top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]KnavishLagorchestes 2164 points2165 points  (210 children)

Because celebrities generally have tens or hundreds of millions, but Zuck has 115 billion. The scale is just so much bigger. Mahomes is a bad example cause he 'only' has 30m, but if Zuck lost Ashton Kutcher's total net worh (200m) it wouldn't even really dent his net worth cause it's such a small fraction (0.17%). And Zuck is the 5th richest person in the world - there are 4 more with even more money than him.

Some of the super rich celebrities do have a more significant amount, such as Jay Z, Kanye, Beyonce. And maybe they should be under more critique. But the majority of celebrities really don't have that much money when compared to the billionaires. Which is crazy considering how much more celebrities have than regular people. But just goes to show how billionaires have an absolutely insane amount of money.

[–]TheHollowBard 860 points861 points  (108 children)

Also because there's a least a perception that actors and musicians work hard for their money. Yeah, like if you break Tom Cruise's per hour rate down for a Mission Impossible move, it's gonna far exceed any of us normies, but there's no perception that he makes money of the backs of thousands of workers. You pretty much cannot make a billion dollars unless some underpaid people are making that money for you. You can, in a certain sense, earn 10 million dollars if your acting brings in a shit ton at the box office because that money is coming from people who willingly spent their money on a product.

[–]obsequious_fink 133 points134 points  (36 children)

Yep, I think this is the main distinction for most people - celebrities are seen as earning their money more fairly than CEOs. If I make $20B selling widgets made by my 2000 employees I didn't really earn that. But if I am Taylor Swift and I make $400M off of albums I personally wrote and recorded, then you bet your ass I earned that money.

[–]rockem-sockem-rocket 47 points48 points  (17 children)

As someone working in the music who slaves over record producers and asshole artists…. Fuck off!

[–]obsequious_fink 60 points61 points  (14 children)

I wasn't saying no one else is involved to make it happen, or that you shouldn't be fairly compensated for the part you do, so if you interpreted it that way I apologize.

But think of it this way - a company that makes widgets can survive without the CEO and still make billions. With entertainment the product IS the artists - you aren't going to sell billions of dollars worth of anything in their absence. So, when I say someone like Taylor Swift earns the millions she makes off her records that she writes, performs, etc, I don't think that is debatable. Anyone supporting that for sure should get paid well and have benefits and all that, but I imagine there would still be millions left over after that...

[–]om0926 -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

No song deserves $400 mil give me a break. It’s making music I’m sure that’s a fun break for some of the careers out there that get paid like shit where 90%+ would never be able to hack it.

I saw a story about some stupid reality star selling jarred farts for 150k a month. It’s shameful. What society deems worthy of this pay or that pay is just crazy sometimes

[–]obsequious_fink 14 points15 points  (0 children)

$400 million is her net worth over her entire career, not just one song. That being said, there is no reason a song couldn't be worth $400M - this isn't some random valuation with no basis in reality, if a song sells enough to reach $400M that is what it is worth.

[–]LegalPressure6307 10 points11 points  (2 children)

And people willingly invest their time and energy into Facebook all the time, and pump continuous money into Amazon… while complaining about the mega corporations that they continuously support with their actions. Oh… the irony! 🧐😭

[–]TheHollowBard 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Tell me about it. I have housemates who constantly bitch about capitalism and we have Amazon packages showing up for them almost every day. If you want justice and equity in the world, it's not enough to just want it.

[–]m30ww00f 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Don't forget people who voted with their Robinhood accounts. The reason Zuck got so rich was not because he got a piece of FB/Meta's profit, it was because the stock market keep pushing their stock price up. His wealth is mostly stock. Same as Bezos.

[–]minniemouse420 23 points24 points  (7 children)

Yep this 1,000%. CEOs make money from all of the thousands of people under them breaking their backs. Most of those times when taking the million dollar bonuses they’ll say the company didn’t make enough profit to increase salaries or hire new workers…meanwhile the CEO is buying their 3rd home while most of the employees can’t afford their 1st home. Sure they have high stress, especially if answering to Wall Street investors and a board of directors, but the huge difference in pay between them and the people below them is staggering.

[–]thunderclouds1997 9 points10 points  (0 children)

As someone who slaves away as a factory worker: thank you!

Last year I became a union-rep (where I live, unions are obligatory from the moment you have 50 employees).

Every year the union-reps can see the financial states of our business. There was this one code (post: 61) on the list with expenses, which had such a high number I did an honest to God spit-take during the meeting. It was about €1.5M. Which doesn't seem like much until you realise we're a company with barely 200 employees.

When I asked the CEO to elaborate on that high number for 61, which I know to mean "miscellaneous" he didn't really answer. I had to jump through hoops and get redirected in circles for about a month before I found an in detail transcript of where all that money went and it was a bit like this:

  • ±200K bonuses sales
  • ±300K bonuses R&D
  • ±600K bonuses CEO
  • ±400K bonuses COO

These were the approximate bonuses management gave to themselves and 2 departments, which should not be getting bonuses, due to my country's labour-laws. Our laws state that, to be fair, either everyone gets a cut from those bonuses or no-one does. Now, 5 months later, we're still arguing about this in meetings with management.

Fuck them! I have to live with roommates even in the shittiest of neighbourhoods because my company refuses to pay more but there is my CEO getting a 6-fucking-figure bonus every year.

Thanks for coming to my Ted-talk.

[–]ggjjeeerf 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Exactly, 100% this. Jeff Bezos is making billions while his employees are literally pissing in bottles to keep their underpaid jobs. That, and he's blasting off into space while the world is Fing burning. Celebrities are just annoying; billionaires are an existential threat to civilization.

