Why do singers, rappers, and athletes make more money than proffesionals?

[Reedan]

<p>

Prove that they didn’t work hard. And Warren Buffet is donating 99% of his wealth to the US

</p>

<p>So, according to you, you’re saying if i work hard enough, then i would become a billionaire. I wish that was true. You don’t realize what you’re saying. I doubt that you will even make 3 million dollars in your entire lifetime! Is that because you’re stupid and lazy??? Are those people really that much smarter and talented than you?</p>

[notanengineer]

<p>

I did, but I am referring to the current system.

And it stands that there are jobs that are unpopular, that are performed because they are incentivized.

It’s pretty easy to see who’s actually contributing something to society.

I mean which of those would be used to determined what has merit, who deserves to be paid 10 times more than someone else. Right now “merit” is determined by supply and demand. If it were determined by usefulness, then there would be unrest among those people performing slightly less useful but very challenging jobs. Or pick any measure of “merit.” It’s ultimately subjective. It ultimately “enslaves” someone.

I’m not trying to make you feel guilty. I’m just trying to make you realize that we don’t have much of a choice in this society, our environment pretty much sums us up. There’s nothing wrong with going to elite schools. Just realize that all of us are slaves. I know it seems harsh but that’s the truth. We are slaves, and the celebrities and millionaires and billionaires, are gods.

I have plenty of choices. I can follow a number of paths because I have worked hard to this point. I might not end up rich, and that’s fine if I can end up happy. I would not trade my life for that of a celebrity or a millionaire if I could.</p>

[pdateh35]

<p>So according to you, life requires no work and we should all sit around and hope we get somewhere. Go do that and tell me how it works out.</p>

[Reedan]

<p>

I mean which of those would be used to determined what has merit, who deserves to be paid 10 times more than someone else. Right now “merit” is determined by supply and demand. If it were determined by usefulness, then there would be unrest among those people performing slightly less useful but very challenging jobs. Or pick any measure of “merit.” It’s ultimately subjective. It ultimately “enslaves” someone.

Obviously proffesions in science, technology, math, and engineering would have more merit. And this would be for the benefit of humanity. Right now people place much more emphasis on art, music, and sports than science. Imagine if all those people were just as infatuated with STEM as they are with music and sports. Progress in those fields would increase exponentially, and humanity would solve all of those problems that has battered them since antiquity. </p>

<p>

I have plenty of choices. I can follow a number of paths because I have worked hard to this point. I might not end up rich, and that’s fine if I can end up happy. I would not trade my life for that of a celebrity or a millionaire if I could.

</p>

<p>You know you’re lying. If you were paid minimum wage you would quit asap. Money is a strong motivation for you. Would you be fine living in the projects as an engineer?</p>

[pdateh35]

<p>And then what? We would have no entertainment. You sound like one really boring person.</p>

<p>Also happiness>money. If i had a choice between min wage job but was happy as opposed to being rich and unhappy i would choose min wage.</p>

[Reedan]

<p>

So according to you, life requires no work and we should all sit around and hope we get somewhere. Go do that and tell me how it works out.

</p>

<p>No. I believe we should all work ridiculously hard. If teenagers weren’t busy listening to lady gaga, and were actually doing productive things, our society would be much better.</p>

<p>

And then what? We would have no entertainment. You sound like one really boring person.</p>

<p>Also happiness>money. If i had a choice between min wage job but was happy as opposed to being rich and unhappy i would choose min wage.

</p>

<p>We would still have entertainment. It’s just that the entertainers wouldn’t be millionaires.</p>

<p>Also, I think that happiness and money are complementary to a certain extent. Money can do lots for you. It can even save your life in some situations.</p>

<p>If you have no money at all, depending on where you live, you’re either homeless or you die. No happiness in that situation.</p>

[maryamiftikhar]

<p>This is because of their exposure, popularity and personality. Obviously, they live a pretentious lifestyles which gives them a lot followers. They come on Television, wearing amazing make up by Hollywood Make up artists which make them look pretty, their clothing is expensive and Everything’s perfect. Whereas, we are normal people, work at some organisation and we’re that Popular. It’s Obvious. The more popular you are, the more you earn!</p>

[notanengineer]

<p>

Obviously proffesions in science, technology, math, and engineering would have more merit. And this would be for the benefit of humanity. Right now people place much more emphasis on art, music, and sports than science. Imagine if all those people were just as infatuated with STEM as they are with music and sports. Progress in those fields would increase exponentially, and humanity would solve all of those problems that has battered them since antiquity.

Don’t they have a choice… or is their freedom going to be determined by the utility of their talents and passions? I find this sort of statement incredibly ironic in light of the “freedom” rhetoric you’ve been preaching.</p>

<p>

You know you’re lying. If you were paid minimum wage you would quit asap. Money is a strong motivation for you. Would you be fine living in the projects as an engineer?

