beanbean said:

---

WOW are we getting ready to see the first occupation be lost to AI?

---

This is definitely the last one of these the writer's guild is gonna get. The amount of just horrible writing that they're expecting to get paid for is obscene, and they should get paid for it because the networks/services use it, but we're not far off from AI being able to replicate the absolute trash that gets made these days.

It's not all trash, but a whole hell of a lot of it is.

People *****ing about c-suite pay usually have no clue, and this thread proves no exception. Everyone says "if the execs would cut their salaries we could afford X" without realizing there are at least 400 other people who lined up behind them who also want a cut.

The reality is c-suite compensation is both completely out of hand, but also a completely unrelated issue to almost every single context it is raised in.

As a publicly traded company, you have to go out and hire a good CEO because otherwise you lose investor confidence. A good executive is going to be able to leverage their talents in a negotiation - much like a union or any other party to a negotiation would. Because we want transparency on c-suite pay, we have demanded that public companies disclose what they are paying their execs. This has lead to a situation where the execs have full knowledge of what their peers are being paid, allowing them to negotiate from a stronger position and extract more concessions. Add in the enormous consequences that are on the line when you are talking companies with multi billion or trillion dollar market caps and it's easy to see why c-suite compensation has inflated to the degree that it has.

A second important point is that the vast majority of the "excessive" compensation typically involves grants of stock. A CEO taking a stock grant in his compensation package is essentially betting on himself. If he does a good job, the stock value goes up and his compensation increases - and now may reach levels that appear absurd to outsiders. You can argue that these bonuses are improperly measured or are improperly awarded or are simply too large - and I wouldn't necessarily disagree. But any attempt to modify these plans gets back to the first problem stated.

Let's say Microsoft went out and hired a new CEO and announced that they would only be getting a salary of 250k yearly, plus a proportional annual bonus. No stock incentive grants or anything else is included that might cause the compensation value to increase after it has been awarded. in such a situation, MSFT would probably lose 15% off their share value overnight as investors withdrew their money due to the risk of appointing such an unproven candidate. It's a prisoner's dilemma at this point and everyone in the market plays follow the leader.

(And the previous hypothetical presumes that MSFT would even be able to find a qualified individual willing to take the job at that pay level - even the most unproven candidate would be able to leverage the executive pay of the company's competitors to negotiate a higher compensation package than the one described)

Without direct government regulation (never going to happen with this Republican Party), don't get your hopes up for any significant changes in c-suite pay for the near future. Best bet for change would probably be sweeping regulations passed in the EU that hinged continued access to the eurozone on corporate compliance and phased in limits on the amount and form of c-suite compensation.

TL;DR: yes, c-suite execs are overpaid; no, paying them less wouldn't have any appreciable impact on the writers strike. Oh, and don't expect c-suite pay to get reigned in anytime soon.



Good luck to the writers in their strike - I wish them success. I just feel like the c-suite talk distracts from the actual issue at hand. Reducing c-suite pay would not mean that writers get compensated any more. I get that CEO pay is an easily digestible soundbite and an easy way to generate disdain for the current economic system. But the way it is discussed never lends itself to rational understanding of the root problem or to the generation of solutions - it only generates more anger. Labor in general has gotten the short end of the stick over the past 15 or so years with the vast majority of productivity increases being siphoned off by investors rather than being reinvested into the workforce - the writers here are no exception.

At the risk of sounding like an uneducated dummy, because I am, can anyone explain what is so sacred about the writer's room?

Also residuals sounds like a bad way to get paid. Sure they are great if your show is a hit and runs for years, but if not, you aren't getting paid. I think I'd want more money upfront then the risk of no to little residuals. And basing your residuals on subscriber count for the streaming service is just dumb for everyone.

beanbean said:

---

WOW are we getting ready to see the first occupation be lost to AI?

---

Frankly, the writers need to be pushing the AI limitations much harder, especially since they're already on strike anyway.

It sounds like the AI protection is more of a tertiary issue for the writers, but it should be front and center because it's a game changer.

There are plenty of careers which AI is going to have a major impact on, and the ability of those professions to hang on anywhere close to current participation levels depends on either their lobbying power (professionals in fields like law, finance, and medicine) or their union as in this case.

If I'm in the writer's guild I ram thru more stringent protections from AI now or run the risk of having a big chunk of those jobs eliminated by the time the deal comes up again a few years from now. The focus on compensation or working conditions is a short-term focus when they should be prioritizing the existential threat to their profession.

Quad Dog said:

---

At the risk of sounding like an uneducated dummy, because I am, can anyone explain what is so sacred about the writer's room?

Also residuals sounds like a bad way to get paid. Sure they are great if your show is a hit and runs for years, but if not, you aren't getting paid. I think I'd want more money upfront then the risk of no to little residuals. And basing your residuals on subscriber count for the streaming service is just dumb for everyone.

