in charge of the company's salary structure, so they are paying themselves the big bucks while saying there isn't enough money to pay a living wage to the cleaners. Film stars may earn a lot of money and presumably negotiate for it but at the end of the day they are an employee so have no control over what the little people on the film are paid.

2. CEOs make the news for messing up badly and still getting paid (or worse, getting a golden goodbye). Film stars make the news for that film they were really good in that gave you warm fuzzies. Also, when film stars do badly they stop getting paid well.

3. No one goes into art for the money.

[Bertram]

I can think of one person from the entertainment industry that made money with really bad movies, usually by taking existing franchises, milking them for whats possible and throw them away  and using loopholes to make it work financially for himself. It's Uwe Boll, and I believe he got equal amounts of hate as some of the worthless types of CEOs from a lot of people.

[sokoloff]

However, I do own shares in most US companies through my Vanguard indexes.  If those companies are overpaying their executives at the expense of profits then that directly affects me.

Do you not own shares in any movie, media, or sports companies? Those are the companies that are making the deals that allow these entertainers to make so much money. Do you think there's a tighter tie between entertainer performance and compensation than CEO perf and comp?

[GuitarStv]

This is why we should tax all the extremely wealthy at a very high rate based on their income.  That way super rich actors will pay as much as super rich CEOs in the same tax bracket.  That down and out struggling actor will be taxed minimally, just as that down and out struggling CEO will be taxed minimally.  We radically reduce income inequality, which is a well known side effect of unchecked capitalism.

[I'm a red panda]

Female actors seldom get gigs after the age of 40, while CEOs often get more expensive the older they are.

It's strange to compare CEOs to female actors. 

Female actors may age out, but female CEOs are a rare breed at any age.

[Drifterrider]

I don't vilify the rich.  I love the rich.  I want to be one.  The rich pay such a disproportionate amount of all income taxes (in the US).  Without them, I'd have to pay more.

As to "vilifying" CEOs, etc.  If you don't own a part of that privately held corporation then you have no say so in how much they get paid.  If you are unhappy with the federal government stepping in to keep some afloat a few years ago, take it up with your elected representative.

If you want a voice in C-corporations operations, buy stock in that company and attend the annual shareholder's meeting.

[zephyr911]

It's generally not "the rich" categorically, but those who use their wealth to consolidate power in the hands of a few at the expense of the greater good. It's often oversimplified to make said commentators sound stupid or hypocritical, but taking into account the full context and intent generally undermines that image.

There are exceptions, but that's mostly what I see.

I don't vilify the rich.  I love the rich.  I want to be one.

+1
Me too, and if/when I'm rich, I still plan on calling rich assholes rich assholes, if they live hyper-consumptive lives while claiming they can't afford 25-cent raises for their entry-level peons.

[projekt]

I'm not sure I accept the premise of the question. Are CEOs really vilified? They do not seem to be pariahs. Many of them are fawned over in the business press, even if they're not remarkable.

I've got to say it's strange looking at proxy statements from the stocks that I own. The CEO is invariably paid 10x what the rest of the C level is paid, which is 10x what their senior people make in operations. These people are usually not very distingushed, certainly not at the level of Elon Musk or Steve Jobs. The general picture seems to be that only this team could possibly make the company successful, while everyone else is pretty replaceable. Given that I usually invest in highly technical companies, this cannot be true in any sense. Drug companies, for example, rely strongly on the quality of their research. Semiconductor companies need innovative engineers. But they never even act like there's a risk that their top technical people will abandon ship and leave the investors with a bunch of highly-paid C-level employees who are draining the coffers until bankruptcy.

Still, that's the way business is done these days, and so there's little one can do. I usually vote against the executive compensation plan but it's not like that matters.

It's also interesting that the business press will paint fawning portraits of the CEOs until the day before some scandal hits, then they actually start reporting that things were rotten the whole time and anyone with their eyes open could have seen it. At least with entertainers, we can judge for ourselves whether they suck or not.

As for John Galts, I'm sure they've thought of themselves as such, but they can't figure out how to strike and still get paid.

[MoneyCat]

I don't really care what entertainers have to say about anything except their performances/art, but they are correct that CEOs make too much money. Nobody can tell me -- for an easy example -- that Marissa Meyer of Yahoo! is worth $365 million for five years. Meanwhile, I know some people who work 60 hours a week and still need food stamps, because they don't know the right people to get one of the few better jobs that technology and globalization haven't exterminated yet (And yes that's how people get jobs. Let's be honest here.)