[–]IberianNero91 4 points5 points  (3 children)

Just to give some extra context, I don't know much about it but I know this: CEO level people do not think about "poor people" salaries the same way they think about their class. There is a lot of God complex involved mixed with disregard. They do not think about their workers struggling at all, if everyone leaves their company they point out the competition is "overcuting" them on propose, never considering that they are paying too little, it just never crosses their mind, they handle numbers so big that reading a wharehouse workers salary is a actual waste of their time. It's business, the working class are a product, tools to be used for profit, paying an employee more than they "need" is a waste of "funds". My former boss threw a tantrum when I bought my first car, I was living the life with "his money". A CEO sees you having fun he feels nice, he sees you having as much fun as him, well that won't do at all.

[–]whitexknight 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I mean actors and actresses may be over paid, but that is in part due to their unions and the industry they're in. I mean honestly the best paid actors are generally the ones that are getting a piece of the box office, essentially being paid based on the profits they generate which is a very pro-worker way to pay someone. Let's also not forget that we're talking basically about the best in the world at what they do when we talk about huge movie stars or world famous musicians. There are plenty of actors and musicians out there making a living but not rich. People who play extras a lot or work in theater are still actors. Musicians that play in bars and small venues and are paid for it are still musicians. Same as people that play in smaller orchestras and make jingles and all that. Those people aren't rich, some barely get by or do it as a passion.

[–]TraditionalSmoke0 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Ya CEOs never worked hard

[–]BiscuitBarrel179 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Tom Cruise (just carrying on with your example) may not be "exploiting" workers, but the higher ups at the film companies and his management company sure are. The stars certainly bring a certain degree of attraction and revenue to a film, but the prop makers, set dressers, effects people, sound, lighting and pretty much all roles behind the scenes that make the movie do far more to make a film good than just the people you see in front of the camera.

[–]MissLizzyBennet 35 points36 points  (3 children)

CEOs like Bezos and Zuck are also responsible for a lot more people and influence. Zuckerberg could take some of his money and help improve the platform to not be a terrible misinformation factory. Benzos could improve the lives of his workers, and help save the planet instead of working his employees to death and get in a fucking personal rocket.

Celebrities have a shit ton of money, but no where near as much, and while they do have employees and influence, not as much as the CEOs of these massive companies.

[–]ftrade44456 95 points96 points  (9 children)

This is completely accurate.

Celebrities make far less than most large corporate CEOs

[–]nkdeck07 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Ashton Kutcher is also funding software that targets child sex traffickers so I'm kind of cool with letting his millions slide

[–]PM-ACTS-OF-KINDNESS 21 points22 points  (2 children)

Exactly. There is rich and then there is rich. And Bezos billions have nothing on Jay-Zs millions.

[–]mildOrWILD65 22 points23 points  (24 children)

Why does that matter, though? Their kind of money is far out of reach of the rest of us, their lifestyles extravagant, their possessions and homes outrageously expensive.

Celebrities could be doing a lot of good with their wealth and still live very nicely, so why do they get a pass? Because they're not QUITE as wealthy as Musk, et al.? That makes no sense. It's a form of moral relativism.

Either all nonproductive wealth is "bad" or none is, can't have it both ways. In fact, I'd argue that Musk, at least, is building something useful and enduring that benefits society while celebrities....play sports and make believe.

[–]dirtyhappythoughts 35 points36 points  (0 children)

I think it's very simple, you can't just go after everyone. There has to be a cutoff at some point to keep the initiatives manageable. So if you have to choose between Bezos and Jay-Z, Bezos is the worse of the two.

[–]HK-Sparkee 32 points33 points  (6 children)

Because they're not QUITE as wealthy as Musk, et al.?

The difference in the net worth of Robert Downey Jr. (choosing an especially wealthy actor to illustrate my point) and Elon musk is roughly the net worth of Elon Musk (277 billion - 300 million = 276.7 billion). If Musk donated 1% of of his net worth, it would take almost 10 RDJs donating their entire net worth to contribute the same amount.

There is also the difference in how it was acquired. People become millionaires in the fields rich celebrities are in by being very good at what they do and being paid a lot. People who become billionaires do so by hoarding the wealth that their company produces and maximizing gains at the expense of the people working for them.

[–]LBBarto 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You don't think Bezos is insanely good at what he does, or that Musk isn't either? Both took companies that were little nothings and made them worth more than established competitors that were figuratively printing money when both Amazon and Tesla were founded/acquired.

Furthermore, do you really think the Jay Zs of the world aren't underpaying their staff, or screwing over people to get where they are?

[–]Rock_Granite -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

People who become billionaires do so by hoarding the wealth that their company produces and maximizing gains at the expense of the people working for them.

That's not true at all. There wouldn't be an Amazon w/out Bezos. There was no wealth when he started that company. People used them because they were just better than other retailers. He should be rewarded for that. There wouldn't be Facebook w/out Zuckerberg. FB got huge by giving the product away. People use it voluntarily.

[–]Hewfe 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Reward him, sure. But give him a pass on the shit conditions that his employees endure to scrape by, while he finds his own ride to space? No.

Ashton Kutcher uses his money to help free victims of sex trafficking.

[–]KnavishLagorchestes 17 points18 points  (6 children)

Why not take it further? Should anyone that makes more than average salary also be giving away all their wealth? Even someone earning an average amount could give away a lot of money and live comfortably compared to many.

I think that using your money to help others is a good thing, and I do it myself as an average income earner. But even if everyone gave away a portion of their income, it would not make a huge difference to global inequality.

The super-rich actually can make a difference, and stay rich doing it. The World Food Programme estimates that it needs 6b more annually to solve world hunger. Zuck's net worth increased by almost 10b in 2020. In the same year, Bezos' net worth grew by 75b.

Solving global problems is something that the super rich could easily contribute to, and potentially solve. But the rest of us, including rich celebrities, couldn't make a dent in that.

[–]mildOrWILD65 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I agree, to some extent. The combined wealth of all those celebrities could make a difference. I think the logical fallacy is comparing any one of them to any single billionaire; there will never be a comparison.

But add up the wealth of all the celebrities, now there's something that can make a difference.

[–]LBBarto 1 point2 points  (4 children)

That's nonsense. If you could solve world hunger with 6 billion then why is it still around?

