Why do some celebrities think they need so much money?

[nanavancouver]

maybe if the little guy started voting out of his pocketbook rather than "cultural/moral values," more politicians woudl get the message.

highly recommended reading: "what's the matter with kansas."

I just finished that book. My daughter gave it to me for Christmas.

 

[joyfulgirl]

maybe if the little guy started voting out of his pocketbook rather than "cultural/moral values," more politicians woudl get the message.

highly recommended reading: "what's the matter with kansas."

Great book.

 

[strannix]

No president is innocent. It was under Clinton that they of human rights violations and Tienemen (sp) Square went from being boycotted to 'most favored nation' status- now try to find something, especially toys and plastic items, that isn't made in China. That was a huge cheap labor force that took a bite out of American home grown manufacturing

Yes, yes, of course. No question that Clinton was awfully friendly to corporate interests, and I doubt that Kerry would have been much more than marginally better than Bush in that regard. But on the other hand, there are a lot of people on those margins that would benefit a hell of a lot from "marginally better".

I'm not saying that you have to blame Bush for this, but you do have to blame him for making it much, much worse. If the concerns of the little guy matter to you, you could hardly have a worse enemy in the White House.

 

[joyfulgirl]

If the concerns of the little guy matter to you, you could hardly have a worse enemy in the White House.

At least he's planning a modest coronation during a time of war and natural catastrophes.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0109-31.htm
Published on Sunday, January 9, 2005 by the Guardian/UK
Bush 'The King' Blows $50m on Coronation
President's lavish inauguration is 'obscene' when US troops are dying in Iraq war, say critics
by Paul Harris


It will be one of the biggest parties in American history, but half of the country will be left out. With a price tag of up to $50 million, President George W Bush's inauguration in 11 days' time will be an unashamed celebration of Red America's victory over Blue America in last November's election.

It is going to be the most expensive, most security-obsessed event in the history of Washington DC. An army of 10,000 police, secret service officers and FBI agents will patrol the capital for four days of massive celebrations that some critics have derided as reminiscent of the lavish shindigs thrown by Louis XIV, France's extravagant Sun King.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Re: Re: Why do some celebrities think they need so much money?

Back to the original topic:

Hollywood economics are not much different than our own, only they deal with larger sums of money and things we would term "ego" are considered "reputation".

If you think about it, celebrities keep getting these inflated paychecks because the public keeps paying into the system.

Well, I know that celebrities inflated pay checks leave you feeling pretty sick, but what nbcrusader is touching on here is true. You, me, everyone throws money at the industry they work in, and they are the reason you throw money at it, so why not?

Take Michael Jordan. How much money do you think Nike made off Jordans endorsement? Not just on the Air Jordan line, but across the whole brand? Billions. His face, achievements and reputation sold several billion shoes, t-shirts etc etc and made an absolute fortune for Nike and it's founders and shareholders. Does Michael Jordan not deserve a cut of that?

When a lot of people go to see a film, do you think it's the story line, or talent? Take Tom Cruise out, replace him with a guy straight out of acting school, maybe a far better actor (probably not difficult using the Cruise example) and do you think the film will make $200million for Universal Pictures or whoever? Of course not. Tom Cruise makes them a fortune - does he deserve a cut?

I think they most certainly have the right to have access to the money. IF it's earned. The problem as I see it is that now there's a generation who don't want to earn it, or don't see that they have to earn it, but think it's a right. Not so much in entertainment where doing the poor struggling actor/band thing, building yourself up, is kind of a right of passage, but in sports for sure. What some athletes demand in their contracts is ridiculous considering what they are doing in return. But if your name or face or career is making someone else a billionare, sure, you have a right to a cut of that. If you want to change that fact of life, then stop buying Tom Cruise films and Michael Jordan shoes....

 

[Golightly Grrl]

maybe if the little guy started voting out of his pocketbook rather than "cultural/moral values," more politicians woudl get the message.

highly recommended reading: "what's the matter with kansas."

Word to everything you just wrote, Irvine.

And it isn't a case of CEOs making 1 Million dollars and the workers making 25 K. Often CEOs make 400 times what the average worker makes and that doesn't count bonuses, golden parachutes, perks, etc. And these CEOs often get this even if they completely fuck up or destroy a company.

