jeffk said:

---

Rough day for union-haters.

---

I have no idea what the terms are and don't care, but nobody can avoid the effects of economics. Either the studios or the writers/actors (or both) would have been screwed over. Either way is fine with me.

After the last strike at my employer, a sanitation worker was walking around our office laughing about how he got everything he wanted while us chump engineers were working the whole time. Yet now he's gone as his entire group was replaced by a contract company. His only job skills in life as a 50 year old man was taking out the trash and scrubbing urinals. I bet he's not laughing so hard now. Economics always wins.

aTmAg said:

---

jeffk said:

---

Rough day for union-haters.

---

I have no idea what the terms are and don't care, but nobody can avoid the effects of economics. Either the studios or the writers/actors (or both) would have been screwed over. Either way is fine with me.

After the last strike at my employer, a sanitation worker was walking around our office laughing about how he got everything he wanted while us chump engineers were working the whole time. Yet now he's gone as his entire group was replaced by a contract company. His only job skills in life as a 50 year old man was taking out the trash and scrubbing urinals. I bet he's not laughing so hard now. Economics always wins.

---

Scene ends with a freeze-frame of aTmAg and "economics" high-fiving while the fired janitor carries his box of personal effects out of the software design company office.

aTmAg said:

---

nai06 said:

---

Henry Ford isn't responsible for the 5 day work week nor the 8 hour work day.

By the time Ford instituted his policy in 1926 there were at least 70 other major manufacturers with a 5 day work week already. The Jewish Sabbath Alliance of America was lobbying for a 5 day work week for both Christians and Jews as early as 1910.

Has far as a 8 hour day goes, hell workers and the labor movement have been pushing for that since the civil war. See the Haymarket Square Riot of 1885.

---

I didn't mean to imply Ford invented the 5 day work week. My point is that he (and others) did it long before unions were involved. The notion that if it wasn't for unions, we would all be working 7 day weeks for 12 hours is simply false. Unions try to take credit for that to justify themselves. It's a load of crap. Competition drove employers to do it as trained workers became harder to replace. It's the free market at work.

Quote:

---

Writers and actors have decided that the current wages they make are no longer enough. The going rate is no longer enough to secure the services of a writer or actor. Studios can't pay X because no one is willing to work for that amount. So the equilibrium is shifting.

---

That's not the way it works. Why are the current wages no longer enough? It's not because the value of their work has increased (the demand for their work has not increased nor has the supply of writers gone down). It's because the cost of living in California has gone up due to liberal policies (which they ironically support in droves). The equilibrium price is the same, the unions simply want MORE than the equilibrium price. If they didn't, then there would be no reason for a union at all.

---

I keep coming back to this last part.


Not trying not be disrespectful, but this is a very simplistic view of economics. It's the kind of thing that is taught in regular HS econ (I should know, I used to teach it). In actual practice, it's never as simple as the textbook.

In this case, the supply of writers has decreased. The number of writers willing to take what the studio was offering went down. In other words, the value of their labor went up so the equilibrium shifts up as well.

It feels like you are looking at this situation strictly from the lens of producers (studios). They alone don't set the value of labor.

Spot on. This situation is different than what you are seeing in the auto strike.

nai06 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

nai06 said:

---

Henry Ford isn't responsible for the 5 day work week nor the 8 hour work day.

By the time Ford instituted his policy in 1926 there were at least 70 other major manufacturers with a 5 day work week already. The Jewish Sabbath Alliance of America was lobbying for a 5 day work week for both Christians and Jews as early as 1910.

Has far as a 8 hour day goes, hell workers and the labor movement have been pushing for that since the civil war. See the Haymarket Square Riot of 1885.

---

I didn't mean to imply Ford invented the 5 day work week. My point is that he (and others) did it long before unions were involved. The notion that if it wasn't for unions, we would all be working 7 day weeks for 12 hours is simply false. Unions try to take credit for that to justify themselves. It's a load of crap. Competition drove employers to do it as trained workers became harder to replace. It's the free market at work.

Quote:

---

Writers and actors have decided that the current wages they make are no longer enough. The going rate is no longer enough to secure the services of a writer or actor. Studios can't pay X because no one is willing to work for that amount. So the equilibrium is shifting.

---

That's not the way it works. Why are the current wages no longer enough? It's not because the value of their work has increased (the demand for their work has not increased nor has the supply of writers gone down). It's because the cost of living in California has gone up due to liberal policies (which they ironically support in droves). The equilibrium price is the same, the unions simply want MORE than the equilibrium price. If they didn't, then there would be no reason for a union at all.

