[Tropez]

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.

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.

What would've been the difference if they payed her $25 million to endorse the brand? If she just did it for the value that they pay, then what's wrong with a person doing a job because of the pay? They both are the same, in that they are doing it for the money.

Now, in reality you shouldn't do a job for the value. But you do know that the average salary for a teacher is $35,672, while the average national income for a US citizen is $53,046? Which means that teachers are underpaid, which is common knowledge. Why can't the pay for teachers increase? Sure one reason is the amount of money going into the country's education system is low. But let's also remember, that we live in a country where you have to put food on the table. If the job you want isn't going to pay you enough then you have to go where you can earn a living. That salary is a struggle in certain places.

Originally posted by NE.

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.

You're being a bit extreme but okay.

[Sunshine.]

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.

I don't know, I think most people would know who Einstein, Thomas Edison, Isaac Newton, and Benjamin Franklin are considering the emphasis placed on these figures in school. All that entertainment stuff is usually skimmed over in history classes. So a lot of the gp is oblivious to the pop music world. Like many here are oblivious to the sports world. It's all relative and based on interest.

Our knowledge of popstars here on ATRL comes from years of independent "research". And even then some people are only here for one artist. For example, I'm not all too familiar know with Pink's biography.

I guess you could argue that someone would be able to identify the artist behind I Will Always Love You before they'd be able to identify the inventor of the stethoscope, but the answer to that is very clear. Entertainment is easier to consume than science. It also permeates through culture to influence styles and attitudes. How can one possibly quantify the impact entertainment has on society? idk.

[Doc]

Originally posted by CoolestPerson12

What would've been the difference if they payed her $25 million to endorse the brand? If she just did it for the value that they pay, then what's wrong with a person doing a job because of the pay? They both are the same, in that they are doing it for the money.

Now, in reality you shouldn't do a job for the value. But you do know that the average salary for a teacher is $35,672, while the average national income for a US citizen is $53,046? Which means that teachers are underpaid, which is common knowledge. Why can't the pay for teachers increase? Sure one reason is the amount of money going into the country's education system is low. But let's also remember, that we live in a country where you have to put food on the table. If the job you want isn't going to pay you enough then you have to go where you can earn a living. That salary is a struggle in certain places.

The price on the contract is proportional to the benefit that the corporation feels her endorsement will provide to their product. As NE. said on the last page, this amount amounts to .025% of Pepsi's profits. Again, all that money is fairly earned by them and they have the right to spend it however they please. So where's the injustice?

Teachers are government workers, meaning that their pay comes from taxes. No one enjoys paying taxes, including teachers themselves, hence the low salary. I do agree that they deserve more money for sure, but that discussion is completely independent of and irrelevant to popstar salaries. Another reason why it's so pointless to compare professions in completely different fields. Talk about how a school administrator makes more than a teacher. Talk about how a doctor makes more than a nurse. Talk about how executives make eons more than factory workers. But it's pointless to start crossing over and comparing different jobs in different fields.

Originally posted by CoolestPerson12

You're being a bit extreme but okay.

His post is exactly right though; I can't find the exaggerations.

[Tropez]

Originally posted by Doc

The price on the contract is proportional to the benefit that the corporation feels her endorsement will provide to their product. As NE. said on the last page, this amount amounts to .025% of Pepsi's profits. Again, all that money is fairly earned by them and they have the right to spend it however they please. So where's the injustice?

Teachers are government workers, meaning that their pay comes from taxes. No one enjoys paying taxes, including teachers themselves, hence the low salary. I do agree that they deserve more money for sure, but that discussion is completely independent of and irrelevant to popstar salaries. Another reason why it's so pointless to compare professions in completely different fields. Talk about how a school administrator makes more than a teacher. Talk about how a doctor makes more than a nurse. Talk about how executives make eons more than factory workers. But it's pointless to start crossing over and comparing different jobs in different fields.

His post is exactly right though; I can't find the exaggerations.

Those jobs you mentioned are higher than the others. A doctor leads a nurse, so a doctor rightfully earns more pay. And executive leads the workers, so rightfully there's more pay. Pepsi is a major company, so shelling out $50 million for a deal isn't a lot for them, that's usually inline with their budget. But, does a company need to pay a person to sell their product for $50 million? Isn't there a line where you as a company know that there's a frivolous limit? He said $500 yeah I know they wouldn't do the job for that price, obviously. But there shouldn't be an issue with giving $10 or $15 million versus giving $50 million. Because then you make it seem like its just for the money. And you said earlier a person shouldn't do a job just for the money. And I'm done, cause its late and I'm tired.

[Idontcareaboutyou]

Honestly, for the common folk, 10-15 million or 50 million is pretty much the same thing : a huge amount most of us would not earn were we to live for 5 centuries. And again, where do you draw the line ? Somebody else will say 10-15 million is already too much, another will say 5 million is the limit etc.

[fanoftalent]

Originally posted by DuckaDucka12

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.

You didn't have to take that so literally lol. I believe you in the first two statements, but I'm sure you know who Kesha is, you know what her biggest hits are, how she looks, how old she is more or less, etc. Same with a bunch of other celebs. That's much more info compared to what we know about any scientist dead or alive.

[Ramcoro]

Originally posted by fanoftalent

The leaps of logic

When did anyone say there should be no art, no music, no passion?

But what art is Paris Hilton providing to us again?

Exactly.

