Asklemmy

That's a good point. Let me rephrase then: I believe all humans are selfish by nature and so inherently are more easily prone to acting out even if it affects others negatively (intentionally). As in, there's probably a reason why the baby is crying sometimes or there's a reason the baby gets angry. Humans have to be taught to tame their demons because without empathy, everything would be an eye for an eye. By default, I don't think humans have it in them to see right from wrong unless they're taught either directly or indirectly. Something something nature and nurture something something. My 2 cents.

Putting resources into things simply because someone is willing to pay money for it is a huge problem in our world. Once we put a dent in poverty and other existential crises, then let's consider paying people millions and billions for simply entertaining people with skills and talent. Entertainment, arts and culture are certainly important, but their industrialization and overemphasis under capitalism comes at a very real cost, both to their art and entertainment itself, and to the rest of society.

Here's a related hill: I am for the abolition of the professional sports industry. Focus on local competitions, actual participation and sports that encourage socially-useful skills, like the Firemen's Olympics and its modern siblings.

The actors and athletes get paid a lot because someone is willing to pay that money, and they are willing because only a miniscule part of humankind has exceptional skills/talent.

I see. So you are saying that every CEO is paid what they are worth?

By that logic you could argue that no one should be able to get compensated for their skills in an open marketplace.

That doesn't seem to track, to me. Maybe it would be better if the huge amounts of money generated by films were shared more equitably among the cast and crew?

The actors and athletes get paid a lot because someone is willing to pay that money, and they are willing because only a miniscule part of humankind has exceptional skills/talent. Most people are average in every way.

This assumes that these people are indeed genuinely exceptional, in some sort of superhuman way. Do you think the selection process for actors and athletes is both extensive and foolproof enough that you can guarantee that all and only the best and most talented people in the world get recognition? I know for sure that, for example, there are plenty of amazing musicians out there that haven't even crossed the radar of any music agencies. Surely the same is true of actors and athletes. No, the majority of actors working today are the result of nepotism and a narrow focus on what counts as talent - are the camera workers not talented? The people making the sets? The costume designers? Etc etc.

By that logic you could argue that no one should be able to get compensated for their skills in an open marketplace.

I mean, nationalising all industries and creating minimum/maximum wages is a fairly standard left-wing policy template.