posted
To insinuate a capitalist society is an interchangeable term for a free society is the sort of idiocy that caused the United States to be responsible for nearly as many human rights violations as the people they were "fighting" in the Cold War. But I digress, for Omega is largely correct here in pointing out that Grammer getting paid what he's being paid is just capitalism at work. And, when compared to some of the other injustices that capitalism inevitably creates, big raises for reasonably enjoyable entertainers are hardly worth crying over. But hey, there aren't a hell of other workable options for stopping the rich from getting richer without imposing the amount of government economic control that would mess the economy up for everybody. And that's why, I, liberal weenie that I am, have to say that capitalism is currently the best way of spreading at least some economic benefits across the world that we know of. While other economic systems might be a bit more fair, better to have an imperfect system that works than a idealistic system that doesn't, or more accurately works only if there's total maturity on the part of society (ie Roddenberrian utopianism, which is pretty well impossible to try to create in 2001 AD) or a repressive government (ie. Messrs. Mao and Stalin and Pot) which is something that I'd rather not have.
So let Mr. Grammer have his raise. He'll toss a good chunk of it into the hands of the IRS and hopefully help pay for inner-city schools rather than billion-dollar missile shields or tax breaks for oil corporations. And yeah, with what's left over he'll still be far more fantabulously rich than any of us here. But that's the way the world works, so shut up and deal .
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
quote: Some Hollywood star does achieve a lot more, like volunteer to help out the one in need in some other 3rd world countries.
Actually, they do very little. Most of us, given the same resources, could do more, since we're used to doing more with less.
Remember the old saying, "Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime?"
Hollywood stars and handouts 'give a man a fish.' Teachers 'teach a man to fish.'
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
posted
I see this as more of a reflection of our society's distorted values than anything else. While I am amazed at the discrepency between the salary of say a teacher vs. the salary of a prominent actor, I would hardly blame the actor for the difference. He is merely taking advantage of the system, and in his place I would probably do the same thing. If the money is going to be made anyway, I'd rather see it going to him than to some faceless studio exec whose contribution to the show's success would be less tangible. A few years back I wrote an essay called My Dad vs. Shaq wherein I compared their respective qualifications vs. compensation. It basically came down to my father (a skilled and experienced forensic chemist) would have to work at his county job for, like, six years to earn what Shaq (a remarkably talented and extraordinarily tall basketball player) makes in a single game. It's kind of out of proportion, really. I mean especially considering that Shaq's only like a foot taller.
[ June 28, 2001: Message edited by: Balaam Xumucane ]
-------------------- "Nah. The 9th chevron is for changing the ringtone from "grindy-grindy chonk-chonk" to the theme tune to dallas." -Reverend42
posted
"I'd rather see it going to him than to some faceless studio exec whose contribution to the show's success would be less tangible."
What about the writers?
I know Grammer's an exec producer on Frasier, but I wonder how much the Friends exec producers get compared to the actors.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
That would be fine too. I'm just saying that I'd rather see the money go to someone who is directly involved in the actual production of the show: someone whose creative talents have gone into making the show a success. I really like the idea of everyone earning a scale rate for their given task (grips to producers), and then some percentage of the profits on top of that. Thus rewarding success. (i.e. not giving Leo $25 million for flops like The Beach before production even started.)
-------------------- "Nah. The 9th chevron is for changing the ringtone from "grindy-grindy chonk-chonk" to the theme tune to dallas." -Reverend42
posted
The way I see it, is that these actors and actresses make us happy when we see them preform. Since I belive one's happyness is more important then anyone's, sure, give them the bigger paycheck.
Although -- i do belive that teachers deserve a lot more then what they make now. I've been lucky enough to have some of the best teachers, one even voted the best High School science teacher in the states, and they make around $30k-$40k a year. Its not horrible, but its not good either.
.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