And I can't wait to read "What's the Matter With Kansas?" I'm waiting for it to get back to my local library. (I'm too broke to buy it).

 

[strannix]

And these CEOs often get this even if they completely fuck up or destroy a company.

What do you mean? I distinctly remember Ken Lay giving back his hundreds of millions of dollars after Enron went bust.

 

[U2Kitten]

I don't think y'all get it, I'm not taking up for Bush, I'm just saying Clinton was no better and Kerry wouldn't be either. I get SO tired of everything wrong with the world being mentioned and the next thing you know here comes somebody with the 'this administration' speech again. There are other evil men and other factors, you know. The corportations themselves bear a huge part of the blame. The president, regardless of who he is, is not a dictator and can do nothing without congress anyway, so he shouldn't be blamed or credited any more than them. And I do believe ALL politicians are payed off by special interest, none of which is of interest to people with no money (like me) Yes, I'm cynical and disillusioned, I have been for years now and don't see it going away

 

[cardosino]

Word to everything you just wrote, Irvine.

And it isn't a case of CEOs making 1 Million dollars and the workers making 25 K. Often CEOs make 400 times what the average worker makes and that doesn't count bonuses, golden parachutes, perks, etc. And these CEOs often get this even if they completely fuck up or destroy a company.

CEO's are like everyone else in that they negotiate the best package available to them, if the board of directors gives them such a deal, that's their fault, not the CEO's.

As for making 400 times what the typical worker makes, that's probably the exception rather the rule. if a typical worker makes $40K, 400X that (not including bonuses, golden parachutes, etc) is $16M. What a load of rubbish!

I've worked for about 5 different publicly traded companies and hold small amounts of stock in a bunch of others, so salaries and compensation are public record, I've never seen anything even close to that amount. There might be the exceptions such as Bill Gates, but that comes mostly from Stock Options, and it is most definitely the exception rather the rule when you consider how many CEO's there actually are.

Final point, most of the CEO's I've actually met and interfaced with have been highly driven men willing to pretty much put their lives on hold for years to succeed, working hallacious hours and they have doen so when their companies were very much in a start-up mode with no guarantee of success.

 

[beli]

Its straight out economics.

The otherside of the coin is a hairdresser who can only do one haircut at a time so the hairdressers capacity to create wealth is limited by time and effort.

The musicans that make a lot of money (and many of them dont) do so because once they have recorded the album it can be printed as many times as needed. There is effectively no limit on the amount of money a musican can reap from one album. Sales can continue on for years if not decades, and in many countries. The musican finished his/her input to the album ages ago. The musician receives a royalty from each album but there is no increased time or effort required by the musican. He/she is free to go off and record another album that may also bring in profits.

As for the actor. Films produce a certain amount of income for the production company. If having a particular actor attracts more paying viewers then the production company will revalue the worth of the actor upwards. Hence the high salary that is not linked to acting ability but rather star quality ie the capacity to increase the profits of the production company.

Basically its the difference between salaries and wages where the capacity to increase income is limited to time and effort expended - and royalties or commission where the capacity to increase income is not linked to time and effort.

 

[indra]

Well the rich celebrities aren't getting a whole hell of a lot from me. I don't go see movies (haven't for years), don't buy dvd's (or videos), don't get cable tv (never have), hardly watch tv, and haven't purchased any cds from major labels in over a year. I'm not really a big consumer at all. Hell, even my pc's a geezer!

I do have a consumeristic streak though... I do more than my fair share of supporting indie label bands and various artists/artisans. Hey, someone has to!


And I think I may be singlehandly supporting the dog snacky treats industry....

 

[ultraviolet7]

I'm not going to mention any names, but why do some celebrities expect to be paid so much money?

Example: movie stars who refuse to do a movie unless they get paid in excess of US$20 million . Sure some of them are talented at what they do, but why do they expect to be paid so much, especially when they already have millions of dollars?

I read in a magazine a couple of weeks back, another actor (who wasn't particularly high profile) said he didn't do cameo apperances because smart parts usually offered small pay checks.

What's going on here? So many people living in poverty and this people expect so much? Does greed go to these celebrities head's to cause them to live in a distorted reality?

