I mean I think we can all agree that there are some jobs out there that require more stress, hard-work, effort and exhaustion than singing-songwriting, acting, being an athlete, etc. yet people who work these jobs probably don't get 1% of what a very famous celebrity would typically receive every month. What do you think?
Yes. They've had to sacrifice a lot and work hard to get to where they are.
Yeah but I'm pretty sure they can live without at least 3/4 of the money they have. Why can't they just get much higher tax rates than average citizens?
Yes. Considering their services are being used by millions to possibly billions of people. It's no different from someone starting a company that becomes huge and services huge amounts of people or invents something that takes off or makes a scientific discovery that's hugely impactful on a mass level. Their income fairly is generated by scale and reach even if some feel like what they do isn't important as say being a public servant like a social worker or teacher or fireman.
Yes. Considering their services are being used by millions to possibly billions of people. It's no different from someone starting a company that becomes huge and services huge amounts of people or invents something that takes off or makes a scientific discovery that's hugely impactful on a mass level. Their income fairly is generated by scale and reach even if some feel like what they do isn't important as say being a public servant like a social worker or teacher or fireman.
A singular popstar is of course less important to society than a nurse, doctor or surgeon...so their salaries are disproportionate. In theory, their worth is less so they're less deserving. But that's not how things work.
However, a (talented) popstar is an artist. They're creating entertainment, which is also important. If they write/sing an album and millions buy it - they have earned and deserve that income. They don't earn much from each unit, so the riches come from popularity. Beyond the actual music it gets a bit blurrier, but a lot of popstar income comes from endorsements...which is arguably deserving because they're paid what their brand is worth in advertising reach/influence/results.
If we go by work value, then no they don't. A song is less useful than say a policeman service.
If we go by public consumption, then yes they do. McDonalds is richer than a random car company, even though a car is more useful and more valuable than a Mc meal.
Musicians don't have salaries; their income generally depends on how many people buy their music. So they deserve the money that people give them in return for music.
Yes. Considering their services are being used by millions to possibly billions of people. It's no different from someone starting a company that becomes huge and services huge amounts of people or invents something that takes off or makes a scientific discovery that's hugely impactful on a mass level. Their income fairly is generated by scale and reach even if some feel like what they do isn't important as say being a public servant like a social worker or teacher or fireman.
They get the large paychecks they do because they are generating money. If a company is paying a celebrity something, it's more than likely because that celebrity is bringing something to the table for them. Whether it be credibility, attention and/or more money.