[MoneyCat]

I don't really care what entertainers have to say about anything except their performances/art, but they are correct that CEOs make too much money. Nobody can tell me -- for an easy example -- that Marissa Meyer of Yahoo! is worth $365 million for five years. Meanwhile, I know some people who work 60 hours a week and still need food stamps, because they don't know the right people to get one of the few better jobs that technology and globalization haven't exterminated yet (And yes that's how people get jobs. Let's be honest here.)

[zephyr911]

I work for a Fortune 500 company in the oil and gas business. Over the last several years, raises, bonuses, perks etc were very good.

When the oil price crashed, those things stopped. MOST people in the industry understand and accept this. It's part of the industry.

A few people however grumble and complain about the greedy CEO lining his pickets by cutting their perks. These people invariably have Hillary or Bernie bumper stickers on their expensive clown cars.

If they are still in the industry when this downturn is over, they will be all smiles about their 10 percent raises and 20k bonuses. The next time the price crashes they will be complaining about the CEO again. Go figure.

IOW, everyone who sees things differently than you is shortsighted, stupid, and materialistic? Seems plausible. ;)

[Chris22]

Not necessarily true in all cases, but most of the time CEO compensation and CEO salaries are very different.  For instance, the CEO of my company is one of the top paid in the country, and his actual base salary is less than $2M.  His bonus was performance-based, and about 3x base salary, and some of it paid in stock.  He also got significant stock options, grants, and executive pension contributions, which are, of course, all performance based. 

Frankly, I don't think a base salary of $2M is out of line for a F100 CEO, and the rest of the packages are designed to make him rich IF the shareholders also get rich. 

[Norioch]

It's not people having lots of money that bothers me; it's how they got that money, and what they do with it. There's a perception that many (not all, but many) rich CEOs got wealthy through dishonest or harmful business practices, then they use that money to lobby politicians to lower their taxes and let them continue their dishonest and harmful business practices.

In contrast, celebrity entertainers usually aren't perceived as acquiring their money in a dishonest or harmful way. We can see what they do and what value they bring to us directly. Also, they're usually not perceived as lobbying for lower taxes for the rich. They're usually liberal, many outspokenly. Think George Carlin. He probably had a net worth in the millions, but it seemed perfectly sincere when he ranted against rich oligarchs.

[slugline]

I think the general public can more easily see the connection between entertainer/sports talent and marketplace success than they can see the connection between skilled CEOs and the success of the businesses they lead.

It's the high-profile examples like Marissa Mayer that really hurt perception. It was recently revealed that her potential severance package if let go would be greater than the additional pay she would get if she actually increased Yahoo shareholder value. To the best of my knowledge I have never heard of actors having a financial incentive of making more money if their films tank at the box office.

Otherwise, I have no problem with CEOs making big money when the company, its employees and shareholders are also prospering.

[Drifterrider]

It's not people having lots of money that bothers me; it's how they got that money, and what they do with it. There's a perception that many (not all, but many) rich CEOs got wealthy through dishonest or harmful business practices, then they use that money to lobby politicians to lower their taxes and let them continue their dishonest and harmful business practices.

In contrast, celebrity entertainers usually aren't perceived as acquiring their money in a dishonest or harmful way. We can see what they do and what value they bring to us directly. Also, they're usually not perceived as lobbying for lower taxes for the rich. They're usually liberal, many outspokenly. Think George Carlin. He probably had a net worth in the millions, but it seemed perfectly sincere when he ranted against rich oligarchs.

1.  Why is your business unless they are public servants?  If you don't like their business practices, don't give them your money.  Free enterprise. 

2.  Dolly Parton got rich singing about how great it is to be poor (but she still got rich).

3.  EVERYONE lobbies for lower taxes for themselves.  EVERYONE.  Most of the people I've ever known to bitch, moan and whine about paying taxes were in the comfortable middle class and were bitching about how the poor people have it so great getting free food stamps.

If the rich stop earning money, YOU get to pay more taxes.

How full is your glass?  How often?

[Schaefer Light]

One factor that makes billionaire CEO's more scorn-worthy is that they employ large groups of people and have a great degree of control over the well being of these people.

The fact that they employ large groups of people should make them less scorn-worthy.

[Norioch]

1.  Why is your business unless they are public servants?  If you don't like their business practices, don't give them your money.  Free enterprise.

Externalities, such as pollution and other forms of environmental destruction. Empathy for others who are exploited and abused. Anger over anti-competitive measures which limit my choices as a consumer.

