Kelly Ripa Makes $20M Per Year?? Seriously!?

I do not worship the K’s. The K’s were cited as the classic example of famous and rich for nothing, an unfavorable comparison, not a compliment. Rich but without any discernible talent or benefit to society by getting rich.

Ripa reminds me more of Ringo Star. Whomever was the Beatles drummer quit. Maybe he quit to go to school or get a job. The Beatles were not rich or world famous at the time. They could have thrown in the towel but they decided to replace the drummer who quit. Who did they pick? The luckiest human being on earth. Ringo Star got picked because Paul or George or John knew him by chance. Pure, blind, kiss the ground you walk on luck.

The K’s are attractive and I have defended them as not being stupid just because they take advantage of market opportunities. Just because they earn their money in ways that most people dismiss does not make them lazy, dumb or sleazy.

Ripa and Ringo do have talent. Sure. But they are also seriously lucky. The Live show was just as good before Ripa when Kathie Lee and Regis did it and it will be just as good after Ripa leaves when someone else does it. She is entirely replaceable at any point and time a notion she might do well to remember next time she has a hissy fit and skips work because she’s mad about something. Her bosses pay her $20M a year. That seems mighty generous to me so save the diva routines Kelly. Not that she needs my advice. But she was so upset because she was not informed? Oh, poor baby. No need for hissy fits. But diva does as diva wants. She is sooooooo valuable. Give me a break. Her bosses could have called her bluff and reminded her that thousands of funny glib perky girls can be found within a week just in LA alone. So if we are talking economics, supply and demand, it seems to me she should take a minute now and then to reflect on how amazingly lucky she is to be where she is and paid what she is.

Michael got another job.

Be happy for him and move on. It isn’t like Ripa will not be involved in selecting his replacement. She will. And she still gets her paycheck. So chill Ripa. Worth $20M a year? No, not really. I question the intelligence of her employers and I curse her name every time I buy cereal or toothpaste. Yes, I am joking.

Ringo **Starr/b doesn’t really make your point. Unless we’re supposed to believe that Lennon and McCartney didn’t want the best (that’s the other guy’s name, btw - Pete Best) drummer they could get, but instead just went with the first drummer they could think of. Or that they didn’t really know how important the drummer is in a rock band. Or that they didn’t care whether they hired a good drummer or not as long as there was someone up there banging away. Really, don’t you think professional rock musicians know lots of drummers? http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/07/ringos-no-joke-he-was-a-genius-and-the-beatles-were-lucky-to-have-him/

Look, if your problem is that lots of Americans have lousy values, I’d probably agree with you. But I think you should know more about the examples you cite when you make an argument. Otherwise it’s your opinion and, as they say, everybody has one.

But they didn’t, perhaps because they understand her value to the show, the network, and the parent company. Maybe they know more about it than you do.

I am absolutely not a celebrity admirer, but Kelly Ripa is one person (Ellen might be another) who I really, really like and admire.

The Beatles didn’t do an exhaustive search for the best drummer they could find. They picked Ringo because G, J or P knew him. He was, basically, standing there eating yogurt when the Beatles tapped him. Pure. Blind. Luck. And it is great you remember Pete Best’s name. I hope whatever he did after he quit the band worked out for him! I don’t blame him for quitting either. A lot of people would have chosen school or some job over rolling the dice with the band. But, unfortunately for him, history will show he missed the ride of a lifetime. It is the right analogy. Sure, Ripa interviewed for her job but any of the other applicants could have done just as well. 95% luck, 5% talent.

And yes, once we take Ripa’s name out of it, I am railing against our values. We are a very celebrity driven culture. Ripa isn’t a bad celebrity, she is fine, but she is obscenely lucky, most of the rest of them are too, and obscenely overpaid.

Well, as the saying goes, you’re entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. From the article linked above:

Luck unquestionably plays into our lives at every level. That doesn’t mean that Kelly Ripa or Ringo Starr could have been replaced with a multitude of other lucky shmoes because they just aren’t that special. As the author of the article (who gets paid for his opinions, probably because they’re informed) says:

LOL

You mean IN YOUR OPINION the Beatles would have sounded different and PROBABLY not as wonderful. I’ll give Ringo credit for beating out a few other Liverpool lads to get the gig and even the article you cited mentioned that Starr was lucky. Maybe you can find something that is the opposite of what I said instead of agreeing with it?

