4 ms·

That’s a deal with him and his production company, Happy Madison. He’s not personally pocketing $250 million, and a portion of that will go toward paying actors

That’s a deal with him and his production company, Happy Madison. He’s not personally pocketing $250 million, and a portion of that will go toward paying actors, crew, and other staff. If any of the internet anecdotes are to be believed, he takes care of his employees.

thepasswordis 3y ago
How much money should Adam Sandler make?
- esotericimpl 3y ago
  [dead]
- tmpz22 3y ago
  Kylian Mbappe was recently offered $776 MILLION in salary for a 1-year deal as the highest paid soccer (football) player [1]. Jaylen Brown will be making $304 MILLION over 5 years for the Boston Celtics as the highest paid NBA player. Wealth inequality from predominantly ads-based (tv-deals) business models is a cancer to our society. [1]: https://frontofficesports.com/saudi-arabia-reportedly-offers-1-1-billion-for-kylian-mbappe/ https://frontofficesports.com/saudi-arabia-reportedly-offers...
  - mucle6 3y ago
    The economy is not zero sum, other people making large sums of money shouldn't make you upset. Those athletes are paid that much because the fans (customers) value them that much.
    - ajkjk 3y ago
      > other people making large sums of money shouldn't make you upset. Why not? It clearly shows that there is a screw loose. Or put differently: it reminds us of the fundamental truth that in society, people without power get as little as is available to keep them alive and sometimes less, and people with power (in this case, the power of a good negotiating position) get as much as is available to pay them. The world doesn't _have_ to work this way. There is no reason we need to be okay with it. Poorer people could be paid more and rich people paid less and things would basically work the same way.
      - wiseowise 3y ago
        > Why not? Because it's not productive. Yell and shake your fist at cloud all you want, it's not going to change.
        ajkjk 3y ago
        Well yeah not with that attitude.
      - mucle6 3y ago
        :s/power/ability to create value/ Anyone who can create returns greater than their cost of capital creates value. A screw isn't loose. If you can figure out how to add value to the world, then you get endless riches. > "People without power get as little as is available to keep them alive" Consider using less hyperbole in your worldview. Today has the highest living standards of any time.
        jstarfish 3y ago
        > Consider using less hyperbole in your worldview. Today has the highest living standards of any time. And yet the suicide rate keeps ticking upward. All is not well in Paradise Earth.
        ajkjk 3y ago
        ? That wasn't hyperbole. The average living standards are high and the low end isn't, as it has always been. The proportions of people in the low end vs middle are different than they have been, because the economy has advanced, but it's the same story. It doesn't change the fact that wealth inequality doesn't need to be this unequal. You are choosing that system, over another which is less unequal, when you defend it. I can't imagine why! It's the same system, but better, with happier people, and the only difference is the rules of the game--which we get to choose.
        Dig1t 3y ago
        It’s okay to have inequality as long as the floor is sufficiently high. We literally have an obesity problem among America’s poorest people. Which speaks to having a decently high standard compared to the past, where being poor literally meant you starved to death. Similarly, hospitals will never turn you away in this country. Meaning you can show up at the emergency room and have life saving surgery and the worst case is you’ll get a bill in the mail, instead of dying in the streets (there are countries where this still happens). I’m not saying it’s perfect, I think the biggest problem has to do with mentally ill and drug addicted homeless, who don’t have the mental capacity to take care of themselves. But I do agree with GP that the conversation has more nuance.
    - wiseowise 3y ago
      > The economy is not zero sum, other people making large sums of money shouldn't make you upset. Apparently it upsets author of the article that AI PM makes 900k.
    - philipov 3y ago
      The economy is not zero sum, but power is, and money is power.
  - lbotos 3y ago
    > Wealth inequality from predominantly ads-based (tv-deals) business models is a cancer to our society. How do you solve this? People want to pay attention, advertisers want a piece. They have $enough_profit_to_pay_for_ads, so they do.
    - _5uxp 3y ago
      U don't and masses are stupid. They elect thiefs, all over the world.
    - salawat 3y ago
      People specifically want to pay attention to what they care about. Advertisers want to swap what they care about with their ads. In fact, last time I watched television, programming was more ad than TV. To hell with advertisers.
    - flir 3y ago
      In the same way you pump oil out of the sump where it accumulates, and back into the engine where it can enable useful work, you tax money out of rich, economically active people where it accumulates and inject it back into poor people, where it enables useful work. The poor will spend it, and it will accumulate with the rich again soon enough, but it enables economic activity along the way.
  - swarnie 3y ago
    Is sports white-washing by a tyrannical oil state the comparison we want to make here? Could lead to some awkward self reflection for Hollywood and the nation as a whole.
  - bilekas 3y ago
    While there is inequality in the world financially it's a bit off topic. Mbape or any footballer for that matter isn't being replaced by the close to free option by clubs. The actors union even offered a legitimate compromise where their likeness could be used once royalties are paid. This is completely fair and mature approach. Netflix and co get to pump out more content faster and cheaper while the portraits of actors are paying the owner of that likeness.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - eska 3y ago
    While that’s obviously high, an athlete’s career is much shorter than an actor’s or any other worker’s.
- dv_dt 3y ago
  This a question with maybe the wrong focus, as Adam Sandler has enough negotiating leverage as an actor and a producer himself to get a deal. In the context of the Actors and Writers strike, it the discussion should be what is the default deal that's fair for people who will dedicate a significant amount of their working time to the industry.
- boeingUH60 3y ago
  As much as someone is willing to pay him, I guess..

