| |
Discussion: Pop Stars are WAY overpaid
Member Since: 11/11/2010
Posts: 11,240
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Doc
Donte please turn down a bit.  |
I'm sorry for coming for you I forgot to take my meds.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/18/2012
Posts: 18,768
|
Quote:
Originally posted by FreeXone
There are thousands upon thousands of employed scientist,teachers etc. and only a handful of high paid celebs. So yes the distribution of wealth is evenly matched across the job spectrum. Most artist are poorly paid, only your mega stars will see the bing bang.
.
|
How is that evenly spread when you have a few artists who make mega millions
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/14/2007
Posts: 25,912
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/4/2010
Posts: 37,894
|
Quote:
Originally posted by CoolestPerson12
You stan for an artist because you like their music. Okay I get that. Humans need entertainment, of course I understand that. I just find it weird, that they along with athletes, and actors are earning a little too much. But what would be the point of having all that money? How much wealth is too much wealth? Now I understand that they make their money through many different avenues. And music isn't usually the bulk of that wealth. Things like endorsements are just way over-inflated.
And I'm not saying worshipping some teacher, no one should be worshipping anyone. But some careers do deserve more pay than others.
|
But like...
I like Beyoncé, so I paid $15.99 for her album. My wallet didn't have an issue with that. A million people felt the same way. So she and her album have just made $15,990,000. Are you saying that's way too much money? How is that unfair if that's simply how much the product made? Who is anyone to say that she's made too much money off of that if that's simply the revenue she made? Should she give 90% of it away, even though she made it fairly with a fairly priced album that she worked hard on?
If someone is rich and they have earned that money, then what's wrong with that? None of us have the right to say that any amount of money is too much. They got it fair and square and that's that.
Quote:
Originally posted by BlueTimberwolf
It's impossible to pay someone based on "value"or "contribution", b/c they are abstract concepts. Revenue is not.
|
Exactly why you can't ignore economics.
Doctors, teachers, and scientists are being put a pedestal in this thread. So regarding those three, who deserves the most and the least pay?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/28/2012
Posts: 34,863
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/10/2009
Posts: 10,662
|
Quote:
Originally posted by fanoftalent
Music is wonderful. Entertainment is great. We all need it.
It's about the priorities.
Think about your day. Can you go a day without listening to music? can you go a day without seeing your fave celeb on TV?
Now, can you go a day without fresh water? without food? Much harder, right? A mix of many different professions made it possible to have these things. Yet, we know the name of our favorite celeb, but we don't know the name of the person that invented penicillin and saved billions of lives (I'm sure some of you know his name, but I'm speaking about the society in general).
|
The thing is, value is impossibly subjective. Your statements make it clear that you have a personal value system that society doesn't reflect, but who are you to assume that societies " is not fair"? People value things differently, and there's no rule (that I'm aware of) that puts scientific advancements at the top of this mythical pyramid of importance. Hell, the concept of fairness itself is an entirely human construct, existing in no form or fashion in nature.
Basically, people value what they value, for the reasons that they subjectively do so. People like music from pop stars, so they buy it. Pop star's get that money, and the world keeps turning. These are facts. The "fairness" of it all is born entirely in your own mind.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/4/2010
Posts: 37,894
|
Quote:
Originally posted by inspiration4
The thing is, value is impossibly subjective. Your statements make it clear that you have a personal value system that society doesn't reflect, but who are you to assume that societies " is not fair"? People value things differently, and there's no rule (that I'm aware of) that puts scientific advancements at the top of this mythical pyramid of importance. Hell, the concept of fairness itself is an entirely human construct, existing in no form or fashion in nature.
Basically, people value what they value, for the reasons that they subjectively do so. People like music from pop stars, so they buy it. Pop star's get that money, and the world keeps turning. These are facts. The "fairness" of it all is born and entirely in your own mind.
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/18/2012
Posts: 18,768
|
It's unfair because they make more money than they should SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY ARE POPULAR.
Money from each fan x number of fans buying their album.
Do they deserve to make that much money BECAUSE of their "POPULARITY" ?
Yes OR No .... It's your own opinion.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/13/2010
Posts: 6,465
|
what 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/10/2009
Posts: 10,662
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Doc
But like...
I like Beyoncé, so I paid $15.99 for her album. My wallet didn't have an issue with that. A million people felt the same way. So she and her album have just made $15,990,000. Are you saying that's way too much money? How is that unfair if that's simply how much the product made? Who is anyone to say that she's made too much money off of that if that's simply the revenue she made? Should she give 90% of it away, even though she made it fairly with a fairly priced album that she worked hard on?
If someone is rich and they have earned that money, then what's wrong with that? None of us have the right to say that any amount of money is too much. They got it fair and square and that's that.
Exactly why you can't ignore economics.
Doctors, teachers, and scientists are being put a pedestal in this thread. So regarding those three, who deserves the most and the least pay? |
Bravo to all of this
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/18/2012
Posts: 20,576
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Doc
But like...
I like Beyoncé, so I paid $15.99 for her album. My wallet didn't have an issue with that. A million people felt the same way. So she and her album have just made $15,990,000. Are you saying that's way too much money? How is that unfair if that's simply how much the product made? Who is anyone to say that she's made too much money off of that if that's simply the revenue she made? Should she give 90% of it away, even though she made it fairly with a fairly priced album that she worked hard on?
If someone is rich and they have earned that money, then what's wrong with that? None of us have the right to say that any amount of money is too much. They got it fair and square and that's that.
Exactly why you can't ignore economics.
