Nick, gongratulations on your very well deserved Editor's pick. This issue has been in my thinkings from time to time, never managing to understand whether these highly salaried actors are made out of gold or what. This coming from one who " lives paycheck to paycheck, often having a tough time making ends meet"'. But as you say it is a free market and if the owners of the studio are so stupid so as to pay so many millions, in one actor/ actress, well it is their loss not mine. I liked your sharing here, I think that these salaries, come with analogies not fully known to all of us, so objectivity, is hard in this issue. Gongratulations again!!!

Besides the fact that there's only so much money that anyone can spend, my problem with the huge salaries is that I think it all trickles down to those of us making a living wage. Huge payouts to sport figures and Hollywood stars lead to higher gate and ticket prices. Multi-million dollar doctor salaries lead to higher medical costs. Huge salaries and buy-outs to college coaches lead to higher tuition. And all of it leads to less money to spread among the supporting players in all of these jobs, the camera men, ticket takers, professors, admission officers, etc.

I'm not envious of any celebs. Some are overpaid. Take the sports entertainment world as an example. General admission ticket prices are out of reach for most families. We're lucky some are televised, but even watching television costs more than it should.

that s unpair sometimes .............

Thanks for the great comments (and for the honor of being an Editor's Pick). Glad my words were able to spark some discussion. Excellent points by all of you. And I agree, the cost of those high salaries in sports and movies trickles down to us common folk in the expensive ticket prices.

I think if the owners want to pay them and the fans are willing to pony up the money to see them then that is free enterprise. Now when it comes to Wall Street there are two major problems. One it seems the top dogs get paid no matter if the investment succeeds or fails. The investor (usually a little guy) gets soaked, but the CEO still gets their bonus. Second when some of these firms actually manipulate the market for their own gain and reap billions taken right out of the pocket of the small investor, then it is time to do a little mob control justice.

They probably do earn too much, but when it comes to curtailing egregious salaries, Hollywood actors and other creative people are at the bottom of my list to crop. After all, they do create value for money and provide work for thousands, viz. all those people you see listed in the credits at the end of a movie, plus all the cinema staff in every town, etc. Plus, unlike, say, a lot of investment bankers, they really do put in a monumental day's work, and also have to diet and stay fit for years. As for me, earning a tiny fraction of what they get, I can at least pig out in front of the screen and enjoy life - which is worth a cool couple of million in itself, by golly!

Rated.

M Todd makes a couple of points, but he is wrong.

A CEO has put in his time and honed his craft just like an actor or sports player. Where James came out of high school and went to Cleveland making millions the CEO didn't walk out of college and do the same thing. He put his time in and worked his way up.

As for the CEO who misses somethings and gets paid, what do you call someone who fails 2 out of 3 times? If he is a baseball player you call him a superstar.

It reminds me of a story. A guy calls a plumber because his sink is stopped up. The plumber comes in looks at the pipe and goes out to his truck and gets a hammer, walks in and taps the pipe, and the water drains out. The plumber says that sill be $210. The homeowner gets upset and says $210 to hit a pipe with a hammer? The plumber responds, no I got $10 for hitting the pipe. I got $200 for knowing where to hit it.

As for his second problem, If there is criminal activity then you charge and convict them. The problem is on OS people are always claiming that people like Chase ripped people off. They just don't ever say who got ripped off and why nobody got arrested. Could it be because there was no crime?

You can't have it both ways. Either some people earn to much money or they are earning what someone is willing to pay for their knowledge and talent. Which is it?

One thing that annoys me is the "pay or play" deals in which sometimes a celebrity gets paid even if the project never gets made. The lawyers who come up with those sweet deal contracts are the ones who really earn their paycheck. :)

It's an imperfect world, although I wish that they wouldn't steal ideas sometimes. That's vexing, if Hollywood is hardly the only place to not respect intellectual property rights, and.... ideas aren't widgets either. Congratulations on the EP!

