Hollywood Hypocrisy at its Finest

That's a good point. My liberal friends ALSO defend the high salaries of actors, and then turn-round and say that CEOs make too much money. If they were consistent, they would say it's wrong for BOTH ceos and actors to make millions a year. (Or else recognize that top jobs deserve top pay, regardless of the field.)

Agree, top CEOs, actors, athletes are in the single digit % and their salaries reflect their elite positions. But then there are the not so elite of those groups that seem to be doing alright as well. ;)

A large percentage of the highly-paid actors' salaries goes into show business unions that support actors and everyone else associated with the movie business. That's magnanimity, not hypocrisy. Over-paid CEOs don't support anyone but their greedy selves.

There are some differences. Ben Affleck has a product to sell: his abilities as an actor and the draw due to his name. For one project at a time he negotiates a selling price and sells that product. If his box office goes down or he has a bomb, what he can get can drop significantly. He is also one of a very small number of individuals who can command that type of salary in the acting profession.

On the other hand, CEOs set their own salary. They may negotiate their initial pay package, but from then on they can pay themselves whatever they want, regardless of their performance. Now, you may say that they have to get approval of a board of directors, but keep in mind that that board is composed of peers, usually people in the same position in other companies. They all think they are worth that much. They form a club of high earners supporting each other. Ben Affleck is negotiating with someone who is going to give him as little money as they can get him to agree to and he has to be worth $15 million to a producer for them to justify paying that. CEOs negotiate with either nobody at all or a board who often are just a rubber stamp.

I agree that many, maybe most, CEOs have gotten there through talent and hard work (but often not that much sacrifice) and they deserve high salaries. A few million a year is a very high salary. But, more than $100 million a year? Quite a few make that and often they are with companies not even doing that well.

A few people did point out that these actors probably came from normal background with working families so they know the value of it. Sure they are big time actors now making millions because they got their lucky break and sort of mocking us by pretending to be struggling corporate workers. Yes, A-list actors and pro athletes are paid too much but this can't be another case of comparing them to the normal everyday hard working folks. We already know the world is imbalance.

---

So what you're saying is that if Hollywood makes a movie about the working class, it should hire poor, unknown actors. If Hollywood makes a movie about rich elites, then it's fine to use A-list stars. Otherwise, they're hypocrites.

Have I got that right?

The difference between CEOs and actors is that the CEOs run the company that determines the pay of all the people who work in it. A Hollywood star does not own a company of thousands of workers who rely on him/her and who set their salaries low, or fire them and hire cheaper actors so they can live in luxury. That's what the avg CEO does. The avg CEO of the top US companies makes 900x the average worker of the same company. The CEOs tell us it's "education and skills" that determine salary, when in fact they are offshoring jobs to China and India for cheaper labor, not skills. Also, I daresay many stars in Hollywood have great talent and provide a real entertainment service, that millions of Americans see and affects their culture. The value of corporate managers however, is questionable, since many of them hold their jobs as favors and sinecures, and often ruin companies or just layoff thousands and offshore to "make profit" for shareholders. I question the value of corporate managers more than A-list actors, since there are also so many more of them, and many of them have actually ruined our economy and done a lot of damage, while selling the idea that average Americans are lazy and unskilled, and that we must now compete with China in order to have worth. Meanwhile they rake in obscene salaries for basically doing very little except finding new ways to make more profit, or expand companies that are already doing fine without their "help".

So where's the real hypocrisy? Not in Hollywood.

Following your (flawed) logic, all actors are hypocrites.
If we were forbidden to preach or to hear preaching until we practiced, we would all be deaf and dumb.

Although I do not personally know what CEO's are like, I suspect that many or all of them feel they have created a means for their employees to survive ... I guess this would apply to those who started their businesses. However ... theoretically ... their talent and grit gets the job done of keeping a company afloat so it can continue to employee its talent. Also, during downturns, employees can be laid off but will be invited back often when things improve.

As far as Ben and athletes go, they are probably embodiments of one of the first rules of busienss: charge what the market will bear. Plus, don't forget, these guys often probably have to invest in full-time security people and a huge expense, mainly if female, for clothes, and just exhibiting the lifestyle expected of them. Can you imagine what Miley Cyrus's bodyguard expenses must be now?