---

I keep coming back to this last part.


Not trying not be disrespectful, but this is a very simplistic view of economics. It's the kind of thing that is taught in regular HS econ (I should know, I used to teach it). In actual practice, it's never as simple as the textbook.

---

You being a former HS econ teacher explains a lot. My HS econ teacher didn't have a clue either.

Your view isn't more "nuanced", it's simply wrong. If the writers were really worth what the unions demanded, then the studios wouldn't have willingly endured a 5 month strike over it. They would have simply paid it and moved on.

Quote:

---

In this case, the supply of writers has decreased. The number of writers willing to take what the studio was offering went down. In other words, the value of their labor went up so the equilibrium shifts up as well.

---

Talk about simplistic view. There are fewer secretaries today than 10 years ago. That doesn't mean the remaining ones have become more valuable and are earning more. Again.. equilibrium price for writers was clearly below what the unions demanded. The reason some writers were no longer willing to take what the studio offered was because their value was not worth the ridiculously high cost of living in California. Not because they were more valuable and therefore able to go write scripts for more money elsewhere. They simply got out of the business altogether, like many secretaries.

Quote:

---

It feels like you are looking at this situation strictly from the lens of producers (studios). They alone don't set the value of labor.

---

Where did I say that? I said EQUILIBRIUM PRICE which is set by both sides. If I thought the studios alone set the value, then I think the salaries should be $0. If the writers alone set it, it would be a gazillion dollars.

Dang. Just a few minutes too late with my "in before aTmAg throws out his bias against teachers" post.

jeffk said:

---

Dang. Just a few minutes too late with my "in before aTmAg throws out his bias against teachers" post.

---

why do we do this to ourselves?

aTmAg said:

---

nai06 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

nai06 said:

---

Henry Ford isn't responsible for the 5 day work week nor the 8 hour work day.

By the time Ford instituted his policy in 1926 there were at least 70 other major manufacturers with a 5 day work week already. The Jewish Sabbath Alliance of America was lobbying for a 5 day work week for both Christians and Jews as early as 1910.

Has far as a 8 hour day goes, hell workers and the labor movement have been pushing for that since the civil war. See the Haymarket Square Riot of 1885.

---

I didn't mean to imply Ford invented the 5 day work week. My point is that he (and others) did it long before unions were involved. The notion that if it wasn't for unions, we would all be working 7 day weeks for 12 hours is simply false. Unions try to take credit for that to justify themselves. It's a load of crap. Competition drove employers to do it as trained workers became harder to replace. It's the free market at work.

Quote:

---

Writers and actors have decided that the current wages they make are no longer enough. The going rate is no longer enough to secure the services of a writer or actor. Studios can't pay X because no one is willing to work for that amount. So the equilibrium is shifting.

---

That's not the way it works. Why are the current wages no longer enough? It's not because the value of their work has increased (the demand for their work has not increased nor has the supply of writers gone down). It's because the cost of living in California has gone up due to liberal policies (which they ironically support in droves). The equilibrium price is the same, the unions simply want MORE than the equilibrium price. If they didn't, then there would be no reason for a union at all.

---

I keep coming back to this last part.


Not trying not be disrespectful, but this is a very simplistic view of economics. It's the kind of thing that is taught in regular HS econ (I should know, I used to teach it). In actual practice, it's never as simple as the textbook.

---

You being a former HS econ teacher explains a lot. My HS econ teacher didn't have a clue either.

Your view isn't more "nuanced", it's simply wrong. If the writers were really worth what the unions demanded, then the studios wouldn't have willingly endured a 5 month strike over it. They would have simply paid it and moved on.

Quote:

---

In this case, the supply of writers has decreased. The number of writers willing to take what the studio was offering went down. In other words, the value of their labor went up so the equilibrium shifts up as well.

---

Talk about simplistic view. There are fewer secretaries today than 10 years ago. That doesn't mean the remaining ones have become more valuable and are earning more. Again.. equilibrium price for writers was clearly below what the unions demanded. The reason some writers were no longer willing to take what the studio offered was because their value was not worth the ridiculously high cost of living in California. Not because they were more valuable and therefore able to go write scripts for more money elsewhere. They simply got out of the business altogether, like many secretaries.

Quote:

---

It feels like you are looking at this situation strictly from the lens of producers (studios). They alone don't set the value of labor.