That Chase CEO is a criminal. He stole billions and sadly he'll probably get away with it....funny little thing about Wall Street thugs is they know how to invoke the 5th. Wish Eric Holder could do the same, but as all are aware, Congress cites contempt when they're in cahoots with certain senate committees and its supportive lobbyists who are obviously witch-hunting.

Ask that monster Madoff for advice. Legal or otherwise, he gets an A+ in con-artistry. ;)

Congrats on the EP.

Most actors get too much credit either way it turns out. I might enjoy an actor in a role-Christian Bale-Batman-Matt Damon-Bourne-but, I do not go to his next movie base on just the fact they are in it. I enjoy most things Don Cheadle is in. A great actor with pretty good taste in scripts so I consdier his projects based on a track record.
Young girls might see Leo or Twilight movies but, they would live on if an actor chose not to re-up.
I never got the Cameron Diaz thing, she is pretty good but, not a marquee talent.

Two things about sports & entertainment: they're not hidden and they're entirely optional. To me that makes them as fair and democratic as anything going. Unlike medical costs and business.

There are a few actors whose names draw me. Cameron Diaz isn't one of them. I've never known anyone who admitted to going to see something because she was in it. To me she's a reason to avoid a movie. Maybe she knows where some skeletons are buried. Many times shows are made with ensembles in mind. Seriously, would Rob Schneider ever work if it wasn't for his friends?

I've earned most my living as a critic and entertainment reporter and I realize it's a tough issue.

For instance, Tom Hanks and director Bob Zemeckis made a fortune on Forrest Gump. I've heard Hanks earned $50 mil and Zemeckis not that much less. Outrageous? Not really. The movie was about to shut down due to cost overruns. Hanks and Zemeckis bet on it's success by gambling their "star" salaries if the movie went forward. A flop, and they'd have gotten union mnimums. By taking First Dollar Gross, when it took off, they were among the first in line to collect--their fortune.

But the upfront superstar salaries--which more or less started with Jim Carry getting $20 mil for "The Cable Guy." Of course that meant every other star wanted as much of more. One of the primkary efects was a trickle down effect where there was littel money left to pay supporting actors--which hurt the quality of he movie, which hurt box office, which hurt the Superstar's bankability.

You meniton sports and the one truism of athlete negotiations is when they say "It isn't about the money, it's always about the money.

Sorry about the typos. I violated my own rule of never post after cocktail hour. Now I'll go write "it's spelled Carey" 100 times on the blackboard.

"My defense of high salaries in sports and show business has always been simple. I believe that anyone should be allowed to make as much money as the market allows, and in turn hopefully they will use those hard-earned riches to employ others, help the less fortunate, and give back to society. In the example of baseball, if the owners of the New York Yankees are making billions, than it's only fair that the players on the field who are the primary attraction should receive a fair fraction of that revenue pie, equal to the talent they have, which spurs the ticket sales, the TV and radio ratings, the merchandise, and so on."

This is no different from the Corporations who do the same thing. It is transparently disingenuous to "Occupy Wallstreet "against men and women who made it in the working world and give a pass to those in entertainment, which is why nobody is taking this seriously.
You can't say: Mitt Romney: Bad Lady Gaga: good. 1%? is 1%

Everybody see's through the double standard. You can't pick and choose your one %'s; either hard workers earn their money and we support them or not. Sarah Jessica Parker= good; conservative business owner millionaire:=bad? yeah. right.

http://open.salon.com/blog/deborah_young/2012/06/02/occupy_this_one_ers

Deborah, that's why the Occupy movement is perceived (misperceived?) by some as not having a clear agenda. Are we saying that everyone in the 1% is at fault and not doing enough to help the 99%? The point of my blog post, as a struggling actor/writer myself, is that some entertainers earn their enormous payroll and some don't. In an entrepreneurial society, if someone can make a buck from selling him-or-herself when there is no substance there (sort of like the Emperor Has No Clothes fable) then buyer beware, but is that something that rises to the level of big corporations intentionally swindling the less fortunate to line their own already over-stuffed pockets? It's worth debating though. I'm not sure if I've heard of a viable solution though that would punish or reign in the greedy villains without hindering legitimate entrepreneurs and keep hardworking citizens from pursuing the American dream.