thepasswordis 3y ago

How much money should Adam Sandler make?

esotericimpl 3y ago
[dead]
tmpz22 3y ago
Kylian Mbappe was recently offered $776 MILLION in salary for a 1-year deal as the highest paid soccer (football) player [1]. Jaylen Brown will be making $304 MILLION over 5 years for the Boston Celtics as the highest paid NBA player. Wealth inequality from predominantly ads-based (tv-deals) business models is a cancer to our society. [1]: https://frontofficesports.com/saudi-arabia-reportedly-offers-1-1-billion-for-kylian-mbappe/ https://frontofficesports.com/saudi-arabia-reportedly-offers...
- mucle6 3y ago
  The economy is not zero sum, other people making large sums of money shouldn't make you upset. Those athletes are paid that much because the fans (customers) value them that much.
  - ajkjk 3y ago
    > other people making large sums of money shouldn't make you upset. Why not? It clearly shows that there is a screw loose. Or put differently: it reminds us of the fundamental truth that in society, people without power get as little as is available to keep them alive and sometimes less, and people with power (in this case, the power of a good negotiating position) get as much as is available to pay them. The world doesn't _have_ to work this way. There is no reason we need to be okay with it. Poorer people could be paid more and rich people paid less and things would basically work the same way.
    - wiseowise 3y ago
      > Why not? Because it's not productive. Yell and shake your fist at cloud all you want, it's not going to change.
      - ajkjk 3y ago
        Well yeah not with that attitude.
    - mucle6 3y ago
      :s/power/ability to create value/ Anyone who can create returns greater than their cost of capital creates value. A screw isn't loose. If you can figure out how to add value to the world, then you get endless riches. > "People without power get as little as is available to keep them alive" Consider using less hyperbole in your worldview. Today has the highest living standards of any time.
      - jstarfish 3y ago
        > Consider using less hyperbole in your worldview. Today has the highest living standards of any time. And yet the suicide rate keeps ticking upward. All is not well in Paradise Earth.
      - ajkjk 3y ago
        ? That wasn't hyperbole. The average living standards are high and the low end isn't, as it has always been. The proportions of people in the low end vs middle are different than they have been, because the economy has advanced, but it's the same story. It doesn't change the fact that wealth inequality doesn't need to be this unequal. You are choosing that system, over another which is less unequal, when you defend it. I can't imagine why! It's the same system, but better, with happier people, and the only difference is the rules of the game--which we get to choose.
        Dig1t 3y ago
        It’s okay to have inequality as long as the floor is sufficiently high. We literally have an obesity problem among America’s poorest people. Which speaks to having a decently high standard compared to the past, where being poor literally meant you starved to death. Similarly, hospitals will never turn you away in this country. Meaning you can show up at the emergency room and have life saving surgery and the worst case is you’ll get a bill in the mail, instead of dying in the streets (there are countries where this still happens). I’m not saying it’s perfect, I think the biggest problem has to do with mentally ill and drug addicted homeless, who don’t have the mental capacity to take care of themselves. But I do agree with GP that the conversation has more nuance.
  - wiseowise 3y ago
    > The economy is not zero sum, other people making large sums of money shouldn't make you upset. Apparently it upsets author of the article that AI PM makes 900k.
  - philipov 3y ago
    The economy is not zero sum, but power is, and money is power.
- lbotos 3y ago
  > Wealth inequality from predominantly ads-based (tv-deals) business models is a cancer to our society. How do you solve this? People want to pay attention, advertisers want a piece. They have $enough_profit_to_pay_for_ads, so they do.
  - _5uxp 3y ago
    U don't and masses are stupid. They elect thiefs, all over the world.
  - salawat 3y ago
    People specifically want to pay attention to what they care about. Advertisers want to swap what they care about with their ads. In fact, last time I watched television, programming was more ad than TV. To hell with advertisers.
  - flir 3y ago
    In the same way you pump oil out of the sump where it accumulates, and back into the engine where it can enable useful work, you tax money out of rich, economically active people where it accumulates and inject it back into poor people, where it enables useful work. The poor will spend it, and it will accumulate with the rich again soon enough, but it enables economic activity along the way.
- swarnie 3y ago
  Is sports white-washing by a tyrannical oil state the comparison we want to make here? Could lead to some awkward self reflection for Hollywood and the nation as a whole.
- bilekas 3y ago
  While there is inequality in the world financially it's a bit off topic. Mbape or any footballer for that matter isn't being replaced by the close to free option by clubs. The actors union even offered a legitimate compromise where their likeness could be used once royalties are paid. This is completely fair and mature approach. Netflix and co get to pump out more content faster and cheaper while the portraits of actors are paying the owner of that likeness.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- eska 3y ago
  While that’s obviously high, an athlete’s career is much shorter than an actor’s or any other worker’s.
dv_dt 3y ago
This a question with maybe the wrong focus, as Adam Sandler has enough negotiating leverage as an actor and a producer himself to get a deal. In the context of the Actors and Writers strike, it the discussion should be what is the default deal that's fair for people who will dedicate a significant amount of their working time to the industry.
boeingUH60 3y ago
As much as someone is willing to pay him, I guess..