We are quibbling about fractions. I say Ripa is 95% lucky and 5% talented. You think it is some other ratio. Whatever. Luck played a BIG BIG BIG part of Ripa getting her gig. We might not agree on how much which is fine.

MODERATOR’S NOTE:
I am assuming that the Pete Best/Ringo Starr conversation has come to an end, or at the very least, will be relegated to PM. The back-and-forth has no place on this thread.

@GoNoles85 You keep bringing up that luck was the BIGGEST factor in Ripa being hired or even Ringo Starr. Are these folks replaceable? Yes, of course. There are many jobs where there are a number of people equally qualified and talented to hold the position (this is akin to elite college admissions! LOL to keep it CC!). But it is not mostly luck that lands the job. The person who lands it is at the top of the heap along with some others who are a small percentage of the total heap. Also, the fact that the Beatles knew Starr before choosing him, is very common, and not about luck itself. As a performing artist, I know in my D’s field, that some very talented people get cast because the casting people (or director or writer) personally knows of their work. They may not even hold auditions for the part. I don’t think that is so much luck as that the person is very talented and is being hired on their reputation. Even when luck plays a part in these jobs, the person first has to have a lot of talent to even be considered (not 5% talent). Let’s liken it to getting into Harvard. If they accept 7% of applicants (I don’t have the current figure on hand, but that is close), sure, there are more than 7% of the applicants who are equally as qualified as the ones admitted. But maybe 20% or so are equally as qualified, not everyone in the applicant pool. So some luck went into the final decisions of winnowing that highly qualified final pile of applicants. Saying these people get hired to star in this or that show or team or some such almost all upon luck is an insult to those who have worked very hard at their craft, have talent and skills, and experiences whereby maybe those hiring already know of their work, etc. It is not mostly about luck. Even though a little luck can help at highly competitive jobs.

No, not an insult to anyone who has worked. It is stating the obvious.

Why you, and others are taking it as an insult, and then in the same breath acknowledging that luck plays a huge role in anyone’s success, especially in fields based on subjective talent, makes me think you are looking for an argument not a friendly conversation. I am not insulting you or your daughter just to be clear.

Secondly, if Ripa did something at her job that 99% of the population could not do this conversation might be far different.

Third, If you read this thread, and are willing to think beyond the Ripa part of it, you might agree with some of what I think about how our society is celebrity obsessed. Maybe more people should be offended if the executives of a company makes millions while laying people off or paying the workers peanuts.Maybe we should talk about such things more. It is legal. It is fee market economics just like Ripa’s salary but it smells to the high heavens just the same. Thus, using free market concepts doesn’t make it right.

Lastly, Ripa just did a People magazine article in which she says … “I know how lucky I am.” It isn’t that controversial really. Maybe she’s doing damage control on her diva routine from the previous week.

What I admire and respect is the millionaires and billionaires who are philantropic. I don’t have time to finish the thought, I have a class. But instead of yammering on and on about your oatmeal and sandals I kind of like the celebs who give back a chunk of all that income because it is the right thing to do. There is something obscene about the K’s going to Cuba and flaunting their wealth and good fortune when so many other people struggle to get by on a daily basis. There is something wrong with all that and it does get back to income inequality.

You’re misapprehending what she does. She doesn’t just act perky and talk. She successfully draws and holds a large audience. I’d say about 99.99999% of the population cannot do that.

Attributing success to luck has a ring of communist/socialist to it. I seriously dislike it.

I don’t like Ripa at all and do think she’s somewhat of a diva, but how do we know she doesn’t give lots back philanthropically? Just because she doesn’t make it public like others do? That’s a cop out. We have no idea what people do privately unless someone releases a statement that says, “I do not donate a large amount of money to any causes.”

One of the most interesting things I learned about Prince after his death, is how privately philanthropically he was. Probably more than the Kardashians, but his faith required that he not wear his philanthropy on his sleeve to the point he was not allowed to talk about it. People have varying reasons for not going public with their giving - we have made some nice donations to school-related extracurriculars, and one of the conditions was that it not be made public; the only person who knows we made those donations was the head of the department. If someone is going to form an opinion/judge me based on whether we are philanthropic, then I really don’t care what any of their opinions are.