Never realy resented big corporate salaries until recently when stocks plummeted and CEO's still raked in the bonuses. When employees are let go and 401ks are destroyed and higher ups are getting bonuses things are insane.
If a CEO makes a huge difference in a company and they have a great year then, he should make his % but, the inverse has to be there or it is arguably criminal.
Bonuses on TARP money should have made all Americans insane, alas it did not.

Jay, I agree that there needs to be merit pay and incentives for success. I think "bonuses" and even "tips" should not be a given but should reflect success.

I agree with you for the most part, but there is something disturbing about what the high salaries for stars and high profits for owners has done to both movies and sports. No longer can the average Joe bring his entire family to see a game. When I was a kid, my dad could occasionally bring the family to see a Dallas Cowboys game. Now, when tickets exceed$100, there is no way he, or I, could do that. I'd be curious to know what percentage of attendees got their tickets from their place of work, or from vendors with whom they do business. I'd be curious to know what percentage of attendees are part of the 1%, and how many of them are of the other 99%, or at least the lowest 80%. There just seems to be something wrong when you have to be a vendor or a wealthy fan to see a team in person.

Movies aren't as bad, of course, but it's still virtually impossible to take the family to see a first run film for under $50. That's a lot of money for 2 hours of entertainment. What's more, you now have to sit through 15 minutes or more of ads before the movie even starts. You'd think those ads would allow the ticket price to go down, wouldn't you? And don't get me started on $10 popcorn.

Belinda T

"That Chase CEO is a criminal. He stole billions and sadly he'll probably get away with it".

What crime did he commit? You just don't like what he did and you are shooting off at the mouth. Now if you have evidence of a crime let's have it.

Nerd

"Unlike medical costs and business"

There is nothing hidden in my medical costs. I know what my insurance will and won't pay. If I get something my insurance is not going to pay for I ask about the price. I will ask my doctor about a generic drug or maybe a different test to find the same answer. Same thing with business. I'll ask the price of something and then I'm free to take it or leave it. Nobody has ever suggested that I give them my credit card and they will run it for what they feel like.

Nick

"big corporations intentionally swindling the less fortunate to line their own already over-stuffed pockets? "

It's against the law to swindle somebody. So who is committing what crime? Have you turned that info over to the police? Let me guess, you don't like it so it must be a crime and you are going to call it as such.

" I think "bonuses" and even "tips" should not be a given but should reflect success."

Here I agree with you. However, there are some people who make very little in the way of annual salary and have contracts to spell out what they are going to get at years end if certain goals are met. Profit may not be one of them. So when a bank loses $2 Billion in one quarter that doesn't mean that the guy did anything wrong, other than make a bad call, but he may still earn his "bonus", which is really his paycheck, because of all the calls he made right.

Would you not pay a baseball player who fails to get a hit 2 out of every 3 times he is at bat?

One lobe of my brain is envious of celebrities and their millions but the rest is appalled at their excess and is thankful I will most likely never have the opportunity to become a Cristal swilling, third world child adopting, twitter addicted tool. At the same time I have to believe that individuals blessed with height and a knack for throwing rubber balls through small openings as well as attractive people who are able to repeat words written for them by less attractive people are still more deserving of wealth than the children of CEOs and dot.com survivors who stand to inherit the earth.

Catnlion, I am talking about when Wall street gets so powerful that it can manipulate the market so that a handful of CEOs make billions at the expense of the small investors that is wrong.

There are a lot of great CEOs that run responsible companies, they do the right thing for their stockholders, employees, and communities. Look at AIG they went belly up doing highly speculative wheeling and dealing, took billions from tax payers, but still paid bonuses. Really no one earned a bonus. Bonuses are for increased profits not phantom profits on paper that are really billions of dollars in losses.

The top 9 banks received the majority of bailout money, yet collectively their top executives took over 2 billion in salaries, stock and bonuses the next year. For what? We give them 900 billion at 0 interest, they put the money in T-bills and the government pays them 4 billion in interest on the T-bills they purchased with 0 interest tax payer money. Really bonuses. 10 of thousands loose their homes and Fanny and Freddy Mac executives walk away with millions in bonuses. That is what I am talking about not some CEO that runs a profitable and responsible company.

