Yet, oddly, the same minimum wage workers seem to praise and worship exceedingly-overpaid pop music stars, professional athletes, fashion designers, Hollywood stars, and "finance" moguls. A hypocritical paradox. Poorer folks who don't have enough nutritious food pay money to essentially support music stars who pour $400/bottle champagne on dance floors. People living in poor neighborhoods pay fees to support celebrities who own several $100,000 cars and who horde model-esque humans as if they were Ancient Roman emperors having orgies.
Those celebrities buy diamond jewelry (grills, pendants, rings, dog collars, watches) as if they were Marie Antoinette, Madame du Barry or any other maîtresse-en-titre in history. Meanwhile, their die-hard fans are surviving on welfare.
Hollywood actors own "cribs", mansions, permanent hotel rooms, yachts, RVs, and jets. They live scandalously, illegally and dangerously. Tax payers who rally against adulterous politicians still pay the prices to support athletes who behave the same.
Fans/clients don't seem to object to how little they donate to the less fortunate. Insanely rich celebrities pour money to bribe foreign officials so they can adopt foreign children… and then pour more money over the ensuing publicity campaigns. Yet, that money might support an entire orphanage.
Consumers salivate at images of fashion designers hosting lavish parties in French or Italian chateaux, Brazilian villas, or English castles. Yet, those designers diminish the pay compensation for their retail staff. The "after parties" and "launch parties" for fashion and music industries border on the kind that Tiberius, Caligula or Messalina had.
Modern citizens renounce debauchery of ancient kings, while they confess at religions with clergymen who molest young boys. They complain about over-paid supervisors, while they pay exorbitant prices for professional sporting tickets.
What do the admirers get, in return? Steroid-enhanced games. Bizarre Super Bowl halftime shows. Lip-synching. Cheaply-made/veneered products with high price tags. Empty-calorie "food products". Computer-generated images. Computer-enhanced acting. Smoke and mirrors. Tabloid phoniness. Living vicariously through them.
Additionally, the closer that their employees get to them, the more self-sarificed the employees' lives become, to make their lives possible. Seems a bit mediæval doesn't it? Take and take, and rarely give back.
Not to mention the publicly-flaunted escapes from legal consequences that celebrities and certain corporate chieftains enjoy. Consider Justin Beiber. Such folks don't seem to feel the weight of the law. Individuals who are in the "public eye" exponentially influence a lot of people. The public might look up to them, admire them or follow the example that they set. A disregard for the law, education, charity, or for bettering yourself is contagious. If everyone acted like they were on perpetual Spring Break at the old Playboy Mansion, or they acted like the characters in the film "Wolf of Wall Street", society would implode. Just like the fall of the Roman Empire or the Chinese Qing Empire. (In fact, ancient Chinese believed in the Mandate of Heaven: leaders were allowed to rule as long as they did so virtuously and fairly). Thus, those aforementioned individuals have a bigger responsibility to the law (not just morals), as well as the people who enforce it. The Hilton/airline débâcle is an example.
Websites like sochi.fbk.info use pinpoint accuracy to highlight Russian political corruption regarding the development of its Olympic City (and the absconded funds). In December 2011, the non-partisan group "Public Campaign" criticized General Electric for spending $84 million on lobbying, while not paying any taxes during 2008-2010, but getting $4.7 billion in tax rebates... despite making a profit of $10.4 billion, laying off 4,168 workers since 2008, and increasing executive pay by 27% to $75.9 million in 2010 for the top 5 executives.
The list goes on and on. Timeless.
What do the admirers get, in return? Steroid-enhanced games. Bizarre Super Bowl halftime shows. Lip-synching. Cheaply-made/veneered products with high price tags. Empty-calorie "food products". Computer-generated images. Computer-enhanced acting. Smoke and mirrors. Tabloid phoniness. Living vicariously through them.
Additionally, the closer that their employees get to them, the more self-sarificed the employees' lives become, to make their lives possible. Seems a bit mediæval doesn't it? Take and take, and rarely give back.
Not to mention the publicly-flaunted escapes from legal consequences that celebrities and certain corporate chieftains enjoy. Consider Justin Beiber. Such folks don't seem to feel the weight of the law. Individuals who are in the "public eye" exponentially influence a lot of people. The public might look up to them, admire them or follow the example that they set. A disregard for the law, education, charity, or for bettering yourself is contagious. If everyone acted like they were on perpetual Spring Break at the old Playboy Mansion, or they acted like the characters in the film "Wolf of Wall Street", society would implode. Just like the fall of the Roman Empire or the Chinese Qing Empire. (In fact, ancient Chinese believed in the Mandate of Heaven: leaders were allowed to rule as long as they did so virtuously and fairly). Thus, those aforementioned individuals have a bigger responsibility to the law (not just morals), as well as the people who enforce it. The Hilton/airline débâcle is an example.
Websites like sochi.fbk.info use pinpoint accuracy to highlight Russian political corruption regarding the development of its Olympic City (and the absconded funds). In December 2011, the non-partisan group "Public Campaign" criticized General Electric for spending $84 million on lobbying, while not paying any taxes during 2008-2010, but getting $4.7 billion in tax rebates... despite making a profit of $10.4 billion, laying off 4,168 workers since 2008, and increasing executive pay by 27% to $75.9 million in 2010 for the top 5 executives.
The list goes on and on. Timeless.
The double-standards seem odd. What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Don't be shy: leave your comments :)