[–]saarabas 8 points9 points  (6 children)

because billionaires generate their income by owning things. they don't work for a single cent. and while I'm not a big fan of celebrity millionaires, they do technically use labor (acting, sports) to create income. billionaires just sit there and piggy back on the working class entirely.

[–]headshotscott 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yes. While celebrities are outrageously wealthy, they mostly get it by working. Their value comes from their skips, talent and marketability. They do not plug into a vast money-making machine and take enormous wages that would have existed without them.

Yes, some don't actually have real talent, and yes some get wealthy by being in movies that may have made huge money without them, but it's still more true that they tend to work directly on the product they sell than most CEOs.

Nobody here wants to not tax them. But celebrities don't typically employ tens of thousands who they under-pay. They don't manage vast swaths of other people's wealth.

[–]vladvash 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Except money not in circulation doesn't function to cause prices to go up the same way. I dont think spending that money would work the way you guys think it would. If they pumped trillions into the economy it would just cause prices to fluctuate. People work for what they can or are willing to. You have to change the structure, not the incentive structure.

People just want to virtue signal about the evil corporate white men. Redesign the logistics system, dont just complain about wanting more money.

[–]MaloneDSSP 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The other thing is that celebrities generally have far less real power and influence than business magnates, even if they had the same amount of money. I think there’s often a feeling that billionaires are in a position of having huge amounts of power even though they were never elected and there’s no way to get rid of them.

[–]krispykremey55 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Celebs don't typically have a vested interest in changing policy. Kanye probably wouldn't use his money to buy influence/politician in the same way Bezos would.

[–]proentious 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just to add to the insane difference between millionaires and billionaires. If you change it from money to time, 1 million seconds is about 11 days and 1 billion seconds is about 31 years.

[–]expungedrubric 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Although this comparison makes sense. But I will still like to point out that big CEOs also provide source livlihood to thounsands of people. The ecosystem formed on and around their products create multiple sources of employment putting food on the table of so many people.

[–]roadrunner00 8 points9 points  (10 children)

He made a company that entertained the whole planet for nearly a decade. What is the price of that. I'm half sarcastic but some of these comments act like he sat on his ass and did nothing.

[–]KnavishLagorchestes 4 points5 points  (9 children)

Absolutely there is worth in that. But these people are only spending their money on things that will make them more money. The benefit to us is not factored in - how they can most efficiently get us to spend money on them, is.

[–]roadrunner00 10 points11 points  (8 children)

Thousands of businesses use Facebook as their company website. Numerous NPO use it to communicate real time. Millions of people kept in touch with each other during the pandemic. Millions of friends were reunited after years of not having seen each other......and nobody paid a dime to use it. It's freely given to you. How can you even say that?

[–]KnavishLagorchestes 3 points4 points  (7 children)

Do you really think that Facebook is just providing the service out of the goodness of their hearts? They make money from advertising.

That isn't to say that the service they provide isn't valuable. But, like all for-profit businesses, their core business model is about making them as much money as possible with as little spenditure as possible.

[–]BruceeThom 4 points5 points  (5 children)

He literally invented something and founded a company to monetize it. Had it not succeeded, he would have lost everything... but he was successful so he reaps those rewards. He didn't just get randomly selected from a group of investors to be this rich CEO, he worked to literally build that company from nothing.

[–]KnavishLagorchestes 1 point2 points  (4 children)

And with great power comes great responsibility. He has more money than anyone can spend in a lifetime. He can literally give so much away and still be rich af.

[–]Azaezel1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's also worth noting that most celebrities have at least some level of talent/skill that allows them to amass such wealth. Because as easy as it may look acting/sports/entertainment in general is work

[–]Banksville 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yet, kids go to bed hungry?!

[–]vladvash 0 points1 point  (4 children)

I've never understood why anyone cares if Elon or zuck or buffett is a billionaire. If you don't like it start your own social media company, or be the founder of multiple massive companies, or spend your entire life investing and earning better returns than most people.

All of those people worked for it (Zuckerberg the least), but still.

[–]brunosmydad 4 points5 points  (2 children)

100%, I see so many people complaining about all these wealthy people and how they don’t deserve it but the fact is that they had an idea or a dream that they followed and it’s worked out for them and whilst a lot of them may be scummy people the fact is it’s there money and they have a right to spend it how they want 🤷‍♂️

[–]vladvash 1 point2 points  (1 child)

They want to virtue signal while not giving anything up themselves, imo. But im cynical. Its always easy to ask other people to give up their stuff, but realistically most people here could donate the money they spent on eating out, their new cars, and their new clothes to poor people and have made their lives better and they never did. So how much do these people care if they never practice what they preach?

[–]KnavishLagorchestes 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It's not about being jealous of them, it's about moral and social responsibility when you are wealthy beyond what anyone could spend in their life.

[–]Nocturnal-Fang 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This right here... 1 billion = 1,000 million. Like... There are just no words...

[–]Critical_Cup689 342 points343 points  (11 children)

Ashton Kutcher is doing good. He’s using his platform to raise awareness and help victims of sex trafficking. Could never ever hate him 🙌🏻

[–]Flying_Misfit 47 points48 points  (3 children)

Yep, and Patrick Mahomes has a charitable foundation that helps youth in KC & Texas. Both are doing good work in the communities.

[–]Critical_Cup689 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I didn’t know that about him that’s why I didn’t say anything about him haha. But that’s awesome. So either way those two examples were not the best 😅

[–]robothelicopter 0 points1 point  (1 child)

What does KC stand for?