Right?

Music and art has ALWAYS been around. Before Capitalism. Mozart and Beethoven weren't millionaires. Art and music might be better if the artists actually had the art as the motivation rather than money.

[Ramcoro]

Originally posted by Idontcareaboutyou

Honestly, for the common folk, 10-15 million or 50 million is pretty much the same thing : a huge amount most of us would not earn were we to live for 5 centuries. And again, where do you draw the line ? Somebody else will say 10-15 million is already too much, another will say 5 million is the limit etc.

The difference is if you give an artist 'only' 15 million dollars instead of 50 million. The rest of the 50 million can be used to literally feed an entire city.

[Ramcoro]

Originally posted by Doc

The price on the contract is proportional to the benefit that the corporation feels her endorsement will provide to their product. As NE. said on the last page, this amount amounts to .025% of Pepsi's profits. Again, all that money is fairly earned by them and they have the right to spend it however they please. So where's the injustice?

Teachers are government workers, meaning that their pay comes from taxes. No one enjoys paying taxes, including teachers themselves, hence the low salary. I do agree that they deserve more money for sure, but that discussion is completely independent of and irrelevant to popstar salaries. Another reason why it's so pointless to compare professions in completely different fields. Talk about how a school administrator makes more than a teacher. Talk about how a doctor makes more than a nurse. Talk about how executives make eons more than factory workers. But it's pointless to start crossing over and comparing different jobs in different fields.

His post is exactly right though; I can't find the exaggerations.

I would LOVE to talk about the gap between executives and their average worker. That's the real injustice in our society.

[LEMONADE]

I agree to some point, but you also have to look at it in a different light.

These artists are 95% of the time on the road or on a plane traveling and doing something work related and that's while not on tour, then you have the constant no privacy, rehearsals, recording sessions, meetings, appearances, promotion performances, photoshoots etc. - You also have to look at holidays when they are also doing specials.

I mean there are doctors, entrepreneurs, scientist, chefs, and lawyers etc. out there that make millions, we just don't hear about them because they arn't public figures and don't have million of fans but private clients.

Most celebrities are made to be con artists tbh. They are made to make people believe they are glamorous and have the perfect life when in reality behind the scenes it results in depression and problems of no stability.

[Doc]

Originally posted by CoolestPerson12

Those jobs you mentioned are higher than the others. A doctor leads a nurse, so a doctor rightfully earns more pay. And executive leads the workers, so rightfully there's more pay. Pepsi is a major company, so shelling out $50 million for a deal isn't a lot for them, that's usually inline with their budget. But, does a company need to pay a person to sell their product for $50 million? Isn't there a line where you as a company know that there's a frivolous limit? He said $500 yeah I know they wouldn't do the job for that price, obviously. But there shouldn't be an issue with giving $10 or $15 million versus giving $50 million. Because then you make it seem like its just for the money. And you said earlier a person shouldn't do a job just for the money. And I'm done, cause its late and I'm tired.

at you completely missing the point. I'm not trying to argue whether doctors deserve much more than nurses or if executives deserve much more than factory workers. The point is that those are much better comparisons to make. For example, regarding health, many people say that nurses deserve more because they work much harder on the day to day compared to doctors. On the converse, people argue that doctors deserve more because they go to school longer. That is an interesting argument with many good opinions. However, it makes no sense to compare doctors and their salaries to business executive. Two completely different and unrelated types of jobs and markets. THAT's the point that you missed.

Again, the business decided with THEIR own rightfully earned money that 50 million is what they wanted to offer to Beyoncé. It doesn't matter if it's 1 million, 10, 15, or 100 million—it's their own money and they have the right to spend it however they want to. NONE of you have the right to say that they're spending their own rightfully earned money wrongly, especially when all these numbers are less than 1% of Pepsi's earnings.

Please point to me to where I said that people shouldn't just do a job for the money. Again with missing the point. I said that all the people shouldn't be discussing how people doing jobs with what they deem as "value" should be paid more, because people doing jobs of "value" shouldn't be doing it for money—they should be doing it for the "betterment of society", as you guys like to say.

Goodnight.

Originally posted by Ramcoro

Right?

Music and art has ALWAYS been around. Before Capitalism. Mozart and Beethoven weren't millionaires. Art and music might be better if the artists actually had the art as the motivation rather than money.

Mozart and Beethoven A) didn't have CDs and tours to sell and thus B) did not reach anywhere near as many people as modern popstars in their lifetimes. Hence, they weren't millionaires.

And like people have already said, the Beyoncés of the industry are rare. The VAST majority of singers and entertainers are struggling far more than Mozart and Beethoven did. That's just the business of entertainment in general. The vast majority will struggle with the hopes of making it to the big time.

Originally posted by Ramcoro

The difference is if you give an artist 'only' 15 million dollars instead of 50 million. The rest of the 50 million can be used to literally feed an entire city.

Again, the 50 million is only .025% of Pepsi's income. It's not like they don't literally have billions to give away. And from what I can gather from Google, they do do a bit of charity work. But people with large amounts of money giving back is a completely different subject from being overpaid anyway.

[t.A.T.u.]

you're poor.

[Mikeymoonshine]

I don't understand. These people get payed this much because they are creating a product that allot of people would like to buy.

Many scientists go into industry because they can make more money that way. Doctors can go private and make more money ect.

Who makes the most money isn't about who is most useful to society and it's never going to be.