It's basically a question of market. The entertainment industry (including sport) makes tons of money because there are loads of people who are prepared to pay to watch movies, go to concerts, games, etc. Obviously this generates multimillion sponsoring, box office takings, etc. It is rather logical that those who generate the business may want to earn proportionally.

Now maybe the question is why entertainment has gained such a high echelon in our societies' scale of values as to justify that to see/listen/watch a "star" has to generate the sort of eagerneness, passion or even hysteria in the public that brings people to fuel this sort of industry as to have it generate the scandalous amount of money it does.

 

[Golightly Grrl]

What do you mean? I distinctly remember Ken Lay giving back his hundreds of millions of dollars after Enron went bust.

Yes, maybe Ken Lay did give his millions back, but that does not forgive the sleaziness of some CEOs and other corporate types.

And maybe my experience in corporate land hasn't been as fortunate as others. I've seen plenty of hard-working, driven, talented, and skilled people get it up the ass with a ten inch dildo and no lube. I've seen unethical behavior not only tolerated, but rewarded in the workplace. I won't get too much into it right now because I don't want my head to explode.

On-Topic: Is anyone bothered by the expensive gift baskets celebs are given at events and award shows? Is this a recent trend? I don't recall the likes of Katharine Hepburn, Cary Grant, Jimmy Stewart or Bette Davis being treated to lots of swag at the Oscars.

 

[all_i_want]

well, they dont really NEED it but they WANT it. who doesnt?


plan x !

 

[strannix]

Yes, maybe Ken Lay did give his millions back, but that does not forgive the sleaziness of some CEOs and other corporate types.

Sorry, I meant that sarcastically. It was originally going to be a much longer post in which the sarcasm would have been more obvious, but I abandoned it and what remained had no context.

As far as I know, Ken Lay hasn't given back a penny.

 

[Golightly Grrl]

Sorry, I meant that sarcastically. It was originally going to be a much longer post in which the sarcasm would have been more obvious, but I abandoned it and what remained had no context.

As far as I know, Ken Lay hasn't given back a penny.

I was wondering if you were pulling my chain. Snerk. I guess my sarcasm radar was off.

 

[strannix]

I don't think y'all get it, I'm not taking up for Bush, I'm just saying Clinton was no better and Kerry wouldn't be either. I get SO tired of everything wrong with the world being mentioned and the next thing you know here comes somebody with the 'this administration' speech again. There are other evil men and other factors, you know. The corportations themselves bear a huge part of the blame. The president, regardless of who he is, is not a dictator and can do nothing without congress anyway, so he shouldn't be blamed or credited any more than them. And I do believe ALL politicians are payed off by special interest, none of which is of interest to people with no money (like me) Yes, I'm cynical and disillusioned, I have been for years now and don't see it going away

I know you're not taking up for Bush on this score, but you do support him in general terms, and that's a hard fact to ignore when you start talking about how the little guy is getting screwed. And it shows not just a little bit of denial to blame the President for not being able to control a Congress that is dominated by his own party.

Since neither of us care to pull punches, I'll be blunt. Just throwing up your shoulders and saying "politicians are all the same" is a very lazy way of thinking about the problem. I don't see why cynicism and disillusionment should serve as a crutch to lean on in order to avoid making hard choices, and I'm pretty cynical and disillusioned myself.

If you really care about this, you owe it to yourself to take a hard look at the people you vote for, and find out which serves your interests the best. I understand that the abortion issue is very important to you, and that may mean some difficult choices. But that's how it is, everyone has to make trade-offs. You can't justify not making those choices by ignoring the important differences between politicians and still expect anyone to take you seriously.

 

[strannix]

I was wondering if you were pulling my chain. Snerk. I guess my sarcasm radar was off.

No, no. My fault.

 

[JimmyChicken]

Hmmm... I wasn't expecting quite so much dicussion on this issue...

 

[U2Kitten]

Strannix, I did not vote for Kerry because I did not believe he cared about the little guy getting screwed, in fact I didn't believe anything he said. Well, at this point I can't think of a politician I do believe. I never could understand why everyone here thought Kerry was the salvation of the country. Not being Bush isn't good enough. He doesn't care either! Look ALL policians take money from lobbyists, and NO ONE cares about the little guy. Why should they, he doesn't have any $$$!

 

[indra]

Hmmm... I wasn't expecting quite so much dicussion on this issue...

Ah. Money. That always touches nerves.