Sea Speed said:

---

Why could the studios not use AI right now and scabs to tweak the AI script to make a show? Other strikes have scabs, why could this strike not have AI/scabs step in?

---

Prophet00 said:

---

In your mind, what is the difference between them all quitting, and going on strike? We get to the same end either way. The studios decide to negotiate, or all of those people lose their jobs (like if they quit).

---

Prophet00 said:

---

Agreed, and some employers also think they can succeed without their people. They may find out the hard way, as well.

---

Prophet00 said:

---

Agreed, and some employers also think they can succeed without their people. They may find out the hard way, as well.

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

The new revenue stream depends entirely on their work, though. Key point.

---

nai06 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

The new revenue stream depends entirely on their work, though. Key point.

---

That point is not key at all, as everybody's work depends on the work of others. So if a writer takes the bus to work every day, should the bus driver demand higher fare from writers because he knows they got more money from their employers? After all, it's "mutually beneficial", right?

Of course, that's not how it works. Bus drivers offer a service to their employers to drive the bus. That price is set by supply and demand. The bus driver can try to negotiate a yearly salary or a salary per mile or whatever he thinks best suits him. But since his job is easily replaceable, he won't have much pull in that negotiation. And he sure as hell won't be able to demand a larger piece of the pie, if his employer opens a new line in another state.

Now if you are irreplaceable, then you CAN demand stuff like a percent of the streaming revenue. Like Messi did with Apple TV.

Clearly, writers are more like bus drivers than Lionel Messi.

---

You're comparing a low skill job like driving a bus to a high skill job like acting and writing. Take 100 average people and a good majority could drive a city bus reasonably well with no training and very well with a little bit of training. That doesn't hold true with acting and writing.

Writers and actors have inherent value and skill that isn't easily replicated.

---

nai06 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

The new revenue stream depends entirely on their work, though. Key point.

---

That point is not key at all, as everybody's work depends on the work of others. So if a writer takes the bus to work every day, should the bus driver demand higher fare from writers because he knows they got more money from their employers? After all, it's "mutually beneficial", right?

Of course, that's not how it works. Bus drivers offer a service to their employers to drive the bus. That price is set by supply and demand. The bus driver can try to negotiate a yearly salary or a salary per mile or whatever he thinks best suits him. But since his job is easily replaceable, he won't have much pull in that negotiation. And he sure as hell won't be able to demand a larger piece of the pie, if his employer opens a new line in another state.

Now if you are irreplaceable, then you CAN demand stuff like a percent of the streaming revenue. Like Messi did with Apple TV.

Clearly, writers are more like bus drivers than Lionel Messi.

---

You're comparing a low skill job like driving a bus to a high skill job like acting and writing. Take 100 average people and a good majority could drive a city bus reasonably well with no training and very well with a little bit of training. That doesn't hold true with acting and writing.

Writers and actors have inherent value and skill that isn't easily replicated.

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

This is the worst argument I've ever seen from you.

---

nai06 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

nai06 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

The new revenue stream depends entirely on their work, though. Key point.

---

That point is not key at all, as everybody's work depends on the work of others. So if a writer takes the bus to work every day, should the bus driver demand higher fare from writers because he knows they got more money from their employers? After all, it's "mutually beneficial", right?

Of course, that's not how it works. Bus drivers offer a service to their employers to drive the bus. That price is set by supply and demand. The bus driver can try to negotiate a yearly salary or a salary per mile or whatever he thinks best suits him. But since his job is easily replaceable, he won't have much pull in that negotiation. And he sure as hell won't be able to demand a larger piece of the pie, if his employer opens a new line in another state.

Now if you are irreplaceable, then you CAN demand stuff like a percent of the streaming revenue. Like Messi did with Apple TV.

Clearly, writers are more like bus drivers than Lionel Messi.

---

You're comparing a low skill job like driving a bus to a high skill job like acting and writing. Take 100 average people and a good majority could drive a city bus reasonably well with no training and very well with a little bit of training. That doesn't hold true with acting and writing.

Writers and actors have inherent value and skill that isn't easily replicated.

---

As evident by the fact that they are having to strike because they can "barley live" says otherwise.

---

So is it your belief that writing and acting is easy? Anyone can do it?

---

tysker said:

---

nai06 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

The new revenue stream depends entirely on their work, though. Key point.

---

That point is not key at all, as everybody's work depends on the work of others. So if a writer takes the bus to work every day, should the bus driver demand higher fare from writers because he knows they got more money from their employers? After all, it's "mutually beneficial", right?

Of course, that's not how it works. Bus drivers offer a service to their employers to drive the bus. That price is set by supply and demand. The bus driver can try to negotiate a yearly salary or a salary per mile or whatever he thinks best suits him. But since his job is easily replaceable, he won't have much pull in that negotiation. And he sure as hell won't be able to demand a larger piece of the pie, if his employer opens a new line in another state.