I don’t really look at it in terms of extremes. To me it isn’t a matter of being a millionaire versus getting a minimum-wage job. That is a comparison contrived in the interest of making an inaccurate emotional appeal.</p>

<p>I don’t intend to be paid minimum wage. Money is only a motivator to the point that I would not pick a job that I dislike so that I can live a lavish, profligate, “rich” lifestyle; I would rather pick a job with a modest salary that I enjoy but can still live on.</p>

[Reedan]

<p>

Don’t they have a choice… or is their freedom going to be determined by the utility of their talents and passions? I find this sort of statement incredibly ironic in light of the “freedom” rhetoric you’ve been preaching.

</p>

<p>In a world where the richest person doesn’t make more than ten times than the poorest person, they would truly be free. I don’t see how this statement is ironic.</p>

<p>

I don’t really look at it in terms of extremes. To me it isn’t a matter of being a millionaire versus getting a minimum-wage job. That is a comparison contrived in the interest of making an inaccurate emotional appeal.</p>

<p>I don’t intend to be paid minimum wage. Money is only a motivator to the point that I would not pick a job that I dislike so that I can live a lavish, profligate, “rich” lifestyle; I would rather pick a job with a modest salary that I enjoy but can still live on.

</p>

<p>I’ll tell you a secret. Contrary to popular belief, money can make you happy. The more money and more leisure time you have, the more happier you are. Of course there are other contributing factors such as your health and the health of your loved ones. But Trust me on this. Money+Leisure time makes you more happy. Pretty obvious. Would you be happy working 18 hours a day as an engineer? No. Would you be happy working for 20,000 a year as an engineer? No. I can’t really decipher what you are trying to tell me. I’m pretty straightfoward, why can’t you do the same?</p>

<p>Let me give you two options. </p>

<ol>
<li><p>Work as a garbage man for 20 hours a week, making $1 million a month.</p></li>
<li><p>Work as an engineer for 50 Hours a week, making 5,000 a month.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Which would you pick?</p>

[notanengineer]

<p>

In a world where the richest person doesn’t make more than ten times than the poorest person, they would truly be free. I don’t see how this statement is ironic.

Read the part I quoted, particularly, “Imagine if all those people were just as infatuated with STEM as they are with music and sports.” The implication here is that by artificially modifying market conditions by paying STEM fields more than entertainers, you can change people’s interest in certain fields. You are the one making this about money by concocting a world where salaries subscribe to your personal opinions of merit.</p>

<p>

I’ll tell you a secret. Contrary to popular belief, money can make you happy. The more money and more leisure time you have, the more happier you are. Of course there are other contributing factors such as your health and the health of your loved ones. But Trust me on this. Money+Leisure time makes you more happy. Pretty obvious. Would you be happy working 18 hours a day as an engineer? No. Would you be happy working for 20,000 a year as an engineer? No. I can’t really decipher what you are trying to tell me. I’m pretty straightfoward, why can’t you do the same?

Weren’t you earlier trying to tell me that I am motivated by money? I thought that materialism was a bad thing. So is it good or bad to want money?</p>

<p>I think this is pretty “straightforward”: As I said, money is a motivator for me to the extent that I want to be able to live modestly. That does not mean minimum wage. That does not mean six-figure salary. I never said money is useless if you like your job, or that I want to perform any task 18 hours a day or for $20,000 a year. You are just making up arbitrary but utterly unrealistic scenarios and I’m not quite sure what your point is anymore.</p>

<p>

Let me give you two options.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Work as a garbage man for 20 hours a week, making $1 million a month.</p></li>
<li><p>Work as an engineer for 50 Hours a week, making 5,000 a month.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Which would you pick?

Another example of arbitrary but utterly unrealistic scenarios. First of all, I choose option #3, to shoot myself in the face. Second of all, this violates your 10-times rule.</p>

[Reedan]

<p>

Read the part I quoted, particularly, “Imagine if all those people were just as infatuated with STEM as they are with music and sports.” The implication here is that by artificially modifying market conditions by paying STEM fields more than entertainers, you can change people’s interest in certain fields. You are the one making this about money by concocting a world where salaries subscribe to your personal opinions of merit.

Ok, and what exactly is wrong with this? If more people want to invest their time into STEM then this would be invaluable to the progress of humanity. Are you satisfied with the current system? </p>

<p>

Weren’t you earlier trying to tell me that I am motivated by money? I thought that materialism was a bad thing. So is it good or bad to want money?</p>

<p>I think this is pretty “straightforward”: As I said, money is a motivator for me to the extent that I want to be able to live modestly. That does not mean minimum wage. That does not mean six-figure salary. I never said money is useless if you like your job, or that I want to perform any task 18 hours a day or for $20,000 a year. You are just making up arbitrary but utterly unrealistic scenarios and I’m not quite sure what your point is anymore.