---

Where did I say that? I said EQUILIBRIUM PRICE which is set by both sides. If I thought the studios alone set the value, then I think the salaries should be $0. If the writers alone set it, it would be a gazillion dollars.

---

I'm curious what your econ credentials are. You seem to be pretty confident in your views.

I am by no means an economist. All I've done is teach regular high school econ, AP Microeconomics, and AP Macroeconomics.

I am both legitimately amazed and baffled that this fight is still going on, on an entertainment board.
Can't speak for everyone here, but this this is the very crap that many of us try to avoid when seeking out entertainment or discussions about it.

He talks with authority on literally every subject under the sun, portraying himself as an expert.

In reality, I imagine him furiously googling every day to gain a surface-level knowledge on a topic, so he can run to the EB and get in e-fights with the "libs" about it.

Pretty sure this is either his primary source of entertainment, what he does at work every day, or both.

It's a political argument now.and it's personal seemingly.
But hey, I didn't demand anyone stops, just that I am baffled by it.
And I click on the thread looking for actual updates on the terms of the deal, which seems to have become secondary to the prolonged fight currently happening.

Don't forget about all his security clearances

nai06 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

nai06 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

nai06 said:

---

Henry Ford isn't responsible for the 5 day work week nor the 8 hour work day.

By the time Ford instituted his policy in 1926 there were at least 70 other major manufacturers with a 5 day work week already. The Jewish Sabbath Alliance of America was lobbying for a 5 day work week for both Christians and Jews as early as 1910.

Has far as a 8 hour day goes, hell workers and the labor movement have been pushing for that since the civil war. See the Haymarket Square Riot of 1885.

---

I didn't mean to imply Ford invented the 5 day work week. My point is that he (and others) did it long before unions were involved. The notion that if it wasn't for unions, we would all be working 7 day weeks for 12 hours is simply false. Unions try to take credit for that to justify themselves. It's a load of crap. Competition drove employers to do it as trained workers became harder to replace. It's the free market at work.

Quote:

---

Writers and actors have decided that the current wages they make are no longer enough. The going rate is no longer enough to secure the services of a writer or actor. Studios can't pay X because no one is willing to work for that amount. So the equilibrium is shifting.

---

That's not the way it works. Why are the current wages no longer enough? It's not because the value of their work has increased (the demand for their work has not increased nor has the supply of writers gone down). It's because the cost of living in California has gone up due to liberal policies (which they ironically support in droves). The equilibrium price is the same, the unions simply want MORE than the equilibrium price. If they didn't, then there would be no reason for a union at all.

---

I keep coming back to this last part.


Not trying not be disrespectful, but this is a very simplistic view of economics. It's the kind of thing that is taught in regular HS econ (I should know, I used to teach it). In actual practice, it's never as simple as the textbook.

---

You being a former HS econ teacher explains a lot. My HS econ teacher didn't have a clue either.

Your view isn't more "nuanced", it's simply wrong. If the writers were really worth what the unions demanded, then the studios wouldn't have willingly endured a 5 month strike over it. They would have simply paid it and moved on.

Quote:

---

In this case, the supply of writers has decreased. The number of writers willing to take what the studio was offering went down. In other words, the value of their labor went up so the equilibrium shifts up as well.

---

Talk about simplistic view. There are fewer secretaries today than 10 years ago. That doesn't mean the remaining ones have become more valuable and are earning more. Again.. equilibrium price for writers was clearly below what the unions demanded. The reason some writers were no longer willing to take what the studio offered was because their value was not worth the ridiculously high cost of living in California. Not because they were more valuable and therefore able to go write scripts for more money elsewhere. They simply got out of the business altogether, like many secretaries.

Quote:

---

It feels like you are looking at this situation strictly from the lens of producers (studios). They alone don't set the value of labor.

---

Where did I say that? I said EQUILIBRIUM PRICE which is set by both sides. If I thought the studios alone set the value, then I think the salaries should be $0. If the writers alone set it, it would be a gazillion dollars.

---

I'm curious what your econ credentials are. You seem to be pretty confident in your views.

I am by no means an economist. All I've done is teach regular high school econ, AP Microeconomics, and AP Macroeconomics.

---

The appeal to authority fallacy is especially fallacious in economics, since there are econ PhDs that disagree nearly 100% with other econ PhDs. Paul Krugman for example, who has a Nobel Prize and is a complete idiot disagrees vehemently with Milton Friedman who also has a Nobel Prize and is generally considered one of greatest economist of the 20th century. So how about addressibg the content of post rather than pretend teaching a HS course makes you an expert?

BTW, in the paraphrased words of the late great Walter Williams: "Macroeconomics is nonsense." There is a reason Keynesians have been wrong on virtually every prediction they have made over the past 50 years. Their fundamentals are completely wrong. Teaching macroeconomics is like teaching alchemy. But politics keeps it alive despite it's obvious failures.

aTmAg said:

---

nai06 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

nai06 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

nai06 said:

---

Henry Ford isn't responsible for the 5 day work week nor the 8 hour work day.

By the time Ford instituted his policy in 1926 there were at least 70 other major manufacturers with a 5 day work week already. The Jewish Sabbath Alliance of America was lobbying for a 5 day work week for both Christians and Jews as early as 1910.

Has far as a 8 hour day goes, hell workers and the labor movement have been pushing for that since the civil war. See the Haymarket Square Riot of 1885.

---

I didn't mean to imply Ford invented the 5 day work week. My point is that he (and others) did it long before unions were involved. The notion that if it wasn't for unions, we would all be working 7 day weeks for 12 hours is simply false. Unions try to take credit for that to justify themselves. It's a load of crap. Competition drove employers to do it as trained workers became harder to replace. It's the free market at work.

Quote:

---

Writers and actors have decided that the current wages they make are no longer enough. The going rate is no longer enough to secure the services of a writer or actor. Studios can't pay X because no one is willing to work for that amount. So the equilibrium is shifting.

---

That's not the way it works. Why are the current wages no longer enough? It's not because the value of their work has increased (the demand for their work has not increased nor has the supply of writers gone down). It's because the cost of living in California has gone up due to liberal policies (which they ironically support in droves). The equilibrium price is the same, the unions simply want MORE than the equilibrium price. If they didn't, then there would be no reason for a union at all.

---

I keep coming back to this last part.


Not trying not be disrespectful, but this is a very simplistic view of economics. It's the kind of thing that is taught in regular HS econ (I should know, I used to teach it). In actual practice, it's never as simple as the textbook.

---

You being a former HS econ teacher explains a lot. My HS econ teacher didn't have a clue either.

Your view isn't more "nuanced", it's simply wrong. If the writers were really worth what the unions demanded, then the studios wouldn't have willingly endured a 5 month strike over it. They would have simply paid it and moved on.

Quote:

---

In this case, the supply of writers has decreased. The number of writers willing to take what the studio was offering went down. In other words, the value of their labor went up so the equilibrium shifts up as well.

---

Talk about simplistic view. There are fewer secretaries today than 10 years ago. That doesn't mean the remaining ones have become more valuable and are earning more. Again.. equilibrium price for writers was clearly below what the unions demanded. The reason some writers were no longer willing to take what the studio offered was because their value was not worth the ridiculously high cost of living in California. Not because they were more valuable and therefore able to go write scripts for more money elsewhere. They simply got out of the business altogether, like many secretaries.

Quote:

---

It feels like you are looking at this situation strictly from the lens of producers (studios). They alone don't set the value of labor.

---

Where did I say that? I said EQUILIBRIUM PRICE which is set by both sides. If I thought the studios alone set the value, then I think the salaries should be $0. If the writers alone set it, it would be a gazillion dollars.

---

I'm curious what your econ credentials are. You seem to be pretty confident in your views.

I am by no means an economist. All I've done is teach regular high school econ, AP Microeconomics, and AP Macroeconomics.

---

The appeal to authority fallacy is especially fallacious in economics, since there are econ PhDs that disagree nearly 100% with other econ PhDs. Paul Krugman for example, who has a Nobel Prize and is a complete idiot disagrees vehemently with Milton Friedman who also has a Nobel Prize and is generally considered one of greatest economist of the 20th century. So how about addressibg the content of post rather than pretend teaching a HS course makes you an expert?

BTW, in the paraphrased words of the late great Walter Williams: "Macroeconomics is nonsense." There is a reason Keynesians have been wrong on virtually every prediction they have made over the past 50 years. Their fundamentals are completely wrong. Teaching macroeconomics is like teaching alchemy. But politics keeps it alive despite it's obvious failures.

---

I openly said I wasn't an expert. I was just curious where you learned the information that supports your views. You seem very confident that you are correct in your assertions and I wondered what the source of said views was. I also think I've also been pretty straightforward addressing the points that you have made.