3.  EVERYONE lobbies for lower taxes for themselves.  EVERYONE.  Most of the people I've ever known to bitch, moan and whine about paying taxes were in the comfortable middle class and were bitching about how the poor people have it so great getting free food stamps.

Not me. I currently have an absurdly high income, and I've said repeatedly on this forum, I think my taxes should be higher.

How full is your glass?  How often?

My life is pretty great, from a historical perspective. There's never been a better time to be alive, especially if you're rich like I am. That doesn't mean there aren't still huge problems with the world that are exacerbated by those seeking to maintain economic power at any cost.

[mancityfan]

Your favorite entertainer can make you laugh or maybe cry. They may make you feel happy or sad.  There are emotional connections made between artists and the audience that lead to appreciation and adulation. When someone moves you emotionally, you will indeed not begrudge them what they make.

[zephyr911]

It's not people having lots of money that bothers me; it's how they got that money, and what they do with it. There's a perception that many (not all, but many) rich CEOs got wealthy through dishonest or harmful business practices, then they use that money to lobby politicians to lower their taxes and let them continue their dishonest and harmful business practices.

In contrast, celebrity entertainers usually aren't perceived as acquiring their money in a dishonest or harmful way. We can see what they do and what value they bring to us directly. Also, they're usually not perceived as lobbying for lower taxes for the rich. They're usually liberal, many outspokenly. Think George Carlin. He probably had a net worth in the millions, but it seemed perfectly sincere when he ranted against rich oligarchs.

1.  Why is your business unless they are public servants?  If you don't like their business practices, don't give them your money.  Free enterprise. 

2.  Dolly Parton got rich singing about how great it is to be poor (but she still got rich).

3.  EVERYONE lobbies for lower taxes for themselves.  EVERYONE.  Most of the people I've ever known to bitch, moan and whine about paying taxes were in the comfortable middle class and were bitching about how the poor people have it so great getting free food stamps.

The problem with making overly broad statements like that: too easily disproved by simple counterexample.

How are there rich liberals? How was the strongest support for Obama's re-election in some of the richest counties in the nation? Why does Buffett advocate more progressive tax policy?

Maybe there's more to this.

[music lover]

Entertainers are usually "liberal," and therefore represent everything that is good and wonderful in the world.  Loved by the "soak the rich" crowd.

CEO's are usually "evil Republicans."  Bad people who want to keep their own money.

Or, at least, that seems to be the general idea.

That's about it...add to that a mostly liberal media (who love entertainers and celebrities) and your average CEO has no chance against Beyoncé. That's why every Jan 1 you will see a story about how some evil CEO made more by lunch than an average worker, but you will never see a story how Beyoncé made more by lunch than the guy who played bass on her latest CD.

A movie star can "kill" 20 people in a movie and the next day complain publicly against gun ownership. Matthew McConaughey can go on a clueless and completely fact-free rant about hurting the environment and then collect big $$ by doing a commercial for Lincoln automobiles.

You don't have to be a hypocrite to be a liberal...but it sure helps :)

[zephyr911]

You don't have to be a hypocrite to be a liberal...but it sure helps :)

*sigh*
I like this forum so much better when it avoids this kind of lowbrow shit :P

[acroy]

Those who can, do. They take the big risks, make the big $$, have the big failures, run business, employ people, invent stuff, churn the economy, and move the world forward.

Some people make lots of $$ from their art. I'm grouping acting, comedians, etc in the broad category of art.

Now: art is optional. It's a nice to have. It happens after everyone is fed and has a sofa to sit on to watch TV. Art is luxury.
 
Some of those artists then rail against the big producers, who by their productive works, enabled art in the first place. Without them, there is nothing, the luxury of art does not exist. The artist is complaining about the source of their own ability to exist. It is self-contradictory.

We give the artists too much attention on topics in which they have no expertise (only opinion).

We should not be surprised: they are famous and rich for being artistic, not for logic or productive ability.

[music lover]

You don't have to be a hypocrite to be a liberal...but it sure helps :)

*sigh*
I like this forum so much better when it avoids this kind of lowbrow shit :P

Yeah...because no one here would ever make fun of Republicans, right?

[MoneyCat]

Those who can, do. They take the big risks, make the big $$, have the big failures, run business, employ people, invent stuff, churn the economy, and move the world forward.

Some people make lots of $$ from their art. I'm grouping acting, comedians, etc in the broad category of art.