Doctors, teachers, and scientists are being put a pedestal in this thread. So regarding those three, who deserves the most and the least pay? |
No. I wasn't even talking about that. I don't care for that, because I know that's something completely different than what I hope this topic is about. I'm talking about how celebrities are earning too much in other avenues. If artists just earned their money fro music sales that would be different because they wouldn't get a lot out of it anyway. But does a celebrity really need to earn $10 million from an endorsement.
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 10/28/2011
Posts: 21,283
|
There was a time when they were considerably underpaid, you know.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/4/2009
Posts: 5,549
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Sunshine.
You're mixing ideas here.
Would a typical person be able to name the musician who pioneered music videos? Or what Marilyn's Monroe first movie was? No. Why? Because it's in the past. Same with past medical discoveries. That's just a temporal argument.
You're making it seem like people spend $100's daily on music when they could have only spent $15.99 ONCE this December on Beyoncé's album (like I did). But because millions did it also, Beyoncé made $15 million.
The only solution to this problem is that people get more diverse taste in entertainment so not everyone is flocking to the same song/album/movie. Or we ask musicians to sell music for pennies...which, if enough people bought, would still amount to millions.
|
An average person is more likely to tell you who pioneered music videos than who found penicillin. And even if not... If u just want to discuss modern times: there are a lot of amazing discoveries happening right now, but we barely know the name of a single modern scientist. While we know the biography of Kesha by heart.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/27/2012
Posts: 5,464
|
Quote:
Originally posted by inspiration4
The thing is, value is impossibly subjective. Your statements make it clear that you have a personal value system that society doesn't reflect, but who are you to assume that societies " is not fair"? People value things differently, and there's no rule (that I'm aware of) that puts scientific advancements at the top of this mythical pyramid of importance. Hell, the concept of fairness itself is an entirely human construct, existing in no form or fashion in nature.
Basically, people value what they value, for the reasons that they subjectively do so. People like music from pop stars, so they buy it. Pop star's get that money, and the world keeps turning. These are facts. The "fairness" of it all is born entirely in your own mind.
|
Well put and I agree completely
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/30/2012
Posts: 5,537
|
Quote:
Originally posted by BLaCKPoWeR
There was a time when they were considerably underpaid, you know. |
Hence the song 'Taxman' by the Beatles. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/21/2009
Posts: 11,151
|
Quote:
Originally posted by CoolestPerson12
But does a celebrity really need to earn $10 million from an endorsement.
|
These celebrities have busy schedules and other companies that want their business and attention. Do you really think a high profile celebrity like Beyonce, Katy, or even Kim K would endorse a product for $500?
No.
Companies know how valuable these artists are to increasing their revenue, that they're willing to pay them as much as they're worth.
Pepsi will NOT be making 400 billion a year with just some random no-name girl endorsing their product.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/27/2012
Posts: 5,464
|
Quote:
Originally posted by fanoftalent
An average person is more likely to tell you who pioneered music videos than who found penicillin. And even if not... If u just want to discuss modern times: there are a lot of amazing discoveries happening right now, but we barely know the name of a single modern scientist. While we know the biography of Kesha by heart.
|
 You're assuming a lot, I don't know who pioneered music videos, who found penicillin, and I most certainly do not know Kesha's bio by heart.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/4/2010
Posts: 37,894
|
Quote:
Originally posted by CoolestPerson12
No. I wasn't even talking about that. I don't care for that, because I know that's something completely different than what I hope this topic is about. I'm talking about how celebrities are earning too much in other avenues. If artists just earned their money fro music sales that would be different because they wouldn't get a lot out of it anyway. But does a celebrity really need to earn $10 million from an endorsement.
|
All that is related though.
I just like talking about Beyoncé so I'll continue. Her Pepsi contract is like $50 million. That money doesn't come from thin air. It comes from all the years of Pepsi selling their product to people who wish to buy it. That money was earned by Pepsi fairly, and if they feel that using a portion of that money to get Beyoncé to appear on their product in order to fairly sell even more of their product, then what's wrong with that? It's not like Beyoncé hasn't worked HARD to get to the point in her career where a major corporation is willing to shell out that much to her. So I'm not seeing what's unfair about it.
From Beyoncé and her music/tours to Pepsi and their cans, they are reaching millions of people, and their profits clearly reflect that. Any given teacher is reaching 150 kids a school year. One can't expect teachers to make anywhere NEAR popstars and major businesses. And there's nothing unfair about that either.
And anyway, why should money and profits have to reflect your idea on what's valuable and what's not? You shouldn't be doing something "valuable" because you expect a huge profit. Economics should not be involved or referenced in such an abstract concept.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 271
|
It's an interesting idea. We need to remember that many of these people only earn their fortune over 10 years, then reach has been status. Those who overcome that do because they build an empire of sorts. Entertainers are hot then not.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/21/2009
Posts: 11,151
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Doc
All that is related though.
I just like talking about Beyoncé so I'll continue. Her Pepsi contract is like $50 million. That money doesn't come from thin air. It comes from all the years of Pepsi selling their product to people who wish to buy it. That money was earned by Pepsi fairly, and if they feel that using a portion of that money to get Beyoncé to appear on their product in order to fairly sell even more of their product, then what's wrong with that? It's not like Beyoncé hasn't worked HARD to get to the point in her career where a major corporation is willing to shell out that much to her. So I'm not seeing what's unfair about it.
.
|
And the funny thing is, relatively speaking, Beyonce is actually paid very little by Pepsi. Pepsi's net income this year was $1.91 Billion.
That would mean the amount that Beyonce made off of Pepsi was only 0.025% of their profits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