</p>

<p>Yes, I did and I still believe that you are motivated by money. Materialism isn’t a bad thing. It’s greed that’s bad. It’s when wealth is concentrated into a single area. That’s when it’s bad. I do agree that the scenarios that i use to prove my point are a little far-fetched. But that doesn’t reduce the vadility of my claims.</p>

[FutureVpFinance]

<p>the OP needs to realize socialism doesnt work in the real world. If doctors were paid the same money as the guy who picks up their dry cleaning, no one would have been looking for the cure of poilio or smallpox, because it stifles incentive, which then stifles innovation. The guy (or girl) who made your house, your car, and created this website wanted to make MONEY!!!</p>

<p>but to answer the question: entertainers make a killing because thousands of people will pay to watch them do what they do on a nightly basis. It is what it is.</p>

[sethhg]

<p>Leo Tolstoy has a book on this.</p>

[enfieldacademy]

<p>

That way, people will do things that they actually love. Humanity would be light years ahead. We would have already cured aging, colonize the galaxy, etc. Does anyone share my sentiment or am I just crazy?

</p>

<p>The fact that those people make more money than professionals reflects the current state of humanity. Things are the way they are because humanity is the way it is.</p>

<p>While it is possible to imagine many alternative ways things could be, you have to realize that all these imagined possibilities have an almost zero chance of being ever realized; they are simply not compatible with humanity.</p>

<p>Once you start considering the ways things could be different that <em>are</em> compatible with humanity, I think you will see that things are pretty much optimized the way they are now.</p>

<p>What’s optimal will of course change. Technological progress does affect humanity.</p>

[notanengineer]

<p>

Ok, and what exactly is wrong with this? If more people want to invest their time into STEM then this would be invaluable to the progress of humanity. Are you satisfied with the current system?

My point was only that you are assuming that there are entertainers only because entertainers are paid a lot, so you believe that cutting their salary to below-STEM levels would make them want to become scientists.</p>

<p>Most athletes, musicians, and artists aren’t, in fact, wildly successful in the major leagues or Hollywood. It’s not like STEM is low-paying relative to most careers. It’s not like there isn’t a ton of STEM research in universities. If every major artist or football player tried to become a research scientist… I doubt we would be much more productive in solving the world’s problems.</p>

<p>

Yes, I did and I still believe that you are motivated by money. Materialism isn’t a bad thing. It’s greed that’s bad. It’s when wealth is concentrated into a single area. That’s when it’s bad.

Materialism in most contexts is a synonym for greed. In any case, I’ve qualified multiple times the extent by which I’m motivated by money, so use that as you will.</p>

<p>

I do agree that the scenarios that i use to prove my point are a little far-fetched. But that doesn’t reduce the vadility of my claims.

It does reduce the validity of your claims because I am never going to be choosing between garbage man and engineer, nor the uncharacteristic salaries you’ve posited.</p>

<p>Celebrities make a lot because of popularity. If a celebrity was popular in Reedan’s world, then what? Every CD after they made 10*minimum wage would be given away for free? There are tons of poor underground artists. Are they representative of our cultural worship for the arts over STEM?</p>

[Orangeblood1496]

<p>calm down bro, its just america, btw youre pretty much contributing to it everytime you watch a football game or buy their music so, its pretty much a “we help you, you help us” situation, i definitely think people like fire fighters, cops, and miners should make waaaaaay more than they do currently, thats just wrong.</p>

[appmaster]

<p>According to your logic if smarter people can look past greed then the richest people shouldn’t be smart. This is clearly untrue. Although I agree that most rich people did not work to recieve their status, some did.</p>

<p>Also communism gives less incentive to become productive. If equality is done, there will be less incentive to become ‘smart’ so to say, because ‘dumb’ people will recieve the same pay as ‘smart’ people. This contradicts your statement that the smarter the society, the more quickly it will proceed to communism.</p>

[Reedan]

<p>

My point was only that you are assuming that there are entertainers only because entertainers are paid a lot, so you believe that cutting their salary to below-STEM levels would make them want to become scientists.</p>

<p>Most athletes, musicians, and artists aren’t, in fact, wildly successful in the major leagues or Hollywood. It’s not like STEM is low-paying relative to most careers. It’s not like there isn’t a ton of STEM research in universities. If every major artist or football player tried to become a research scientist… I doubt we would be much more productive in solving the world’s problems.

</p>

<p>I do agree that that alone would not increasive productivity. However, we would have more money to go into research. </p>

<p>

The fact that those people make more money than professionals reflects the current state of humanity. Things are the way they are because humanity is the way it is.

</p>

<p>Correct.</p>

<p>

According to your logic if smarter people can look past greed then the richest people shouldn’t be smart. This is clearly untrue. Although I agree that most rich people did not work to recieve their status, some did.</p>

<p>Also communism gives less incentive to become productive. If equality is done, there will be less incentive to become ‘smart’ so to say, because ‘dumb’ people will recieve the same pay as ‘smart’ people. This contradicts your statement that the smarter the society, the more quickly it will proceed to communism.

</p>

<p>If you read my previous post then you would realize that i was exaggerating.</p>

[unclebadness]

<p>I’m wondering if you have ever heard of communism?</p>

[Reedan]

<p>You guys should watch the zeitgeist. It’s all on YouTube.</p>