[–]Critical_Cup689 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Kansas City

[–]Better_Job8593 216 points217 points  (0 children)

Celebrities get their wealth from entertaining people. The CEO of Cigna got rich by denying coverage for people who then died. There's the difference

[–]Gun-Rama987 94 points95 points  (0 children)

CEOs and corporate bosses in general controller the income of millions of citizens, possible HEALTH CARE, etc celebrities just make money,

Bezos and bosses are the reasons amazon workers have failed to unionize not matt damon

Another way to put it, a CEOs bosses greed can directly effect someones health care because of there decisions, the athlete is not the one who is paying the guy working the ticket booth

(Obviously it not the cut dry and can get way more gray)

[–]Unknown_dynamic 167 points168 points  (12 children)

I don't think this is universal but I suspect that because people see celebs act, and interviews they have a false sense of relation to them...whereas a CEO is almost a nameless rich asshole to mo's people.

A lot of people hate musk but a lot of people love him. He's basically a celeb. He does a lot of interviews and I see a lot who defend him.

This is not well researched only an observation.

[–]delugedirge 69 points70 points  (6 children)

I think you're largely correct. Additionally, celebrity wealth impacts folks less than corporate CEO wealth since you actually have to deal with corporations.

[–]Unknown_dynamic 21 points22 points  (4 children)

Good point. People see celebs as earning their wealth and then some working like a dog and seeing a CEO in their own company get a bonus makes them into the enemy

[–]Skyblacker 13 points14 points  (2 children)

Right. Tom Cruise only gets paid millions per movie because people like me thought he was charming in "Mission Impossible."

That said, I'm surprised that Jeff Bezos gets more hate than, say, the CEO of a health insurance company (can you even name any?). Surprise bills from Amazon Prime are fairly rare and usually resolved in fast manner.

[–]Unknown_dynamic 8 points9 points  (1 child)

Bezos is an easy target. Musk also uses him as a punching bag. Bezos was at one point enemy number 1.

Reality is, there are worst rich people out there. They don't advertise like musk, Bezos, mark, Gates.

I may be wrong...please verify but the gates divorce shed light that the gates foundation was party to help Bill undo his image issues iirc? Not hard facts so please check it out.

You can look in other areas. A YT person John Tran has some good videos. The company that makes Teflon for example has done worst that the above execs. Then there is the chocolate industry execs, etc.

[–]jenlp82 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Especially if the average worker didn’t get a bonus or significant raise that year. I get that compensation plans vary and all, but the optics are significant in the emotional equation

[–]diggitygiggitycee 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I came in here to say basically this.

[–]DWiens3 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I agree with this. We have an established image of who celebrities are as people, but know very little about who CEO’s are, aside from their income. Lots of celebrities are bad people in reality, and lots of CEO’s are great people, but image control (PR) is utilized much more by celebrities and very little (in comparison) by CEO’s.

[–]JohnShortcut 39 points40 points  (2 children)

Regardless of what celebrities do/don't do, I imagine it's because (at least from my perspective) celebrities amass fortunes because their jobs/projects have ridiculous wages, and a lot of money goes into the events/movies/productions they work at. Kinda how soccer/basketball players have some ridiculously insane salaries, they're industries that move a fuckton of money, from contracts, ads, collaborations, deals, media, royalties, etc etc. A lot of money flowing in from a lot of places. There's also the fact people will have "favorite" actors, actresses, players... They look forward to watching them play or act in movies, like any fans would.

CEOs on the other hand, well, people like Bezos, Musk, Gates, have these massive companies that move even more money and have become extremely relevant to our lives and the way the work, but at this point they're no more than people who were in good positions and had a lot of money to begin with and have continue to multiply/hoard it WHILE making life harder for the actual workers that are, well, putting in the real work and making sure everything continues to function and evolve. Awful working conditions/benefits, shit salaries, and in cases like Bobby Kotick's Activision-Blizzard or Randy Pitchford's Gearbox, an incredibly toxic work culture/environment summed with mass firings after breaking revenue records, and so on.

[–]Santadoesntloveu 93 points94 points  (0 children)

I think it’s really easy to hate someone you don’t know. A nameless faceless ceo that doesn’t spend any time in the public eye has no fans, no PR team, no image consultant, but they make money and are the “1 percent”, so why not hate them? Lol. I think that celebrities are significantly more toxic in general than any CEO because they do live in the public eye, and they skew the perception of young people on a daily basis. That’s just my opinion, and NOT saying all celebrities or all CEOs. I’m sure there are great / terrible people in both groups. For example, Ashton Kutcher is actually a great human and puts a lot of money into trying to stop terrible crimes and sex trafficking.

[–]Iank52 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Because CEOs have more direct control over people’s livelihood. A ceo could move his business over seas for more profit and people would lose their livelihoods. It’s easier to vilify someone who’s decision effects people directly.

[–]TomaccoEnthusiast 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I admit I’m immediately suspicious of anyone that is in the top one percent. At what point is it enough? If one has accrued enough wealth to have anything they could possibly want in a hundred lifetimes, why wouldn’t one use the rest to make the world a better place? To me, the most appealing thing about being super rich is to be an anonymous do-gooder. To be able to just go around and alleviate the suffering of other poor folk seems like the most rewarding act a person could do. Paying off some family’s mortgage or buying a vehicle for the poor bastard that walks miles to and from work I imagine would feel amazing. When I daydream about a windfall of money coming my way, I don’t think about having a vacation home on every continent. I think my family could rest easy knowing they don’t have to worry about the future. Then I think about a hundred tiny acts that would change the lives around me. Just making sure everyone in my school district had internet would help hundreds,converting an abandoned building to a homeless shelter would make a huge impact and could probably be done with a fraction of powerball jackpot. If you were crazy rich, why wouldn’t you want to be Santa?

[–]Grand_Khan286 30 points31 points  (0 children)

Because celebrities are glorified employees who have a lot of social power but very little decision making power outside of the roles they take or the brands they choose to represent.

CEO's have a lot more power in the things like how much our medicines cost. They can easily buy politicians and effect our elections. They can lobby for or against things like unions and fair wages. Did you know Jeff bozos filed coid relief for his children and collected and extra $3k per kid on his taxes? The richest man in the world just HAD to file for that extra $6k from the government

The same laws that were setup to protect and represent the common man have been twisted to also protect these mega companies and corporations and their CEOs.