I am shocked to see how many people watch Kelly and Michael.

http://www.thewrap.com/live-with-kelly-and-michael-hits-8-year-ratings-high-may-sweep/

@GoNoles85 re: post 88:

If you read my (and others’ posts), you would observe that I don’t think luck plays a HUGE role in someone’s success. I have said it plays a role, but a minimal role, and that skills, talent, experience, and even networking play a bigger part than luck.

You are the only person on this thread that thinks that 99% of the population can do Ripa’s job (or similar ones). First, you had said 95%, then 85% and now you are at 99%. :smiley: I have already posted that reasonably there are others that could do her job as effectively, but the majority of the population could not, as well as be of the same value to the network.

This is not the same as saying that luck was mostly what got her the job. Rather, she is acknowledging that she is a lucky person to have achieved success and financial rewards, and how fortunate she is and doesn’t take her good fortune lightly. That’s how I read such a comment.

You have no idea if Ms. Ripa is philanthropic or not. Same with many others.

It is not as if I am a fan of Kelly Ripa as I don’t watch TV, but my thoughts are about anyone who holds a position such as hers and in relation to your opinions about such.

“how our society is celebrity obsessed”

No @GoNoles85 this thread, as are many of your threads, are about how YOU are celebrity obsessed. You constantly remind us that you are not, but at the same time go on and on and on about these people. As if these people somehow affect your life. You let them affect your life. Time to focus on your revolution.
Your first step is simple: STOP WATCHING TV.

Saying the same thing over and over again does not give it credibility.

If 99% of the population could do what Kelly Ripa does (not only engaging in the actual work, but in doing so bringing in the huge audience, which you conveniently fail to address in your argument), the studio would hire the no name/non spring chicken/“lucky” person, save themselves a huge chunk of money, and laugh all the way to the bank. But they haven’t, and I doubt seriously that it’s due to stupidity or having nothing better to do with millions of dollars. It’s because Kelly Ripa appeals to a huge amount of people. These people watch the show and attract the attention and dollars of advertisers. She’s proven her “worth.”

You can be as irritated as you want to about this, as that’s your right. But you aren’t going to change a dang thing by your pitching and moaning. But if it makes you feel better to vent about it, go for it. You clearly haven’t convinced anyone posting here of your argument though.

Kelly Ripa’s show was the second highest rated syndicated show during the 2014-2015 season.
I doubt 99 percent of the population can do what she is doing. :wink:

99 percent of the population are not going to be able to host the second highest rated syndicated show.

I’m terrible at chitchat. I couldn’t do her job.

Maybe Ripa does give back some to the less fortunate. I agree 100% she doesn’t have to disclose it if she does. True charity comes from the heart. I am also thrilled she realizes how lucky she is to be where she is regardless of how much was luck or talent. That makes me feel good to know she gets that.

My posts on this site are about all kinds of stuff. I probably do watch too much TV but that is because I have too much free time and I am fortunate in that regard. I am more into sports, watching and playing, than celebs and their lives. I find, as I have mentioned, that certain celebs rub me the wrong way. As if they think other people are obsessed with every move they make. That seems selfish to me some how, I don’t know how to articulate it right. I will say this: I have nothing against wealth especially earned wealth.

I don’t think they should be forced to give it all away but some celebs give enough away, or at least champion charities or causes, and that works for me. That makes me relate to them better. The ratings on Ripa’s show were just as high before she got there. The ratings will be just as good when she leaves, I am guessing.

I think there are two different arguments going on here at the same time, one a more broad based discussion, one targeted to Ms. Ripa herself:

1)The idea that it is ridiculous that someone is paid 20 million a year to host a talk show, while people who perform notable service make a fraction of that. Do I understand that feeling? Yep, in these days of extreme pay, I am sympathetic to that. I think it is ridiculous that CEO’s of companies in the US are making typically 10-15 million a year in compensation, that the typical CEO is making 400, 500 times what the typical worker does, when not lot ago it used to be 30. I don’t buy the arguments that CEO’s are a rare breed, that there is a limited pool, that somehow they are now superstars, that is BS, the job is basically the same as when they were making 30 times. What did change was the manner they pay CEO’s, they make 90+ % of their income in stock grants, which has a lot of problems around it (among other things, it promotes stock price above all else in the short term, which causes all kinds of problems). Part of the income gap is explained by this, most workers do not get significant pay in the form of stock, and it is one of the reasons that CEO pay has soared while everyone else’s have flatlined or plummeted.

