The LA Times reports that the star-hosts of the reality show, "American Idol" [NBC] are in contractual negotiations for higher salaries. Paula Abdul is asking for $12 million. Ryan Seacrest for $30 million. Simon Cowell for $45 million.
Our economic system provides the logic for these TV personalities to demand higher salaries - for, to call them film or movie stars seems to lower an ambiguous bar too low. Ambiguous: Katharine Hepburn was asked which film she'd want preserved for posterity if the others were to be burned. "Burn them all," she said, as she often poo-pooed the notion of the art form.
Our economic system provides for production companies who stage the show, parent companies who manage the production companies, and megalomaniacal conglomerates with local PO Boxes but based in Delaware or some faraway island, who direct the parent companies. Anyone remember who BEATRICE is?
So, arguably, if the production companies are turning a profit, and the parent companies showing growth, and the megalomaniacs can afford to hide less of its increased cash flow, why shouldn't the man and woman worker-bee on the ground enjoy, proportionally, in this largess?
Unfortunately, this is the argument of many of our modern, de-fanged trades-unions. De-fanged at the beginning of the Cold War to purge itself of communists, their friends, and any foreign involvement in workers Over There. So much for "International Brotherhood." Their focus has been reduced to wages rather than building a truly democratic society. So we get these measures, which need to be discussed, of "living wage" ordinances, as if wages ends the social discussion, as if a living wage comes close to empowering a single parent to pay for all the socialism they now enjoy - like public libraries, public schools, public hospitals, police, fire departments, etc. A two-parent living wage household could still not afford these amenities.
The small percent who make millions of dollars - that other tier of our two-tiered, rich-and-poor country - may come close. But why only them? What these negotiations show me are two interesting, disturbing phenomena:
1. Depth of Hollywood elite's progressive politics a toddler wading pool. Compared with former Gov. Sarah Palin (who always told the truth during her VP campaign!), the Hollywood elite must seem like communists. But within the world of the left, the thing that puts them furthest to the Right is not only their wages but their investment in that wage scheme. In this respect, though it must sound rather harsh, they are no better than the French bourgeoisie who sought liberty and equality at the French Revolution only if it didn't block their trade routes or harm the profits on the theft and sale of Africans as slaves.
Revolution has its limits. I suppose when it comes to redistributing the wealth rationally we will have to take it out of their cold, dead hands.
I could imagine this Hollywood liberal elite putting these multi-million dollar salaries to better use, like funding a viable third party, backing viable third-party candidates, and beating the system at its own game. But they are too invested in the scheme, and their booster fundraiser status for the Democratic Party proves this.
With a few fangs restored in the trades-unions, this combination of International brothers and sisters, Hollywood cash, and third-party platforms would be unbeatable. Look at health care. Seventy-percent favor nationalized health care, but we lack the clout, the lobby dollars, and control of the corporate airwaves to make a dent in the argument put forth by the Establishment, of which Mr. Obama proves to be an honorary member.
Instead, this top percent of the income bracket understandably backs Democrats, the other white meat, the other capitalist political party.
2. There's Gold in the Hills and news of barrenness premature. All these profits from the megalomaniacs trickling down should alert us to the fact there is money in the economy, and that it is being told where to go and where not to go. This is called governance. To govern, one writer noted concisely, is to decide how the money is raised and how it is spent.
That the megalomaniacs are allowed multi-billion dollars per year in salary is not Divine Providence, it is not set in some natural order of things. It comes from fundamental political decisions. It comes from a value system.
Why that 70% pro-socialized medicine cannot affect this decision goes back to our lack of a viable political party. If Beatrice has one, why not Ethel and Fred? The current value system registers no irony in this disparity.
Speaking of nature, but not wanting to go too far in picking on the "American Idol" concoction, why does person A deserve to make $30 million while person B makes nothing? It is an elementary question that would seem to preface social and economic equity. But we are not allowed to ask such embarrassing questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment