Skip to main content

I'm as much eat the rich as the next girl, but I do get tired people applying it casually to entertainers or artists...

It's not a score thing, it's not hit this number in net worth and suddenly you're on the dinner plat. It's based on the fact specifically on the abuses it takes to get there, entertainers being one of the few exceptions on multiple fronts.

Here's the thing about entertainers:
* they're typically not the ones responsible for paying the workers, outside of a small few, actors don't pay the film crew (they're paid by the same people as the crew), and singers/musicians don't pay the majority of the crew (they're paid for by the venue, those they do pay for are probably going to be better compensated for their expertise). The stories of actors donating parts of their salary to crew... that's legit charity as it's not their responsibilities (that responsibility falls on the producers and studio execs).
* they have wildly inflated net worth, because net worth of a performer is typically about how much money they can make, but not necessarily how much money they get.
* they have inconsistent pay
* often those numbers hide other expenses, if they have their own staff or equipment or resources or such... those costs come after the number you're being quoted typically (ie. a musician makes $500 mil on the tour? Their personal crew, tour bus, etc are all paid out from that). This is because a performer is an instance of them being their own business which means they have astronomical expenses under their name.

Of course this doesn't mean they can't be awful, it's not uncommon for them to start their own side businesses (considered a good plan because their stardom likely won't last forever), and it's in those businesses where they often become "The Rich".


in reply to Shiri Bailem

Also, confirmation bias makes us think all artists in a given category are as well off as the richest outlier—Taylor Swift is a typical musician, J. K. Rowling is a typical fantasy author, and so on. Whereas: in fact? They won the lottery, and the rest of us—even relatively well-known names—are several digits elss well off (we're comfortable but we're not millionaires never mind billionaires).
in reply to Charlie Stross

@Charlie Stross This was mostly brought about by seeing posts around Taylor Swift because her estimated net worth crossed a billion recently... and while I'm vaguely sure there's plenty to call her out on (honestly I pay no attention at all to her), just crossing the net worth threshold as an artist is not a valid cause (now, if you comment about her real estate business on the side... but that's a drop in the bucket by comparison)
in reply to Shiri Bailem

In any case, those "net worth" troll-bait websites are worthless. I got some flak from an idiot on mastodon a couple of months back who had seen my name on one and decided I was a millionaire. I looked it up and it was something like a 500% to 1000% over-estimate. (They pull those figures out of their ass: it's simple clickbait.)
in reply to Charlie Stross

@Charlie Stross it's entirely guesswork I agree, but I do think it's also a combination of people not knowing what net worth even is...

Like for you they'd be talking thinks like your "fair market value" if you were to sell off all rights to the laundry files.

Net worth includes a lot of ridiculous number... for the typical person it includes the estimated amounts they can get if they were to sell their car, their home, every single possession of any remote worth to them...

The "net" part of it is what the number is minus debts.

The guesswork of course is just them guessing what you could theoretically sell your whole life for and a guess of how much you owe in debts.

A lot of people think it means income or how much money someone has on hand.