Likewise, the price of performers does affect ordinary people (performer meaning a musical act, a sports star), because that translates into higher prices for people, at a time when their income is not keeping up. Baseball teams are starting to see this, ticket prices and concession prices have gotten so high it is ridiculous, and now MLB and the NFL are starting to worry if their televised games are going to feature empty stadiums. Some teams have countered this by building smaller stadiums full of corporate boxes, but the problem with that is it will look like crap on tv to a stadium that seems empty. On the other hand, the owners are reaping even more huge rewards, so they are just as guilty (Goodell’s goal with the NFl is to basically double revenue from 9 billion, while making sure most of that goes to the owners). Not saying the pre free agency baseball was great, then it all went to the owners while the players were paid peanuts. However, there is an argument to be made the players are overpaid and that is hurting the fans.

2)Then we have the concept that Ms. Ripa is paid 20 million a year and doesn’t even have talent to justify any kind of salary.Leaving out the amount, I think that it is unfair to paint it all as luck, that she is just some good looking woman making faces in front of the camera who got lucky. Did luck play a role? Sure, given the competition for those kind of jobs, there might be let’s say 2000 women out there who can do the job and more importantly, are actively working towards getting those jobs (if we say 50,000 women could potentially do the job doesn’t matter, if 48k have no interest in doing it). First of all, to even get considered for the job, she had to work her way up through the minor leagues, she had to get jobs at a lower level, she had to work on her presentation and get comfortable with doing what she does, she had to hustle to find the right agent, she had to submit to auditions, and more importantly, she had to have a thick skin when rejection happened, and she was competing against a lot of people who were just as driven.There was some luck there, too, that she had chemistry with Regis (as Strahan did with her), she could have done 10,000 things right and if she didn’t click with him, that would have been the end of it.

Maybe because I am in the music world through my son, but I heard for years sneering at ‘popular’ music, how they were overnight successes, how compared to classical music or dance they were all ‘overnight wonders’, and that is a load of crap. Music acts that make it, unless they are a manufactured pop act a la Mili vanilli or the pop tarts they put out there today, have gone through a long, hard period, the musicians play in multiple bands, they struggle, they play dive bars, they hone their craft, spend a lot of time on the road, finding the right mix of people and so forth. Luck does come along, a talent agent sees them, another band hears they need a new guitarist and give them a sack of letters from perspective guitarists and they pull one out that turns out to be a gem, but the rest of it is hard work.

I don’t know the specifics of Ms. Ripa’s story, but I would bet that from some period of time before someone decided to audition her to replace Kathy Lee with Regis, I can guarantee you she had to slog through a lot to get there, it is the nature of how those things work. I think her talent is there, for the job she is doing, if it weren’t they would have hired one of the other many thousands of women out there hustling to find their dream, and the fact that she connects with the audience, worked well with her co hosts, and has lasted as long as she has tells the story. And if you don’t think that is talent, think of all the people who are otherwise talented who washed up on tv shows like that, Bryant Gumbal flamed out on the today show, Jane Pauley didn’t do so well, lot of very talented people bomb out shrug…sure, I could take Kelly’s place (thought given she is like a third my size probably not her wardrobe lol), I could kibbitz with Strahan or whoever, I could talk to the guests, laugh at stupid jokes, and would probably see the audience share go down to levels not seen since the last time they tried to air a debate in the house of representatives about pork subsidies lol.

Several people have commented what the president makes versus what celebrities and such do, best line of that was someone questioned Babe Ruth, who in 1932 was making 100,000 a year (a princely sum for the day) and how he could accept a salary more than the president, and his response was “I had a better year than he did” (back then baseball players were year to year most of the time, few had long term contracts).