I suppose that's enough for me of this thread. I'm happy to see the WGA strike is ending

Man, I don't like unions. But the way aTmAg is posting it makes me want to support them.

aTmAg said:

---

nai06 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

nai06 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

nai06 said:

---

Henry Ford isn't responsible for the 5 day work week nor the 8 hour work day.

By the time Ford instituted his policy in 1926 there were at least 70 other major manufacturers with a 5 day work week already. The Jewish Sabbath Alliance of America was lobbying for a 5 day work week for both Christians and Jews as early as 1910.

Has far as a 8 hour day goes, hell workers and the labor movement have been pushing for that since the civil war. See the Haymarket Square Riot of 1885.

---

I didn't mean to imply Ford invented the 5 day work week. My point is that he (and others) did it long before unions were involved. The notion that if it wasn't for unions, we would all be working 7 day weeks for 12 hours is simply false. Unions try to take credit for that to justify themselves. It's a load of crap. Competition drove employers to do it as trained workers became harder to replace. It's the free market at work.

Quote:

---

Writers and actors have decided that the current wages they make are no longer enough. The going rate is no longer enough to secure the services of a writer or actor. Studios can't pay X because no one is willing to work for that amount. So the equilibrium is shifting.

---

That's not the way it works. Why are the current wages no longer enough? It's not because the value of their work has increased (the demand for their work has not increased nor has the supply of writers gone down). It's because the cost of living in California has gone up due to liberal policies (which they ironically support in droves). The equilibrium price is the same, the unions simply want MORE than the equilibrium price. If they didn't, then there would be no reason for a union at all.

---

I keep coming back to this last part.


Not trying not be disrespectful, but this is a very simplistic view of economics. It's the kind of thing that is taught in regular HS econ (I should know, I used to teach it). In actual practice, it's never as simple as the textbook.

---

You being a former HS econ teacher explains a lot. My HS econ teacher didn't have a clue either.

Your view isn't more "nuanced", it's simply wrong. If the writers were really worth what the unions demanded, then the studios wouldn't have willingly endured a 5 month strike over it. They would have simply paid it and moved on.

Quote:

---

In this case, the supply of writers has decreased. The number of writers willing to take what the studio was offering went down. In other words, the value of their labor went up so the equilibrium shifts up as well.

---

Talk about simplistic view. There are fewer secretaries today than 10 years ago. That doesn't mean the remaining ones have become more valuable and are earning more. Again.. equilibrium price for writers was clearly below what the unions demanded. The reason some writers were no longer willing to take what the studio offered was because their value was not worth the ridiculously high cost of living in California. Not because they were more valuable and therefore able to go write scripts for more money elsewhere. They simply got out of the business altogether, like many secretaries.

Quote:

---

It feels like you are looking at this situation strictly from the lens of producers (studios). They alone don't set the value of labor.

---

Where did I say that? I said EQUILIBRIUM PRICE which is set by both sides. If I thought the studios alone set the value, then I think the salaries should be $0. If the writers alone set it, it would be a gazillion dollars.

---

I'm curious what your econ credentials are. You seem to be pretty confident in your views.

I am by no means an economist. All I've done is teach regular high school econ, AP Microeconomics, and AP Macroeconomics.

---

The appeal to authority fallacy is especially fallacious in economics, since there are econ PhDs that disagree nearly 100% with other econ PhDs. Paul Krugman for example, who has a Nobel Prize and is a complete idiot disagrees vehemently with Milton Friedman who also has a Nobel Prize and is generally considered one of greatest economist of the 20th century. So how about addressibg the content of post rather than pretend teaching a HS course makes you an expert?

BTW, in the paraphrased words of the late great Walter Williams: "Macroeconomics is nonsense." There is a reason Keynesians have been wrong on virtually every prediction they have made over the past 50 years. Their fundamentals are completely wrong. Teaching macroeconomics is like teaching alchemy. But politics keeps it alive despite it's obvious failures.

---

That's a lot of words to answer 'Casually read Cato Institute periodical summaries and listening to The Peter Schiff Show.'

aTmAg said:

---

If the writers were really worth what the unions demanded, then the studios wouldn't have willingly endured a 5 month strike over it. They would have simply paid it and moved on.

---

The problem with your logic is that nearly every argument you make can be flipped and the same argument can be made in favor of the strikers. One can argue that since the studios eventually agreed to the most of the writers demands, then the writers are really worth what they were demanding.

aTmAg said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

tysker said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

Economists who disagree are also the type of economists who thought inflation was "transitory" and that printing a ton of money to "stimulate" the economy is a good idea. They have simply proven to have no idea what they are doing. Labor unions make ZERO economic sense. They consist of fools making selfish decisions that not only hurt others, but hurt themselves in the long run.

