Why is almost none of the anti-billionaire rhetoric directed towards artists/celebrities?
I think we're all aware of the amount of talk at the moment about whether the super rich should be so rich etc etc... Without getting into a direct answer for this, one thing that I've noticed is that whenever someone singles out a high-profile example of how they think the system is broken (Gates, Musk, Blankfein, Buffett, Soros, Bezos and so on) they're invariably entrepreneurs or financial services related.
Blankfein alluded to something interesting in his CNBC interview yesterday: Why doesn't Taylor Swift have to answer all of the questions he frequently gets asked about why he has so much money? I'd say her $300m and Lloyd's $1.1bn are effectively the same compared to your average person's resources. Pop stars largely derive their wealth from putting out hit albums, often written by teams of other people, performing these songs on tours and signing brand endorsements. Does Blankfein deserve more scrutiny over his wealth because he ran an investment bank? If the market can decide how good a Taylor Swift album is, can it not also determine how much value a CEO adds?
I don't think I've seen any of the likes of Beyonce, Jay Z, Diddy, Bieber etc get called out in the same way - certainly not with the same fervour in any case, while according to Lloyd the questions about his pay have been repeating since long before the financial crisis. Is it the case that this is just an unchangeable reflection of what abilities the wider public sees as most worth rewarding, since people directly vote to make famous artists richer through buying their material but don't really notice any direct benefit of what executives do?
agreed. Think its funny that Warren is supporting Swift lol
Imagine if a bank CEO assaulted a woman and was only suspended 8 pay checks....
Don't forget about athletes too!
Kareem?
Lol ya that's who I was thinking of
Dope Username.
The amount of money Gates and Bezos has dwarfs Taylor Swift, but beyond that, it is obviously because it doesn't play to Warren and Sanders' base.
Those darn libruls, amirite?
I wasn't so much trying to be all "checkmate libtards" just pointing out that the most high profile group seems to be managing to avoid virtually all of the scrutiny which seems unusual. Not a judgement of Warren's policies or anyone else. But agree that its likely just that it wouldn't do her many favors with the public to go after them. (also not sure who gave MS but wasn't me)
No worries on the MS. I have have more bananas than a person would ever need - the 1% if you will.
To your point specifically, I just don't think that's that surprising that far left politicians would scapegoat billionaire business people (who are mostly centrist to right leaning) while giving celebrities (who are mostly apolitical or left leaning to far left) a free pass. They simply know their audience.
Ironically, saying "300 million and 1.1 billion are effectively the same" would seem to be a strong point in favor of a more progressive tax system.
I'm actually not opposed to that - I can definitely see the the argument for a more progressive tax system to a reasonable extent but I was more talking about the criticism of particular ways of wealth accumulation in the first place.
Perception. Celebrities equals entertainment and billionaire hedge fun guy is the blame for their lot in life.
There are barely any billionaire celebrities...
This is true. Even those really high up there (Hov and Diddy), most of their money derives from investments made/ equity in alcohol companies rather than their actual music and tours. OP still has a point, the money celebrities make is an undoubtedly huge sum by any stretch of the imagination.
It really boils down to: You're not going to hate the person who people idolize, but the scary bad businessman is an easy target. Politics is like sports- just score more points than the other team.
Politicians know that they can't get you to stop hating your favorite artists. It's easy for people to hate faceless finance/business guys, many of whom don't create anything tangible, and can play into the stereotype of being an evil money grubbing person or not caring about their low level employees who make minimum wage.
Celebrities and athletes are popular (i.e. ppl like them); HF managers and bankers are not
It's not that difficult to understand
I think the rationale is:
1) Very few (if any) celebrities are billionaires. You quoted Taylor Swift at $300mm and I'm guessing she's near the top 0.1% of celebrity earners since shes constantly selling out huge venues around the world and releasing albums has a zillion instagram followers. 2) Not saying this is always fair or accurate, but the finance/business billionaires are far more likely to be viewed as getting rich from from financal crisis / bailouts, starting off with a huge inheritance and privelige, or just generally getting rich at the expense of the public (big fees to pension funds on underperforming investments, PE firms bankrupting companies and laying off workers, etc). 3) Unlike #2, people are probably less upset at somebody like Taylor Swift having $300mm if they've happily agreed to pay for her albums or concert tickets or other things she's promoted on social media or whatever.
it's because they're libs
While I don't necessarily agree with the logic underlying what I'm about to say, I think the general public sees someone making money as an Musician/Actor/Athlete as someone they can withhold payment from, if you don't like the music/athlete/product you can just not buy their things.