---

A friend of mine went 6x Platinum in 1983 on an album that I guarantee you've banged your head to.

He drove his Ferrari down to San Diego last weekend and still has a Cannonball Run era Lamborghini Countach in his garage.

Residuals aren't too bad if you have a massive hit.

Imagine still living off of the success you had 40 years ago.

I agree, living on residuals of a hit sounds awesome and is every writers dream. But how many have ever made it that big?
Just sounds like a waitress hoping for a night of good tippers to make up for a week of lousy tippers so she can pay rent. When she should be paid a living wage in the first place and not rely on the whim of tippers.

Quote:

---

can anyone explain what is so sacred about the writer's room?

---

Not sure why it's sacred, but I do figure that if they had a writer's room for the Star Wars sequels, those movies might have been far better than they were, at least in cohesiveness of the story they tried to tell.

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

Quote:

---

can anyone explain what is so sacred about the writer's room?

---

Not sure why it's sacred, but I do figure that if they had a writer's room for the Star Wars sequels, those movies might have been far better than they were, at least in cohesiveness of the story they tried to tell.

---

I think the duration of employment requirements solves that problem better and sounds way more reasonable.

I don't think pushing for an arbitrary number of people in a writer's room makes sense.

And Star Wars sequels had whole other problems that started with executive overreach and lack of a long term plan.

DubFalls said:

---

Make a sequel to Dr Horrible

---

I approve.

Quad Dog said:

---

I agree, living on residuals of a hit sounds awesome and is every writers dream. But how many have ever made it that big?
Just sounds like a waitress hoping for a night of good tippers to make up for a week of lousy tippers so she can pay rent. When she should be paid a living wage in the first place and not rely on the whim of tippers.

---

If the dream weren't available, nobody would be busting their butt to pursue it.

I see Hollywood littered with the crushed dreamers who came out here 5, 10, 20 years ago because they were the most talented person they knew back home but, once they're surrounded by people who are more talented or work harder, they just don't know when to quit and get a regular job.

One of my best friends is the premier cover singer for a legendary band. But, since he didn't write the music, he doesn't get any residuals and still has to sing for his supper.

With the screenwriters, if they were all paid a so called "living wage", we'd get work that is the same quality as our public school teachers. Which arguably might be better than what we're getting today.

You'd never wind up with Seinfeld or Friends, or even Beverly Hills 90210.

Every show would be reality "unscripted" or just more remakes of 1970s and 1980s TV shows. Like - we're going to remake Hawaii Five-0 a third time but this time McGarrett will be a Black Lesbian and Dan Williams will be a Latino who knows Karate or whatever.

HollywoodBQ said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

At the risk of sounding like an uneducated dummy, because I am, can anyone explain what is so sacred about the writer's room?

Also residuals sounds like a bad way to get paid. Sure they are great if your show is a hit and runs for years, but if not, you aren't getting paid. I think I'd want more money upfront then the risk of no to little residuals. And basing your residuals on subscriber count for the streaming service is just dumb for everyone.

---

A friend of mine went 6x Platinum in 1983 on an album that I guarantee you've banged your head to.

He drove his Ferrari down to San Diego last weekend and still has a Cannonball Run era Lamborghini Countach in his garage.

Residuals aren't too bad if you have a massive hit.

Imagine still living off of the success you had 40 years ago.

---

Oh I can.

Strangest thing to me about all this is studios wanting to keep streaming data secret.

I'm guessing the numbers are big enough that it would make the pay disparity even more ridiculous between cable tv and streaming.

Quad Dog said:

---

At the risk of sounding like an uneducated dummy, because I am, can anyone explain what is so sacred about the writer's room?

---

not sure but apparently they defer to K.E.V.I.N.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

Strangest thing to me about all this is studios wanting to keep streaming data secret.

I'm guessing the numbers are big enough that it would make the pay disparity even more ridiculous between cable tv and streaming.

---

Or they're small enough where they don't want advertisers to know. It's one thing to pitch "we have 190 million subscribers" to advertisers and a completely different thing than saying "we have 190 million subscribers and only 340 people watched your show last week."

Hollywood writers are the only thing keeping millions of americans from suicide but they shouldn’t be paid more is the consummate twitter blue take https://t.co/N2RXYY34Nv

— eve6 (@Eve6) May 2, 2023

last time there was a writers strike Jesse Plemons killed a guy. and he’ll do it again pic.twitter.com/esjbbscj0n

— dan solomon 🙈 (@dansolomon) May 2, 2023

I hope this strike continues forever.

TCTTS said:

---

last time there was a writers strike Jesse Plemons killed a guy. and he’ll do it again pic.twitter.com/esjbbscj0n

— dan solomon 🙈 (@dansolomon) May 2, 2023

---

Yes

Do... do studio executives really wanna play the "Whose job can be replaced with AI?" game?

— Aaron Fullerton (@AaronFullerton) May 2, 2023