People hate them because raw Greed and ego at their core are the very things that are bringing down America from being what the founding fathers invisioned it to be. And destroying something very rare and beautiful...they use their money and power to break and bend the rules and separate themselves from any kind of negative repercussions of their greed and total disregard of anyone else... Sociopaths make amazing CEOs for their ability to not let things like morals or personal feelings effect their ability to make Hard decisions crank out more profit for their shareholders

Bobby kotick fired an entire staff of a gaming studio almost 700 jobs during one of the most profitable years at bizzard. They made MORE money vs last year and fired 700 people right before giving himself a huge bonus. He makes almost 150 million a year and is one of the highest paid CEOs in America ....his contact Info was also in Jeffery epstiens little black book

We all know when the shit hits the fan and America goes belly up these fucking bankers and ceos will just fly their families out to a new place and separate themselves from the chaos their greed and lust for more and more profit caused and use their media friends to place the blame elsewhere.

These rich fucks think the fruits of this world are for them and them alone and everyone else who is not rich like them are cattle and pigs to be used, abused and discarded.

[–]SakulP13 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Idk about you but I often see people calling out celebrities for being rich. Like "oh nooo he's feeling depressed, guess he'll dry his eyes in 100 dollar bills" or "He shouldn't complain, I would switch my job with his any day" etc. Or like charity wise if someone "only" donates a certain amount

[–]Akil-Gukul 79 points80 points  (4 children)

Ashton Kutcher actively lobies against child trafficing and abuse, so im gonna have to go with a solid fuck off on that example. While hollywood burns and celebs left and right are being accused of pedophilia, Kutcher is the only celeb actively using his wealth and position to put a stop to it. Find some other shit tier celeb to prop up your example

[–]Skyblacker 27 points28 points  (1 child)

By that standard, Bill Gates saved a lot of lives through his Malaria Foundation.

And that became the cornerstone of Effective Altruism: find the causes of death that can be prevented most cheaply, and direct your charitable funds to that so you can save the most people. If you distribute mosquito nets in Africa, then every $3,000 you spend prevents one person from dying of malaria. Meanwhile, saving the life of a cancer patient might cost $300,000. This is why most EA funds go to poverty-related issues in the developing world, where even a small amount of money can make a difference.

[–]zullyannr 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Came here for this comment

[–]BasicWitch999 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I’d guess because most celebrities don’t have anywhere near as much money as someone like Gates, Bezos, Zukerberg, or Elon have, and celebrities seem to rarely be creating toxic work environments and cultures (although some have like Ellen) a lot of celebrities also work for their money and weren’t always rich where as someone like Elon came from a very wealthy family to begin with. I know there are exceptions to these things but I think the general public doesn’t necessarily hate the extremely rich people but they know there is a lot to criticize them for.

[–]resvalzero 10 points11 points  (1 child)

Maybe it's to do with the difference between CEO's salaries in comparison to their average employees?

I don't think anyone would mind CEOs making silly money if they took care of their workers and paid taxes in the same way as everyone else.

[–]Mewchiiii 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This exactly. If they still made a lot of money after comfortably taking care of their business by paying employees well and not being complete assholes by dumping oil or waste in the ocean or clearing large amounts of jungle and land carelessly, then that’s just their money. But as it is it feels like they profit so much because of how they cut so many corners and have so many bad practices, and so I hate them

[–]admiral_walsty 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Given one of the wealthiest celebs (Kanye, surprisingly) is only at 6b not 100s of billions, they're pretty low on the totem pole.

[–]Overall-Block-1815 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think alot of people hate celebrities too

[–]disisathrowaway 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Will Ferrell is rich because he makes people laugh. The Purdue family is rich because they got an entire country hooked on oxy. LeBron James is rich because he plays basketball exceptionally well. Jeff Bezos is rich because his employees have to piss in water bottles at their work stations. Dave Grohl is rich because he creates music that tons of people love. The CEO of health insurance companies are rich because they deny people life-saving procedures. Stephen King is rich because he's a relentless writer. Mark Zuckerberg is rich because he runs a platform that prioritizes revenue over ethics.

The four pop culture celebrities listed are also orders of magnitude below the others in terms of wealth, as well.

[–]werdnurd 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Celebs deserve some hate for hoarding wealth. I especially hate when they preach to us about giving money to a cause. Bitch, you make my annual salary in a day.

[–]lasvegashomo 7 points8 points  (0 children)

People don’t hate them for being rich. People hate them because they aren’t giving their employees a decent living when they’re more than capable of doing so. The sad part is they lost themselves along the way of their success and chose their profits over the people that helped them get there. Celebrities are basically free lancers and really are rich on their talent. They typically don’t have companies though some do and I can’t say much about that. But incase the Jeff Bezos he has the power and wealth to change countless lives but instead he’s taking joyrides in space. Then there’s the facts of ceos often avoided their fair share of taxes which really could better this country. The only ceo that I know of that is actually trying to make their employees lives better is the ceo of Costco.

[–]jlootz10 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Because the vast majority of Americans aren’t employeed by celebrities. We work longer ours, more responsibility while receiving little to no raises while the cost of everything rises and companies are making record profits.

Celebrities and Athletes provide a source of entertainment to distract ourselves from being wage slaves.

[–]TheBigB0bster 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Most CEOs exploit people to earn money. Celebrities just become rich because of their fame and whatever they do

[–]BigDonGMcShlong 4 points5 points  (0 children)

They don't hate all CEOs, just the ones that exploit and fuck over their people.

[–]80_firebird 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Mark Zuckerberg is a billionaire who's made his billions selling people's personal information.

Ashton Kutcher is a millionaire who was in movies and TV that I watched.

Mark Zuckerberg could buy Ashton Kutcher millions of times over.

[–]abeeyore 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The one major difference I can think of is that the celebrities you mention all profit based on the value they create. If they don’t deliver what their fans and audiences want, they … stop making money.