M Todd:

You, and most people, call them bonuses. They were employment contracts. They had to get paid. There agreements were such that there was no way out unless you can find a reason to go to court and break they contract. The fact that Congress passed the laws and forced mortgage companies to make bad sub-prime loans and everything fell apart is not the fault of the guy sitting behind a desk. If you don't like the was the real estate loans were done talk to Barney Franks and his live in lover who ran Fanny Mae.

And you don't have to be on Wall Street to have a contract that calls for a payment that varies at the end of the year. I've had them. Yes I got paid more for more profits but there were other things in there that could make it go up even if I lost money. There was also a minimum in there that I would get paid regardless of what happened.

Catnlion, what is going on Wall Street and Washington is not a Republican or a Democrat thing, it is a corruption thing. Bull Shit with the contracts, it was total manipulation of the system. A system they created and used to continue doing the same thing. There was no banking reform after the meltdown. Why because wall street continues to pay the same law makers both republican and democrats to keep everything in place.

The job of government is to regulate and control the banking system. It is also their job to keep the playing field level as best as possible. That way you me or anyone else has the same chance to succeed or fail. When the government stops doing their job the few with mass amounts of power change the rules. We still have to live by them, they don't. As a result vast amounts of wealth tilt towards a smaller and smaller group of people. It's all perfectly legal because they paid for the laws.

I'll second your point in the last paragraph about undervalued screenwriters . These are the unsung artists of film. No story, no stars. Shakespeare, if he were alive today, would be buried in the credits.

M Todd

"Why because wall street continues to pay the same law makers both republican and democrats to keep everything in place."

It's not just Wall Street. Look at all the business give aways in Obamacare. They are all over the place. There are 10's of thousands of companies that were given exemptions.

I think you finally hit a point we can agree on.

Interesting that you choose to do this post based on what actresses earn. It's all obscene but as Jack Nicholson, one of the richest of all Hollywood actors, said: "As long as they're paying me fuck you money, I'll take it." I'm pretty sure he makes more than most actresses.

Emma, I was responding to the Forbes article about highest paid actresses. I was looking for a comparable listing of male actors but couldn't find a recent one. You are right, all of these women are significantly UNDERPAYED compared to some of their male counterparts. It's still a lot of money though.

Catnlion, I am all for free enterprise and a free market. The problem is the government has not done its job, because it works for those who get them elected not the people they represent. The playing field continues to become less and less level.

I do not care if they are democrat or republican, if they are in office for more than 2 terms I vote against them. At least the banking and healthcare industry will have to start from scratch each time they purchase a politician to run through their "laws" that somehow benefit them.

Regarding sports-corporations being able to write off boxes and seats to events drives the prices up and make good seats unavailable even if someone wanted to shell out the cash. Many of the empty seats at games are paid for and not attended due to corporations getting a tax break. End that loophole and the adjustmet will be immediate.

Regarding sports-corporations being able to write off boxes and seats to events drives the prices up and make good seats unavailable even if someone wanted to shell out the cash. Many of the empty seats at games are paid for and not attended due to corporations getting a tax break. End that loophole and the adjustment will be immediate.

Jay, show business and professional sports has nothing to do with the fans or their needs. Sports teams are the plaything of the rich. TV rights, licensing rights and everything else generate the majority of cash regardless if the fans show up or not. It is a true monopoly that allows the owners to dictate wages, fees, and profits for the whole group at the fans expense.

But, every circus gets government preference, because if we were not watching and being entertained we may start watching them.

M Todd, I agree-I used to have R Sox season tickets and I gave them up when my first was born. I have been back 10 times in 10 years. I watch them on TV and will bring my boys once a year if pressured. I refuse to wear the gear as it just feeds the beast.
At this point, I would rather attend a good Little League game than deal with it.

Congrats on yr Editor's Pick!

Great piece. I rate you $$$$$

Andrea