boobooaboo wrote:
On a similar note, he chides A-Rod for not doing charity work. I've lately been wondering why some pressure athletes to do charity work, but many CEO's make a lot more money and do no charity work. Is it a "public eye" thing?
I THINK it is because CEOs are less public figures in the sense that they deliver a product or service that is something essential to the function of society (in most cases). Entertainers and sports figures don't really do anything essential, but they "take" money for doing something that no one really needs. As such as they are kind of "recipients of individual philanthropy" (for example I buy ticket to watch they play, I don't need to, and I over pay for sport watching), there seems to be some level of implied social contract between this category of rich guy/gal who don't really do anything useful to build society to put some $$$ back into doing useful things via charities.
If your company builds airplanes, or cars, or runs a railroad, or builds shipping containers, or makes CPU chips, you're kind of off the hook since what you are doing is often viewed as being productive for the function of society.
This would be what I think if Adam Smith were to have written a chapter in Wealth of Nations on athletes and entertainers and how that 'division of labour' played into the larger picture of society building, this may be it. But hey, its just me a guy on an interent message board opining about Lance shaming A-Rod (as he I think he should) :-)