Now if you are irreplaceable, then you CAN demand stuff like a percent of the streaming revenue. Like Messi did with Apple TV.

Clearly, writers are more like bus drivers than Lionel Messi.

---

You're comparing a low skill job like driving a bus to a high skill job like acting and writing. Take 100 average people and a good majority could drive a city bus reasonably well with no training and very well with a little bit of training. That doesn't hold true with acting and writing.

Writers and actors have inherent value and skill that isn't easily replicated.

---

That is an incredibly dangerous argument you are making. Drivers, the number one occupation for men without college degrees, are being replaced by automated vehicles.

You telling me AI cant write 2/3rds of a CSI or L&O script?

---

aTmAg said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

This is the worst argument I've ever seen from you.

---

Your inability to make an actual retort says otherwise.

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

This is the worst argument I've ever seen from you.

---

Your inability to make an actual retort says otherwise.

---

If the writer starts bringing a friend on the bus with him every day, should he not pay bus fare if he sits on his friend's lap?

This question makes as much sense as yours.

---

nai06 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

The new revenue stream depends entirely on their work, though. Key point.

---

That point is not key at all, as everybody's work depends on the work of others. So if a writer takes the bus to work every day, should the bus driver demand higher fare from writers because he knows they got more money from their employers? After all, it's "mutually beneficial", right?

Of course, that's not how it works. Bus drivers offer a service to their employers to drive the bus. That price is set by supply and demand. The bus driver can try to negotiate a yearly salary or a salary per mile or whatever he thinks best suits him. But since his job is easily replaceable, he won't have much pull in that negotiation. And he sure as hell won't be able to demand a larger piece of the pie, if his employer opens a new line in another state.

Now if you are irreplaceable, then you CAN demand stuff like a percent of the streaming revenue. Like Messi did with Apple TV.

Clearly, writers are more like bus drivers than Lionel Messi.

---

You're comparing a low skill job like driving a bus to a high skill job like acting and writing. Take 100 average people and a good majority could drive a city bus reasonably well with no training and very well with a little bit of training. That doesn't hold true with acting and writing.

Writers and actors have inherent value and skill that isn't easily replicated.

---

TCTTS said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Mark Harris is an idiot.

Jobs are worth what they are worth. You can't make flipping burgers worth $100/hr no matter how "economically fragile" the employees are. If a fast food chain tried, then their prices would go up, and people would stop buying their burgers, and they'd eventually go out of business. If the employees went on strike, or government passed a $100/hr minimum wage, the ONLY survivable alternative for the employers is to automate those jobs and fire all the workers.

The question should be, "why are these employees economically fragile" now? People have done these jobs for over a century and have been able to live fine. It's because the cost of living has gone way the hell up. And who's fault is that? The government. These Hollywood employees should be pissed at the local, state, and federal government policies that push costs way the hell up. But they won't, because they are ignorant enough to support those policies. They don't know better.

Well reality doesn't give exceptions to people because they are ignorant. The laws of economics effects everybody just like the law of gravity. To me this is a case of karma being a *****.

---

Starting with this post, you've been doing nothing more than spouting off extremely basic economic principles that everyone and their dog already knows, and using them to rant about the government and whatever else for the umpteenth time on this board.

When, in reality, if you'd actually read the guilds' positions, or read even a fraction of the articles posted and discussion had earlier in this thread, you'd know that the primary issues are systemic in nature, and that a number of the standard pay increases were nearly settled on and where the various sides were closest. In other words, this isn't just a bunch of entitled assh*les striking because they want to get paid more per hour. If it was, agreements would have been reached weeks and months ago. Rather, the guilds are striking over bedrock issues that Big Tech has completely upended, in ways the industry won't be able to sustain going forward, should the studios go unchecked.

You think Hollywood is insufferable now? How much more insufferable will it be when only a handful of veterans and a spatter of trust fund kids are the only ones who can afford to be writers?

You think Hollywood makes sh*t now? How much more sh*t do you think will be made when most everything is then written by AI and features only digital actors?

We had a system that worked. Extremely well. One that made the rich richer and allowed everyone else a livable wage, with infinite opportunity for not only upward mobility, but for writers to actually gain valuable experience learning the trade via traditional writers' rooms and everything that comes along with them (learning to produce, cast, edit, etc on the job). Thus novices becoming veterans, and so on and so forth, ensuring the health of the industry for decades to come.

But then Big Tech came along and destroyed that, turning the writing industry, in particular, into a gig economy. And now the entire industry - even most of the traditional studios - have wised up, and realized just how catastrophic it was to chase Big Tech's nonsense.

These strikes are an attempt to correct those mistakes.

That's what this is all about.

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

Your lack of retort says otherwise.

---