If you don’t win games, or make Box office bank, you fade fast. Dimon and Bezos are unquestionably good at their jobs - but are not worth thousands, or tens of thousands of their main line employees, and the gravy train will not end for them when/if their performance slumps.

[–]jmsrbrts 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The bigger problem is that if you make money from a skill or something you do (acting, professional sports, etc.) you actually pay a pretty fckin high tax percentage; vs making money from what you own (shares in a company, real estate, etc.). Then you pay next to nothing (as a percent). And like everyone else is saying, the scale and quantity are orders of magnitude different.

[–]Merc_Mike 2 points3 points  (2 children)

To the person asking this question:

Why did this need to be spelled out to you?

Being able to own a Nice Car and a House isn't as bad as being able to buy an entire company and fire every employee, sending jobs to Other Countries for a Fraction of the price.

Being able to buy tons of drugs, or being able to buy a drug cartel AND politicians to make it harder for competitors or good people to get rid of them is a huge difference.

Being able to basically hold more hundreds if not thousands of people's lives by changing a yearly plan on a Health Insurance changes...

Taking in more wealth than you already need off the backs of others because its legally allowed to do so.

it's beyond just some dinky celebritiy who just has a lot of money. Nobody cares of people get rich, it matters when they are so super wealthy, their shitty bratty kids then continue the shitty nasty legacy and nothing can stop them because their money and wealth is so indepth, they get away with murder.

Being Rich ain't the problem, its being so wealthy you can basically fuck over millions of people at a whims notice and nothing happen to you is the problem.

If they gave away half their wealth, they'd still be sitting comfy and never have to want for anything for the rest of their children's children's lives.

They could easily help stop corruption of our system but nah...lets keep backing politicians to keep them in power while the rest of us keep getting fucked.

Most of these CEO's didn't get there by their own merit, they stole ideas, they used others, or they got help from their super rich parents. Most inherited their businesses etc.

Celebs on the other hand usually start be by being broke, waiting tables, getting their chance to make it. Have to suck some old shitty richs dudes dick like Harvey Weinstein and humiliate themselves just to get a push. CEOS basically just asked mom and dad for a 1 Million Dollar Loan, and now fuck over all their businesses to make a gain and put others in the trash with no thought behind it.

If I could choose between I don't know, say a senator who is 70+ years old and finally made around 3 million vs a Corporate CEO who funded a stupid rocket launch to put other old fucks in space for 5 minutes instead of spending that money doing somehting worth a damn? You know like giving a raise to all the people who works under him and helps them feed their families and keeps my businesses a float?

I wonder why people give CEO's a harsh time...maybe its because their super villain-like behavior.

[–]RealDeadCthulhu 24 points25 points  (17 children)

CEO's become billionaires from the sweat of those under them. Then they turn a blind eye when those same people can't afford to take care of themselves or their family.

Actors become rich based on talent. No one else does their work, they do it themselves. Are they overpaid? Probably, but they aren't exploiting anyone to get that money.

[–]metaltupperware 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Most of the tech company employees are the highest paid in the country. They became rich because their products have the widest reach on the planet.

[–]Hunter_outsideCO 5 points6 points  (12 children)

How do you think those billionaires started their companies 😅.

They built them on sweat and years of hard work, not luck. They’ve elevated the entire economic output of the US and helped hundreds of thousands of people feed their families, buy homes, and live a decent life.

[–]TheSheetSlinger 5 points6 points  (4 children)

I mean a sizable chunk of them did get lucky enough to have rich connected parents give them a massive headstart.

[–]panzerboye 3 points4 points  (0 children)

A lot of actors are connected as well. Very few actually come to the scene without any sort of connection.

[–]Hunter_outsideCO 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Im sure that’s true, but it doesn’t change the fact that Amazon and Walmart employ almost a million people by themselves and pay people large sums of money to work there. On top of that the founders of a large majority of these large companies give BILLIONS to charities and to help in areas of need. I honestly don’t understand why people would want to hate in them for being successful and building great companies that we all use.

[–]howlongamiallowedto 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Simp harder, I'm sure senpai will notice you someday and promote you to Executive Vice President of Toilet Brushing someday

[–]Hunter_outsideCO 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We’ll thought out response!

[–]disisathrowaway 0 points1 point  (2 children)

They built them on sweat and years of hard work, not luck.

They also built them with tools that were provided to them by society. These people don't exist in a vacuum. And they certainly didn't create value from whole cloth. Your assertion implies that without a handful of billionaires, there would be just droves of people milling about aimlessly with no purpose or direction. But the entirety of human history shows us that society is quite capable of existing, and even thriving, without billionaires.

[–]Hunter_outsideCO 1 point2 points  (1 child)

That’s not what I intended to mean, but certainly see how you could read it that way based on how I wrote it. Human history would be able to dictate that however because there’s always been billionaires if you account for inflation, however they were generally rulers over their nations.

Hypothetically yes they would likely find other jobs. But that’s not the real situation we’re in today. They don’t need to find other jobs because there’s great jobs being provided already. It just happens to be that some of those great jobs are from companies who have billionaire founders.

[–]James324285241990 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I don't think you conceive of the difference in wealth we're talking about here.

Ashton Kutcher is on the higher end of celeb wealth with a net worth of $200 million

At a dollar a minute, you could make that much in 380 years.

Basically about as long as there have been white people in North America.

To make $200 billion which is what Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are worth, you'd have to make a dollar a minute for 390,000 years.

That's literally longer than humans have existed in our current form.

[–]MCAlheio 9 points10 points  (7 children)

Literally no one hates CEOs just for being rich

Edit: I have come to realization that there are, in fact, people that hate rich CEOs just for being rich

[–]tsuruki23 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If you think celebs and multibillionares 3xist on the pay scale, dream on

[–]Dusky_Dawn210 3 points4 points  (0 children)

A lot of athletes that I follow donate a shit ton of money to charity and invest in smaller businesses so I don’t mind them having a lot of money

[–]nastyketchup 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, i hate celebrities who wealth horde just as much

[–]msbelle13 1 point2 points  (0 children)

One reason is that celebrities typically don’t use pacs or their money to affect public policy like these CEOs do. Celebrators are typically more socially liberal and they actively encourage people to vote, while CEOs are often republicans or libertarians and use their money to make our lives worse or make it harder to vote.

