Celbritites and athletes overpaid

I want your thoughts on this please.

Personally I think these people are way too overpaid. An average engineer working his but off and working overtime pulls off about 80k a year. While these idiots show up on tv for 2hours and make millions of dollars. I also think the appearance of these people on t.v is not good for children. Well most of them... The clothes the teenage girls wear in these shows is extremely horrible.

Doctors, engineers, lawyers, teacher, people with degrees should be the ones who get paid more. Education has to have a value and these imbeciles on tv are opposing this.

Yes. They do nothing that benefits the society. Paying them millions to play a sport, or to be an actor/actress is stupid. Put that money toward our country, toward our economy, and see how well we start taking off.

What do you think about CEOs making so much?

I feel the same way.

It's disgusting how much some people make. They don't need that much money.

It's actually not anyone really paying them.. if you think about it, it's us..

One movie.. how many viewers.. 11.50$ a ticket.. all around the world..

that's 11.50 x Viewers around the world = millions in their pockets..

Harry Potter book.. 25$ x Amount of readers x 7 books = J.K. Rowling being able to buy her own castle..

Plus the things most of those stars have to do to get up there.. mostly the women..
Who's that bitch that had to dress up in meat to get attention again? Oh yeah.. gaga..

Some are blatantly paid for nothing.. some kinda work.. I guess it depends. AND their only paid like that in america.. thus why all canadian stars all leave and go there.

someone once told me
"Making a Million dollars is easy, its just one dollar from a million people."

Makes it seem simple considering there are at least a trillion people on the internet

If you think they are overpaid, stop paying $100 for a ticket to an NFL game, or $12 a ticket for a movie. They are paid what they are paid because thats what the market price is for their "Talent" Right or wrong, its no ones fault but "your" own. Your being american society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [Nathan]

If you think they are overpaid, stop paying $100 for a ticket to an NFL game, or $12 a ticket for a movie. They are paid what they are paid because thats what the market price is for their "Talent" Right or wrong, its no ones fault but "your" own. Your being american society.

---

as marshall would say... LAWYERED!

I don't pay for any of that. They're paid from contracts, which states that they will get paid no matter what. Everyone could boycott every game, yet, the athletes will still get paid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kyle Undefined

I don't pay for any of that. They're paid from contracts, which states that they will get paid no matter what. Everyone could boycott every game, yet, the athletes will still get paid.

---

But they wouldn't get contracts if people didn't spend money on those things.

Your thinking about yourself to much, this market isn't a microeconomic principle, its a macro one. It takes the aggregate market as a whole, and you might not be spending money on those things, but your neighbor sure is. Green Bay Packers for example, their stadium has been sold out since like the 60s, there are millions of people in this country that do spend hundreds and hundreds and maybe even thousands of dollars a year in the entertainment and sports industries. That is what fuels the athletes million dollar contracts. It's not going to change anytime soon because people are willing to pay it.

As I said before, right or wrong, thats how it is. It might not be right, but its not going to change.

There are two strains of thought here, one is that, as you have stated, they do so little and get paid so much. The other is that, they have worked very hard to do what they do, and they are the only people that can do what they do, so they can charge whatever you'll pay. CEO's included...

This topic has been discussed before, i stumbled upon this 3 months ago,

http://www.ngemu.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143663

really good read. i Actually read all the way through because 2 guys were argueing over the span of 4 months

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [Nathan]

But they wouldn't get contracts if people didn't spend money on those things.

Your thinking about yourself to much, this market isn't a microeconomic principle, its a macro one. It takes the aggregate market as a whole, and you might not be spending money on those things, but your neighbor sure is. Green Bay Packers for example, their stadium has been sold out since like the 60s, there are millions of people in this country that do spend hundreds and hundreds and maybe even thousands of dollars a year in the entertainment and sports industries. That is what fuels the athletes million dollar contracts. It's not going to change anytime soon because people are willing to pay it.

As I said before, right or wrong, thats how it is. It might not be right, but its not going to change.

---

You didn't read my entire post ;) I said that I don't pay for those things. I didn't say I made up for everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kyle Undefined

Everyone could boycott every game, yet, the athletes will still get paid.

