CEO's Wages Vs. Actor's Wages
By gewcew23
@gewcew23 (8007)
United States
July 21, 2009 1:04pm CST
There are a group of misery loves company that loves to hate how much CEO's make of some Fortune 500 company, yet where are they when some actor or actress makes millions of dollar just from reading and memorizing a script that someone else wrote. True some would say that no one should make more than (enter your figure here) but there is not equal rage. An actor or actress does not accomplish anything that actually matters. They do not write the scripts, they do not work the cameras, they do not have any responsibilities except to do what the director tells them to do. Do script writers make multi-million dollars a year, I doubt it, yet with out them not one movie would ever happen. Do the cameramen make multi-million dollars a year, I doubt it, yet without them not one movie would be accomplished. Even though that when some CEO make an annual wage over a million dollars, how dare they when they have employee's that only make 20k to 30k.
9 responses
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
21 Jul 09
This may sound crazy, but I completely disagree. Actors make what they're worth. I know, let me explain. People buy DVDs, tickets to movies, shirts, posters, and even action figures because of these actors. It may sound ridiculous for Angelina Jolie to get $1 million for a movie, but when that movie grosses $200 million because she's in it, then she's more than earned her keep regardless of how little she had to work compared to a CEO. The same goes for athletes and other entertainers that earn money for their employers.
Now, as you know, I have no problem with CEOs being well compensated for the work they do either. If a CEO of a Fortune 500 company leads that business to making ridiculous amounts of money, he's earned his keep as well. The only difference is that he earned his keep through hard work rather than acting ability, beauty, and name recognition.
When politicians leave their state or country in debt, they do NOT earn their keep. Congress and the president should have to sacrifice their own salaries when they dig us deeper into debt. Now I'm not saying a freshmen senator or a new president should be screwed when they walk into a bad situation, but if things get worse because of them, they need to pay for it. You'll notice that many of the states with the worst economies, like California, pay their state reps the most money, about $170,000.
1 person likes this
@gewcew23 (8007)
• United States
21 Jul 09
Wow I think you have missed my point of my discussion. I do not care one bit about how much some actor makes. Everyone is entitled to what ever compensation they are worth to the people paying them. If for instance someone wants to pay a plumber a million dollars to install a new toilet, what do I care. My point that apparently I did not make so clear, which made me sound like a classic class warfarist, was why do some individuals make such a big deal over CEO salaries when those in Hollywood make just as much if not more.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
21 Jul 09
Sorry I misunderstood.
The answer to your question is twofold. First off, CEOs are responsible for the most horrible actions in our country, laying people off. They fire people, they cut jobs, they close divisions, factories, and make money doing it. Now of course many on the left are too stupid or too filled with hate to realize that you can't lay people off or fire them without first hiring them. They don't want to acknowledge that if you fire 10,000 employees than you are still providing jobs for 100,000 other people. They don't realize that the factory a CEO closed down is a factory that a CEO opened that may have been employing Americans for the last 50 years.
The second part is much simpler. The media, and the hypocrites in congress (democrats), are telling them that CEOs are greedy spiteful people who run companies into the ground and escape with golden parachutes. Then they parade around the names of maybe 5 CEOs who screwed up a company and had a golden parachute when they were dropped. That's enough to convince the ignorant Americans that all CEOs are EXACTLY the same as those 5 puds who ruined their companies.
If any of these hateful people would actually MEET a CEO then they might start to realize that CEOs are human beings. People with families and children who work hard and actualy CARE about the people they employ. They don't all just cross a line on the budget and say "there, 10,000 employees cut, time for golf". Many of them dread having to lay people off, but know that the success of the company, and every worker who remains, depends on making revenues match expenditures. It's a lesson our government clearly hasn't learned which perhaps is why politicians speak so badly of CEOs.
1 person likes this
@my_name_is_coco (4333)
• Philippines
22 Jul 09
These actors and actresses earn more because they are famous.they are really the ones carrying the movie.their fans will watch the movie if they are in it.products get famous personalities as endorsers so they can have people patronize their product.I do wish that when the movie earns a lot of money,the movie crew earns more percentage than the actor/actress.they already have a big talent fee,why bother giving them bonuses from movie sales?
1 person likes this
@bestboy19 (5478)
• United States
21 Jul 09
The reason the actors make the big bucks is because they are the ones who sell the product (the movie). As important as the behind the scenes people are, the actors are what the public come to see. It's the same with CEO's. Others might do the grunt work, but the CEO's are the ones who really sell the company. They all are important and that is why I don't begrudge anyone their salary. Now it does anger me when someone screws things up and then walks away with a hefty bit of change, for example, the guy at Merrill Lynch.
@punkincat (214)
• United States
22 Jul 09
Many people have complained about actor's high wages and their bad mouthing everything about the US for years. However they are not the one's in the new right now.
The pay difference is so great now its hard for most to understand there really is no middle. Many people are just upset that they lost their job though no fault of their own and the people who's fault it is kept there job.
Then there is the lucky ones who got to keep their job but had to take a cut in pay ( loss of hours and bonus) while a lot of the CEO kept there wage and even got bonus.
I don't mind that they make big bucks but they should have taken a cut to save their company. Also bonus are rewards for good work if your company didn't make money why should bonus be given.
As a person who is layoff I don't hate I just want to make a living too.
@machizmo (279)
• United States
21 Jul 09
I agree CEO have been somewhat demonized where other professions such as actors have high salaries and get very little attention about it. Another field I think salaries are overinflated just as much are professional athletes. Some of the greatest fields of work that contribute most to society do not have real high salaries. A good example of this is fireman and police officers and most of all people serving in the armed forces.
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
22 Jul 09
Without that CEO, there would be no workers making 20 or 30k.
GM will eventually discover this... or at least the workers will when no one buys their products.
As for actors... they are basically highly paid parrots that contribute nothing tangible to society.
@foursox212 (282)
• United States
21 Jul 09
And alot of these CEO's build hospitals, supply jobs, give to all kinds of charity and the list goes on but an actor or actress adopts one african kid or TALK about some small area like tibet that will never change and we're suppose to bow to them.
1 person likes this
@happyness3 (394)
• United States
21 Jul 09
I agree with this post. I don't think that those actors should make anywhere near that amount of money. I would be OK with putting a class on jobs, where if they are in a certain class, they get a certain amount of money. Seriously, if you live even a little bit elaborately, do you need to make any more that 500,000 per year? I think that there should be a salary cap on wages. Think of all the money that would go back into the economy if the money went back to the people in the form of dividends? It would be so much more simpler.
1 person likes this
