| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 63246 | 2005-11-02 23:26:00 | TV Salaries | Peterj116 (6762) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 401585 | 2005-11-19 06:18:00 | If TVNZ wasn't just yet another badly run arm of our Governemnt I wouldn't have much of an opinion on the matter at all. It costs me nothing to watch TV so it shouldn't make any difference, However I think the sums involved should go back to us, not all be heaped in obscene amounts into the "celebraties" pockets. Im sure the management and the board are doing quite well out of it as well. We are talking millions and millions of dollars. Case in point, How much is Cambell paid?, Don't know, don't care. Also interesting that when you have to pay for content (SKY TV) They don't pretend you want your money to go towards big names, Your paying for content, not an old skirt talking dribble. |
Metla (12) | ||
| 401586 | 2005-11-19 07:18:00 | Right.. so basically all they are is pretty faces (and not so pretty, i.e. Holmes) who get paid ridiculous salaries for the sake of being paid ridiculous salaries. I'd understand if they were actually entertainers (or entertaining), but being paid that much PURELY for 1 hour on tv 5 days a week, thats just freaking madness. If I was able to earn $X per year then I would. My pay has nothing to do with all here and anyone else for that matter. Any business has a right to pay people what the said business thinks they are worth. I frankly do not mind what other people are paid and for what. |
Elephant (599) | ||
| 401587 | 2005-11-19 07:26:00 | I wouldn't actually mind of JC was paid big bucks. He's a damn good presenter. | Bazman (6587) | ||
| 401588 | 2005-11-19 08:08:00 | i really dont think we have a right to comment. she has a persona suited to tv and its not a job just anyone can do, and do effectively. how come we are paying theresa gattung something like 2 million, i mean anyone could do that job couldnt they....and dont think of it in money, think if it in proportion. think of losing a 1/4 of your income, youd be pretty pissed off too!. what if helen had her salary reduced to say 100k. wouldnt she be pissed off? but then again, any heshe could do her job...even jeanette fitsimmons! nz under the greens, pot would be in the produce section of the supermarket. motorways would be converted into parks with only great south road a cycle way and the beehive converted into a free range chicken farm, oh how i dont relish the day | Tux (606) | ||
| 401589 | 2005-11-19 21:57:00 | It amazes me how upset people get when they see someone doing thier job of choice well, and having a salary that reflects that. Someone more successful than thou :p ???? I'm quite happy to admit my envy, but i see no reason to bring Susan Wood down just to equalise things. |
personthingy (1670) | ||
| 401590 | 2005-11-19 23:24:00 | Missing the point, guys. It's the idea that she can't live on only 350 Grand that's annoyed me & so many others. My guess is she's got a bloody big mortgage based on $450K & is now overcommited. Boo hoo. Come & live in my rented Sth Auckland flat, Sue. :horrified |
Peterj116 (6762) | ||
| 401591 | 2005-11-20 01:29:00 | i ... nz under the greens, pot would be in the produce section of the supermarket. motorways would be converted into parks with only great south road a cycle way and the beehive converted into a free range chicken farm, oh how i dont relish the day Where do you get the idea that the party of the "ruling" governement makes very much difference? Supermarkets are already selling two major killer drugs. What's your objection to a mild one? (My local supermarket has just got a Lotto terminal; I suggested to the manager that with booze, tobacco and gambling, he might as well convert the top floor into bedrooms and really make some money. Forget the food.) |
Graham L (2) | ||
| 401592 | 2005-11-20 01:56:00 | ....when the parties main policy is to legalise dope is when it makes a hell of a difference | Tux (606) | ||
| 401593 | 2005-11-20 02:04:00 | It would be sensible, which is why no government is likely to do it, even a Green one. If there's a health problem, deal with it as a health problem. Illegality creates a high value for something which costs very little to produce. High value/illegal means there's a serious criminal problem created. The amounts of money involved causes corruption -- including in the Police. |
Graham L (2) | ||
| 401594 | 2005-11-20 02:20:00 | hahaha, they only tried to legalise it as a medical soloution because there was no other way they could. do you really think that modern medicine cant replace a drug that its only wonder is a high thc content, its like saying the only way i can go fishing is on a launch when you can clearly do it in a dinghy, its all about choice and perception. plus, really, how many people actually smoke pot for medicinal purposes, im pretty damn sure its just an excuse to get "high" as such. lol, druggies, sad bastards. | Tux (606) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | |||||