---

Your post doesn't take that into consideration.

It can change, but people have to push for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yakkyigooconroy

as marshall would say... LAWYERED!

---

awesome :) made me laugh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kyle Undefined

It can change, but people have to push for it.

---

agreed, just adding that its our constitutional right to strike for change.

look at Occupy Wall Street

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyziG...eature=related


also here is a site that has a picture of how many people who actually protest and push for a change.

http://www.meetup.com/occupytogether/

It's almost as if the system is broken.. Of course I would never that because Fox news will call me a SOCIALIST!


http://www.leftycartoons.com/wp-cont...eacher_pay.png

People are worth what others are willing to pay them. But I did say YES to the poll because many athletes' salaries are indirectly subsidized these days.

When pro teams threaten to leave to another city unless they get a new stadium, and the taxpayers spend millions of dollars to keep them there, that's a public subsidy.

If a team needs a new stadium, they should reduce their other expenses, including player salaries if necessary.

The other problem is that the largest pro sports leagues are also an effective monopoly, since they don't allow new franchises to be added as driven by the free market. This artificially inflates the salaries of those who do make it into the leagues.

If sports teams were not publicly subsidized and if there wasn't an effective monopoly, I wouldn't have any problem with athletes being paid whatever they can get.

Edit: by the way, I'm annoyed that recently any random doofus that wants to protest something is suddenly part of a "movement", and is given a much higher status by the media. No, they're not an "occupier", they're a random doofus with a unique axe to grind. Unremarkable in every way.

Until there's a coherent message, it's not a movement, and shouldn't be put on a pedestal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tarajunky

Edit: by the way, I'm annoyed that recently any random doofus that wants to protest something is suddenly part of a "movement", and is given a much higher status by the media. No, they're not an "occupier", they're a random doofus with a unique axe to grind. Unremarkable in every way.

Until there's a coherent message, it's not a movement, and shouldn't be put on a pedestal.

---

couldnt agree more:sasmokin:

edit: Yakman; I love the comic!

Well, the media in itself is to blame, not the doofus (or doofus').

I have one question.

Can you do what they can do?
Answer:
No -- Then they're not overpaid.
Yes -- Then go do it and get paid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kyle Undefined

Well, the media in itself is to blame, not the doofus (or doofus').

---

agreed, but funny nonetheless

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by footballjds

I have one question.

Can you do what they can do?
Answer:
No -- Then they're not overpaid.
Yes -- Then go do it and get paid.

---

Do athletes/celebrities really need Million+ $ contracts? No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by footballjds

I have one question.

Can you do what they can do?
Answer:
No -- Then they're not overpaid.
Yes -- Then go do it and get paid.

---

depends on the person, some athletes deserve lots of pay, some dont.
Some actors deserve to be famous. Some don't because they decided to just make an adult tape, ex: Paris H, Kim K

im sure that anyone can make an adult tape. :stirthepot:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kyle Undefined

Do athletes/celebrities really need Million+ $ contracts? No.

---

i agree nobody NEEDS that much money.
That goes with a quote from Washington post

Kenneth J. Douglas, lived the good life. He earned the equivalent of about $1 million today. He and his family moved from a three-bedroom home to a four-bedroom home, about a half-mile away, in River Forest, Ill., an upscale Chicago suburb. He joined a country club. The company gave him a Cadillac. The money was good enough, in fact, that he sometimes turned down raises. He said making too much was bad for morale.

Nobody NEEDS to see an NBA game, or buy a jersey, or new Air Jordans, but they do. And that money goes somewhere, why not to the players? If Air Jordans or the status associated with owning them are worth $150 to you, what's the problem? I've never had someone kidnap me and force me to go see an NBA game, or buy a jersey.

The entire system is a luxury. The real question is whether people voluntarily paying for and providing this luxury are such a problem that it demands government intervention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tarajunky

Nobody NEEDS to see an NBA game, or buy a jersey, or new Air Jordans, but they do. And that money goes somewhere, why not to the players? If Air Jordans or the status associated with owning them are worth $150 to you, what's the problem? I've never had someone kidnap me and force me to go see an NBA game, or buy a jersey.

