I just read an online article written by Brandon Katz. The subject of the article revolves around why Disney is paying Dwayne (the Rock) Johnson $22M for the upcoming film, “Jungle Cruise”, while his co-star, Emily Blunt, is only being paid $9M.

Katz believes this is an issue of Hollywood’s problem with equal gender compensation and representation. He is just another publicity seeker screaming in the echo chamber of popular bias.

Disney thinks fans will spend more than double to see Johnson than they will to see Blunt. They are probably right. It’s not about gender. It’s about simple economics.

I don’t know anything about Katz’s personal life and, frankly it’s none of my business. While Katz could be a female, male, transgender, multi-gender, non-gender. Katz could adhere to one or more of any number of religions or none at all, it’s his concern, not mine. What I do know about Katz is that he (I’m taking a chance via assumption of gender) knows nothing about economics in a free market. I also know he is not adverse to foregoing independent thought by jumping on the bandwagon of popular bias. This seems to be a popular sport nowadays.

Katz misses the much larger point. The question Katz should be asking (and for which the answer is simple) is; “why do Hollywood stars make so much money, when other folks, who work just as hard or harder in their own endeavors, don’t?”

Hollywood stars are able to command such high pay in the same way pro-sports figures do. Their fan base shells out the bucks to see them perform.  Hollywood stars carry their own advertisement in their names. Advertising is very expensive. Katz notes that two of Johnson’s films brought in over $1B each. Blunt’s films haven’t. Still, Katz doesn’t catch the drift.

Leading roles in film aren’t the same as most other jobs in which equal pay for equal work is relevant. Talent can play a big part (but sometimes doesn’t). Sometimes lesser, lower paying parts are played by much more talented actors than the lead roles are. Again, it’s how hard the fan is willing to strangle his/her wallet to view their “idol”.

Blunt wasn’t forced to do “Jungle Cruise”. Nobody nailed her shoes to the floors of the sets. She could have said “no”. She made a deal with Disney. She agreed to do the part for an agreed price (which isn’t Katz’s business at all). Katz thinks he found himself a way to try to knock the blocks off feminist’s shoulders. It might work. People in the echo chamber can’t hear the steady whisper of reason.

If Johnson’s co-star was a male, Katz wouldn’t have written his article because there would be no way to fuel controversy…which, of course, is his goal.