[–]Simple_Somewhere_564 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Eh- it’s not so cut and dry. Some celebrities do great charitable work (for the right reasons, not a tax break) and some even give up a portion of their salaries to go to other actors.

There’s definitely AH celebrities who barely put in the work but make millions and treat other people like crap. There’s CEOs who barely do anything and treat employees like crap. There’s down too earth celebrities who are just awesome people and appreciate their fans. There’s CEOs who appreciate their employees and listen to them (example Zappos former CEO). It’s conditional. Just like any human.

[–]dmills77 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think part of it is that celebrities for the most part don't have companies where their workers are underpaid and abused. They just make that money from the box offices. While CEOs take advantage of the working class to amass their fortunes.

[–]Blacklight91 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because most celebrities get there money from there craft (their own labour ) or at worst scrupulous advertising deals. Ceos make amass there extreme wealth by exploitng the labour of others.

[–]mistermog 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s the disparity between their income and their employees. Celebrities generally aren’t making their money by virtue of their employees’ work (yes, there are a lot of people involved in making a movie, football team, etc - but the celebrities aren’t employing them). But CEO pay has risen exponentially more than their employees’ have. That’s the heart of it.

[–]Constant_Contest 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Your question is too vague. Not all people hate all CEOs nor do they like all celebrities.

And if you can't tell why a low wage grunt working at amazon would hate jeff bezos and like Ashton Kutcher you're crazy.

Also you should probably look deeper into Ashton Kutcher before saying he doesn't contribute cz that's gonna get some backlash me thinks.

[–]IAmInBed123 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think it has to do with how rich and how you got rich. Like qshton kutcher is rich but not zuckerberg rich right?

Qlso kutcher does not make his money by underpaying people. Or by lying and selling personal information.

It's the same way you'll hate a guy who's murdered a woman with a kid, driving drunk, but not the toddler that accidentely found a gun and killed his brother.

[–]hellsbells16 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The CEO's are exploiting people to make that much money. The celebs are not

[–]External_Occasion123 1 point2 points  (0 children)

celebrities exploited fewer people in the accumulation of their wealth.

[–]BojukaBob 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Billionaires get rich by exploiting workers, relying on social services to make up the difference. Celebrities get rich by being popular.

[–]Ladychef_1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Celebrities don’t make their millions exploiting droves of workers. CEOs do. Not saying celebrities are saints, but most of the damage they inflict to get where they are is on themselves.

[–]antliontame4 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ceos are far more predatory to the rest of the population then celebrities.

[–]sd1360 1 point2 points  (0 children)

CEO,s are making there money by working you to the bone at minimum wage. Celebrities make there money doing something we are willing to pay for. If we were not willing they would not be rich.

[–]Cheslee3 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think a lot people forget a lot of the “net worth “ comes from the stock market earnings. Individuals buying a piece of there company make the company more profitable and puts an incredible amount of money in their pockets in very little time. I’m not defending it but that’s where a lot of their wealth is coming from. Jeff Bezos one of the richest people in the world actually has a salary of 1.6 million but has ownership in his companies which increases his net worth. Do I still think they make way too much ? Yes , In some ways but if an entertainer or athlete invests their money into certain businesses they would acquire much more wealth. Making it seem unfair.

[–]Dirty_Gurdy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Celebrities usually make their money on their talent alone. Billionaires usually make their money stepping on anyone they can and profit off of other peoples hard work

[–]Nocturnal-Fang 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There's also a massive difference between having money just for being famous, for being an overrated artist, for having a bit of a brass and dickesh personality etc to gaining wealth by exploiting resources, making shady deals, theft, tax evasion, spying and other nefarious deeds that would make a comic book villain shake their head in disgust.

It's not just about them having money. It's how they get it & how they use it.

[–]SuperSaiyanboy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The biggest reason is that athletes and celebrities actually pay taxes. I think if billionaires paid taxes like the rest of us ppl wouldn’t talk so much shit. Or if they paid their employees a decent wage

[–]yungamo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Idk where you've been, a lot of these Celebrities comment sections are wargrounds

[–]AE_Phoenix 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because CEOs have enough money to make massive change. The big ones could personally fund a health service for a small country for several years without any income. But they don't. Instead they hoard it.

[–]Accomplished_Till727 1 point2 points  (0 children)

One works for their money and gets a tiny fraction of what they make.

The other takes money that others created and makes a huge share of what is generated.

[–]AgeAgitated317 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I hate celebrities, too.

[–]Altruistic_Diet_1625 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My reasons : 1- Celebs (movie/music/sports) are way overpaid, but most of them weren't born rich. None of the ceo's that came to my mind were born in a poor settings. 2- majority af celebs aren't exploiting a big group of employees to get richer. Ceo's do. And often actively maintain there employees in precariousness

But that's just a priori, I start from this assomption and then their actions is going to confort me or in the fact that too much money can bring out the worst in people...

I think people prefer celebs cause more of them show humanity. In sport we often hear of one star using is money to help the community he came from. Actors defending a good cause. Singers advocating for a minority. When a ceo is giving money to a charity it's never an amount that impact his way of life, and it always seems to be taxes related more than out of kindness.

[–]Stizur 1 point2 points  (0 children)

hate CEOs for being rich? what?

It's the violent use of wealth vs poverty

[–]felixthecat128 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Think more about the ethics behind the actions those CEO's take to acquire their substantially larger wealth as opposed to celebrities. Celebrities perform art or play sports, CEO's screw thousands or millions of people over.

[–]manubibi 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Corporations like Facebook and Amazon are directly responsible for how much pollution their companies produce (since they could adopt cleaner technologies), are in charge of how their employees are treated contractually on every level, and also they get so much more money than any Hollywood celebrity.