The entire system is a luxury. The real question is whether people voluntarily paying for and providing this luxury are such a problem that it demands government intervention.

---

So true. And if you honestly believe it does need gov intervention, you desperately need to take a few economics class to learn more about the economy then you currently know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [Nathan]

And if you honestly believe it does, you desperately need to take a few economics class to learn more about the economy then you currently know.

---

She obviously knows what she's saying -___-

Besides people only buy jordans because of the status associated with it.. Everyone wants to feel a little better than the next person in some way, shape, or form. My opinion.. I'd rather a woman in heals than jordans.. that's just ghetto.. Even if it costs more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ggzz

She obviously knows what she's saying -___-

---

I was in agreement with tarajunky, I guess I didn't really make that clear in my post, will edit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tarajunky

Nobody NEEDS to see an NBA game, or buy a jersey, or new Air Jordans, but they do. And that money goes somewhere, why not to the players? If Air Jordans or the status associated with owning them are worth $150 to you, what's the problem? I've never had someone kidnap me and force me to go see an NBA game, or buy a jersey.

The entire system is a luxury. The real question is whether people voluntarily paying for and providing this luxury are such a problem that it demands government intervention.

---

Since we're talking about NBA, I'll join in. I think they are overpaid. Even some guys on the benches playing 3 minutes a game get more money than I'l ever see. Plus they retire at 40 or something and live of the money that they've already made. But I still enjoy watching games and I also have a jersey which I think was worth buying. :)

I'd rather pay those guys than the CEO's and the government. They usually lie/do nothing or drive the companies to bankruptcy and steal everything for themselves.

I think they make too much, but to say that they don't need that much, that ruins the purpose of success. And with all the money celebrities make its not nearly as much as the federal government cheats you out by spending trillions of dollars a year on undeclared wars and welfare programs. Kyle you said that money should be put into the economy, but what about the federal government which takes the people money without question and spends it carelessly. That adds up much more than celebrities... If you believe that someone doesn't need a certain amount of money, then you don't believe in a free society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mhawk

I think they make too much, but to say that they don't need that much, that ruins the purpose of success. And with all the money celebrities make its not nearly as much as the federal government cheats you out by spending trillions of dollars a year on undeclared wars and welfare programs. Kyle you said that money should be put into the economy, but what about the federal government which takes the people money without question and spends it carelessly. That adds up much more than celebrities... If you believe that someone doesn't need a certain amount of money, then you don't believe in a free society.

---

They don't need that much money, do they deserve a good income? Yeah, of course, but that's a little too much.

The Fed needs to go, it doesn't do us any good. When the Fed decided to bail out the banks, it created 7 trillion dollars out of thin air. That's stealing money out of my pocket because every time they create money, the dollar value drops.

Yes, into the economy, you can have a wealthy economy with no Fed. They don't actually need that much money, that's the issue. I do believe in a free society, but come on, does someone really need million+ $ contracts?

Depends if there movies/ actors suck then yes however if its a good film then i don't mind however i think football players are paid far to much money for kicking a ball around with skill

Off topic but w/e. It'd be nice to see more sports stars earning millions of $$$$ a year do more philanthropic projects.

Well rich people don't NEED all that money. And because they HAVE so much money, they should pay more in taxes.

Cue Karl Marx. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Congratulations to all those now realizing for the first time that they're actually Marxists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jhangir

I want your thoughts on this please.

Personally I think these people are way too overpaid. An average engineer working his but off and working overtime pulls off about 80k a year. While these idiots show up on tv for 2hours and make millions of dollars. I also think the appearance of these people on t.v is not good for children. Well most of them... The clothes the teenage girls wear in these shows is extremely horrible.

Doctors, engineers, lawyers, teacher, people with degrees should be the ones who get paid more. Education has to have a value and these imbeciles on tv are opposing this.

---

They are poor mate, piracy is ruining their lives [/sarcasm]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yakkyigooconroy

depends on the person, some athletes deserve lots of pay, some dont.
Some actors deserve to be famous. Some don't because they decided to just make an adult tape, ex: Paris H, Kim K

im sure that anyone can make an adult tape. :stirthepot:

---

this make no sense. If anyone could do something just as good, there's a reason they're not.