Now: art is optional. It's a nice to have. It happens after everyone is fed and has a sofa to sit on to watch TV. Art is luxury.
 
Some of those artists then rail against the big producers, who by their productive works, enabled art in the first place. Without them, there is nothing, the luxury of art does not exist. The artist is complaining about the source of their own ability to exist. It is self-contradictory.

We give the artists too much attention on topics in which they have no expertise (only opinion).

We should not be surprised: they are famous and rich for being artistic, not for logic or productive ability.

I'm actually impressed that anybody is capable of making a living as a artist of any kind these days. Unless you are designing advertisements as a salaried employee of a big company, there's no money in it. Everything is completely free with the internet if people know where to look and use a proxy. It's illegal, but people do it anyway, because copyright enforcement is completely nonexistent. This is the reason I gave up on my dream of being a professional writer or musician. There is no longer any return on investment.

[SyZ]

So if a CEO gets paid $50 million, they don't deserve it and are bad people and everything that is wrong with the world

If they keep $500k and distribute the remaining $49.5 million, there's no way to distribute it fairly without hiring 20 people to figure out the best performance reviews and give out bonuses accordingly, which is corrupt enough in itself to just propagate the problem except on a larger level

If they keep $500k and donate $49.5 million to charity, the government takes half and then the charity organizers pocket half and then the actual charity gets $5 million which has a minimal impact and would just look like the organization / CEO is pandering for a political vote or trying to shore up a bad image or what have you

In any event, they're getting paid $49.5 million too much, which means everyone buying their products or services (read: everyone as this is a ubiquitous issue at large corporations who supply essential services: insurance, mortgages, cars, etc.) is really just footing the bill

Welcome to Capitalism regulated by big goverment

[tipster350]

Here is one big reason that CEOs get more hate than celebrities

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/how-oreos-explain-the-election_us_572cf946e4b096e9f0916d2e

Disclaimer: I chose the first article I found mentioning the topic and am not necessarily endorsing any specifics in it. The point is that CEOs can and do ship jobs overseas and put Americans out of work. Celebrities in general do not have that power.

[GuitarStv]

So if a CEO gets paid $50 million, they don't deserve it and are bad people and everything that is wrong with the world

No.  If a CEO gets paid 50 million, that's great.  They should pay taxes and be grateful that they live in a country where the opportunity to be able to earn such a ridiculously high salary is available.

If they keep $500k and distribute the remaining $49.5 million, there's no way to distribute it fairly without hiring 20 people to figure out the best performance reviews and give out bonuses accordingly, which is corrupt enough in itself to just propagate the problem except on a larger level

The CEO should already have a system in place in his company to do performance reviews and pay employees.  Distributing the bonus should be pretty easy.  The system should have checks and balances to prevent abuse and minimize corruption.  Unless he really sucks at his job.  In which case, why is he being paid 50 million?

If they keep $500k and donate $49.5 million to charity, the government takes half and then the charity organizers pocket half and then the actual charity gets $5 million which has a minimal impact and would just look like the organization / CEO is pandering for a political vote or trying to shore up a bad image or what have you

The government takes 50% of charitable donations?  Really?

You know that it's possible to research charities pretty easily.  Look, I just typed 'charities with low overhead' into google and the first result gave me a charity where 88.9% of the money donated goes directly to the charity.  http://www.moneysense.ca/save/financial-planning/2015-charity-100-canadas-top-rated-charities/image/2/  Is your CEO too stupid to do research?  If so, why exactly is he being paid 50 million a year?



I'm really confused what point you're trying to make here.  That the CEO isn't very smart or good at managing money?

[SyZ]

The point is that the concept of a $50 million salary is stupid, and arbitrarily finding ways to get rid of it is also stupid, and the bottom line is the consumers are paying way too much for products for no reason. The only industry that needs large reserves is Insurance so they can honor liabilities. Safeway doesn't need $100m in profits every year to ensure that if they introduce a new pizza style next year they don't belly up. How is being forced or pushed into donating to a charity to move funds a good solution to the problem, on any level? You missed the entire point of distributing the $50m - I'd wager 90% of this forum wouldn't have any use for a salary over $150k - so if one of us magically got drafted into the NBA and was offered a $10m a year contract for 5 years, what would the person do? None of the solutions are good, because they all boil down to 'why are you paying me 700000000% what you should be?'

[acroy]

SyZ, I think you may be over-caffeinated or something. I carefully read your posts and do not understand what what point you are trying to make.