Conversely both popular and nameless entrepreneurial/finance people they tend to just lump them all together as tools of a system they a) don't fully understand; b) cant opt out of; and c) impacts their daily lives.
In my opinion where the public gets it wrong is that the latter group of people described get paid and make money more relative to the impact they have on society. Not that any of us are out there trying to save the world writing pitch books, or that there isn't necessarily some bloat somewhere along the corporate structure, or even that we necessarily create value, but the societal impacts are much farther reaching. What I struggle to wrap my head around is how anyone who makes their money as an entertainer - something that is by its definition excess and generally intangible - in a society that also thinks bankers/lawyers/politicians are generally evil.
All that to say, when Schoolboy-Q comes to town ill be the first to drop whatever it takes to get front row, that dude can absolutely stay rich and keep putting out records on my dime.
Most of what I am thinking is covered in the above comments, but to add....the average person doesn't understand what those who work in the financial sector do. As Elizabeth Warren and others of her kind say: "people hate what they don't know/understand"
The main reasons celebrities and artists do not get as much attention as people in finance are: they are usually not billionaires, they are not running for President and they probably donate less money to politicians on a relative basis compared to the finance people.
Buffet, Bezos, Gates, Blankfein, Dimon, Musk… they were/are the heads of publicly traded companies with shareholders. Unless you are someone who regularly reads the business section, you probably more often than not hear about these guys only when something criminally bad or scandalous happens in their company.
Entertainers, athletes, singers/rappers, whilst they might have their “company”/entourage of writers, musicians, attorneys, PR staff and more [having private investors], are just not looked at the same - In a sense, they are still private citizens, who just happen to do something for a living that’s visual/broadcasted/streamed, whether they play a sport, sell albums or act. When there is "scandal" involving an entertainer, it isn't always necessarily criminal, it can be about "shocking" behavior or "inappropriate" clothing/appearances, like the Miley Cyrus/Robin Thicke live version of "Blurred Lines" on a award show a few years back.
It annoys me how musicians whine and moan about first torrenting and now Spotify. Like, shut the fuck up. You're not entitled to make a living doing art and it's not my job to help you figure out how to monetize. I'm gonna keep torrenting. I'm gonna keep ignoring cease & desist letters. And I'm gonna keep using my wife's brother's Spotify account. Suck my dick, Lenny Kravitz.
Because they actually create something of value
Ducimus autem deserunt dolores vero exercitationem et dolorum excepturi. Impedit sint provident ut veniam quas. Veritatis enim eius quam est corrupti. Ut ut saepe id. Sequi eos in sed nemo rem reiciendis amet. Mollitia quisquam quidem cum quaerat fuga.
Consequatur doloremque et et laboriosam voluptatibus. Molestiae illo dolorum iste corporis. Quos ipsa quos culpa quia velit aut.
Natus qui qui accusamus dolorum. Sed nulla in ratione rerum aperiam qui. Quidem odio sed voluptate. Quis aut voluptatem qui. Quod dicta nulla porro alias. Commodi quidem dolor rerum eaque. Architecto vitae porro saepe.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Odit sunt quod debitis et. Quia laborum dolorem alias ut porro. Doloremque ut corrupti quisquam omnis doloribus voluptatibus. Officia maiores dolor unde quisquam corrupti repudiandae qui. Non cupiditate quia quia minima sit fuga. Saepe nam dolorum vitae aperiam iusto quasi. Ratione praesentium velit nihil odio recusandae.
Corporis corporis et asperiores sint. In ipsam officia sunt qui est commodi cumque quo. Ex quo quas totam sit voluptas rerum est. Ut dolores aut ex nobis.