Regardless, everyone commenting(almost everyone...) are Marxists...
Why would you tax a rich guy 20% and a poor guy 7%
Stupid as fuck.

If anyone of you got paid that much you wouldn't complain, you might make morally good decisions on how to spend your money. You would not go to your boss and tell him to pay you less. Fucking absurd.

The rich guy can afford the higher taxes, that's the difference. Also, the wealthiest people in America didn't earn a penny, they stole it from the citizens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yakkyigooconroy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tarajunky

Edit: by the way, I'm annoyed that recently any random doofus that wants to protest something is suddenly part of a "movement", and is given a much higher status by the media. No, they're not an "occupier", they're a random doofus with a unique axe to grind. Unremarkable in every way.

Until there's a coherent message, it's not a movement, and shouldn't be put on a pedestal.

---

couldnt agree more:sasmokin:

---

This old chestnut. Time for another cartoon I think.

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/4256/ffffu.png




Please list the CONCRETE demands of the following protestors and movements:

1. Civil Rights volunteers in the 1960s
2. The Tea Partiers
3. The Tunisian rebels
4. The Egyptian rebels in Tarhir Square
5. The revolts in East Germany in 1990
6. The revolt in Romania in 1990
7. The Libyan rebels
8. Al Qaeda
9. The Velvet Revolution in Prague
10. The Russian Revolution in 1917

NONE of these had a list of coherent demands.

And none of them were excoriated by the media for not having a list of coherent demands.

It's called "holding Occupy Wall Street to a higher standard than previous protests."
Good for you for being in lockstep with the corporate media.


All anyone has to do to understand what these people are demanding is take a look at the US economy and the economies of the Eurozone, where they'll find high unemployment (especially in the 16-24 age group), vast disparities in income distribution, huge numbers of home foreclosures (many resulting from robo actions by banks), and stagnant wages, which stems from fraudulent banking activities and huge bank bailouts using taxpayer dollars. Add to this the fact that few bankers have been charged with crimes and even fewer convicted of crimes.

And add to this the context of money in politics and the syndrome of bought and paid for politicians doing the bidding of their masters, as exemplified in the number of draconian Bills passed in the House that attack women's rights, funding for the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy and NASA, tax cuts for the one per cent, and continue the deregulation mantra of the right wing, e.g. Koch Brothers, all coupled with the sordid manner in which GWB gained the Presidency in 2001 and the huge expenditures for wars that went on during his tenure over two terms, which pushed the national debt to record setting heights.

That all adds up to a massive basis for protesting and points the way toward what demands might look like.

It's pretty damned hard to articulate specific demands when you're staring at a mountain of ills that run a gamut of broad based systemic shenanigans and injustices that are legion and would fill a dozen boxcars. Any such list would be a mile long. The issues are simply too many and too diffuse and too interrelated and complex to reduce to a simple list of demands, And that's why we don't see such a list.

Asking for such a list reveals a paucity of awareness about the horrific situation these protesters and many of their fellow citizens now face, a situation that's not being addressed by the powers that be in any effective manner. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what these protesters are protesting and hence what their demands are or might be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by footballjds

If anyone of you got paid that much you wouldn't complain, you might make morally good decisions on how to spend your money. You would not go to your boss and tell him to pay you less. Fucking absurd.

---

This is an interesting argument, let's examine it for a second.
footballjds appears to be saying that if any of us had high salaries, we wouldn't fight for them to be lower. Therefore that justifies the undeserved high salaries in question.
The crux of the issue here seems to be self-interest. Everybody is only interested in themselves, including me and you and those rich celebrities. The fact that it's self-interest justifies it.
Of course, this comes straight out of the right-wing economics of Friedman, Hayek and Mises.

Let's apply it to something else.
Robbers, con-artists and thieves also act in their self interest, however nobody says they're good. In fact the very reason we say they're bad is because they enrich themselves at the expensive of society.
So why is it any different when bankers transfer their private debts onto the public books like they did in 2008? Why is it any different when big business dumps its pollution into our air and water? They also enrich themselves at the expense of society.