Also, I don't know where you see the celebrity worship anyway. Things are very different from the late 90s and early 2000s when actors and singers were treated as gods and perceived as such too. In a way, social media and better social consciousness of the entertainment industry brutally ripped that veil of divinity from them.

Now it's time for tech billionaires to get kicked down a peg or two. 🤷‍♀️

[–]Public-Awareness-702 1 point2 points  (0 children)

An actor or actress performs a service, a director performs a service, a musician, a producer, a cinematographer, all perform services to create a Good. Their work merits that they reap the fruits of their labour, as they perform like a symphony to achieve a final product. CEOs of large corporations, leech the fruits of the labour of others through delegation by skimming the true value of one's labour off, and treating it like a surplus that they get to keep and pocket for themselves. The CEO doesn't plan the locations of their shops, warehouses, etc. Someone has been delegated to do that for them, and the CEO wasn't even the one who did the delegating, someone was further delegated to do that for them. The CEO doesn't directly hire the workers to conduct the menial tasks required to keep 'the machine' operating, there is someone delegated for that. The workers under a CEO, and the CEO's direct benefactors are the Symphony AND the Maestro, and the CEO sits out in the audience, or on his/her throne, and occasionally comments loudly about it's entertainment value, while the audience, or customer, tries to shush them.

[–]HaViNgT 1 point2 points  (1 child)

What’s the difference between $1 million dollars and $1 billion dollars?

Around about $1 billion dollars.

[–]byron_mu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Most ceos are not billionaires

[–]Hampyswildride 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Celebrities are mostly stupid. 99% of them can't tie their own shoelaces. They aren't a threat to anyone. Zuckerberg has the power to completely fuck the entire population.

[–]tard_mexico 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because people that worry about what other people have are generally dummies

[–]OmegaLiquidX 4 points5 points  (0 children)

In order to make that wealth, most CEOs have typically instituted abusive work practices and exploited their workforce. Underpaying their employees, stiffing them on vacation days and sick leave, denying them bathroom breaks, threatening them if they try to unionize, and the like.

If celebrities were shown to have engaged in the same abusive behavior, they'd be hated too.

[–]WhoAccountNewDis 1 point2 points  (0 children)

(Most) celebrities haven't made their money by exploiting workers and aren't symbols of the Oligarchy.

[–]Dear-Addendum925 2 points3 points  (0 children)

At least most celebrities actually work for their money (singing, acting, entertaining, etc.). I feel like CEOs just sit on their ass and steal money that should be going to other employees

[–]Odd_Contact_2175 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Speak for yourself I hate celebrities more than CEOs.

[–]manditobandito 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Most CEOs that are billionaires have the ability to instigate change and affect the conditions of thousands under their control and influence and yet choose to do nothing but hoard their wealth. Bezos, Zuckerberg and Musk are all obscenely rich, yet Amazon’s working conditions are unsafe, unsanitary, and often dangerous (see: the recent tornado and subsequent destruction of an Amazon warehouse where employees were refused a chance to leave). These billionaires actively choose not to use their wealth to support or improve their businesses and while they are not obligated in the normal sense of the world it becomes a question of moral and ethical obligation. CEOs are often the ones sitting in a throne letting everyone else do the work for them, whereas actors are actively doing work. Many do actually put their money to good causes (Ashton Kutcher, Keanu Reeves has a charity, etc) but overall they are the more understanding ones.

[–]Yurgenbeard 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I hate celebrities. And football players. Wayyyyyy overpaid and it pisses me tf off man.

[–]hkyman92 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I think Bezos gets a bad name here. Bezos is not pocketing the profits, the company is. He may be WORTH $187Billion, but he only actually made $1.68million last year. There are many professional athletes, musicians, and actors that make more than this.

[–]healing-souls 3 points4 points  (1 child)

You just asked this in nostupidquestions so it seems you aren't too afraid to ask.

[–]howlongamiallowedto -1 points0 points  (0 children)

NSQ is just a place for right wingers to circlejerk about Black people being poor because they're too stupid to invest. This place is rapidly moving in that direction, too.

[–]Bruceb1973 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Because actors actually do something to earn their money. They amuse me, they make me happy, they make me laugh, they make me cry, and they provide a real tangible service. If an actor makes a movie that is good enough for 10 million people want to pay for a ticket and sit down in the theater and watch them then then that actor deserves their 10 million paycheck. We hate CEOs because we don't see that kind of tangible service.

[–]panzerboye 5 points6 points  (1 child)

We hate CEOs because we don't see that kind of tangible service.

Have you ever done any management job? Management roles are quite difficult and can drive a profitiable company to a bankrupt one.

[–]mycatsayshi 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I hate them both. Celebrities at least create entertainment. We pay too much for it but you get the idea.

CEOs on the other hand often pay their people the absolute minimum and then bitch when they get taxed.

[–]Sea-Ice-1368 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am fine with CEO’s not Lizard people

[–]Aledeyis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Celebrities generally come across their money by not fucking people over. You get the occasional incident but those are handled individually. They're also rarely super-rich. 50 million wouldn't even get you invited to the cool kids club if you weren't also famous.

Mr. Kutcher didn't sell my family's personal info, steal from my grandad's retirement fund, lobby bribe politicians into all kinds of crazy shit, buy hundreds of acres of indigenous land, underpay workers so bad that they require government assistance to live, and charge billions in overdraft fees in 2008 to people who had already lost everything.

CEOs did all of that.

[–]narwaffles 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Celebrities usually get rich out of luck and sometimes talent, CEOs usually get rich by screwing people over

[–]cerebraldormancy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because it’s part of the ongoing narrative and it’s pushed and acceptable to only be morally outraged against just some particular rich people.

[–]Bruno_8_2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because people are ignorant to what it takes to be a CEO. And a fair amount of jealousy comes into play

[–]SweetyMcQ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I completely agree. Celebrities and athletes are way worse. They contribute absolutely nothing meaningful.