---

You're first sentence is so tainted and outlandishly inaccurate it delegitimizes everything that comes after.

---

Like hell it is. Just look at Keynesian idiots who have been running the Fed. These morons said for months that inflation was "transitory" until it went so long that they had to "retire" the word. Jerome Powell has gained enough appreciation of the Biden administration through his pro-union "outreach", that he was reappointed.

Keynesians simply have no clue what they are doing.

---

My man your conflating issues and principles. You may think you're the LeBron of economic thinking but for those in the know, you clearly haven't read past the first page. I suggest you shut up and dribble for little while.

You can be directionally correct about your macroeconomic thesis regarding Keynesianism and also inaccurate when objecting to the idea that Economists who advocate for free market, to the point of being anarcho-capitalists, disagree with your sentiment that "Unions are absolutely against the free market." Unions are no different, in form or function, than a corporation (or other similar assembly of persons). It isn't the union body itself that cause the greatest distortion to the labor market, it's the response to unions by government and politicians. Unions can be perform well for its members over the short run and even medium run (just like any business) but they often become unsustainable, unsurprisingly, for similar reasons to the flaws in Keynesianism - non-robust and inflexible pricing systems are susceptible to substitutes, technological advancements, and adverse effects which render the good or service noncompetitive.

---

LOL.. compared to this board, I'm the MJ of economics.

I got a meeting, but I suggest you look up "union + deadweight loss". The notion that unions provide any benefit to society is flat out wrong. They are nothing like corporations.

---

"The notion that unions provide any benefit to society is flat out wrong..." You got that from Vickers, Work in Essex County, Page 98, right? Yeah I read that too. Were you gonna plagiarize the whole thing for us? You have any thoughts of your own on this matter? Or is that your thing, you come into a bar, you read some obscure passage and then you pretend. You pawn it off as your own. Your own idea just to impress some girls, embarrass my friend?

See the sad thing about a guy like you is in about 50 years you're gonna start doing some thinking on your own and you're gonna come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life. One, don't do that. And two, you dropped a hundred and fifty grand on a fin' education you coulda got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the Public Library.

---

The most unrealistic dialog in movie history. Nobody in real life has history knowledge competitions to impress girls at bars.

---

I don't know, the more I read of your posts, the more I keep thinking about that ****** at the bar. There's a reason that Good Will Hunting scene popped in my head...

aTmAg said:

---

nai06 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

nai06 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

nai06 said:

---

Henry Ford isn't responsible for the 5 day work week nor the 8 hour work day.

By the time Ford instituted his policy in 1926 there were at least 70 other major manufacturers with a 5 day work week already. The Jewish Sabbath Alliance of America was lobbying for a 5 day work week for both Christians and Jews as early as 1910.

Has far as a 8 hour day goes, hell workers and the labor movement have been pushing for that since the civil war. See the Haymarket Square Riot of 1885.

---

I didn't mean to imply Ford invented the 5 day work week. My point is that he (and others) did it long before unions were involved. The notion that if it wasn't for unions, we would all be working 7 day weeks for 12 hours is simply false. Unions try to take credit for that to justify themselves. It's a load of crap. Competition drove employers to do it as trained workers became harder to replace. It's the free market at work.

Quote:

---

Writers and actors have decided that the current wages they make are no longer enough. The going rate is no longer enough to secure the services of a writer or actor. Studios can't pay X because no one is willing to work for that amount. So the equilibrium is shifting.

---

That's not the way it works. Why are the current wages no longer enough? It's not because the value of their work has increased (the demand for their work has not increased nor has the supply of writers gone down). It's because the cost of living in California has gone up due to liberal policies (which they ironically support in droves). The equilibrium price is the same, the unions simply want MORE than the equilibrium price. If they didn't, then there would be no reason for a union at all.

---

I keep coming back to this last part.


Not trying not be disrespectful, but this is a very simplistic view of economics. It's the kind of thing that is taught in regular HS econ (I should know, I used to teach it). In actual practice, it's never as simple as the textbook.

---

You being a former HS econ teacher explains a lot. My HS econ teacher didn't have a clue either.

Your view isn't more "nuanced", it's simply wrong. If the writers were really worth what the unions demanded, then the studios wouldn't have willingly endured a 5 month strike over it. They would have simply paid it and moved on.

Quote:

---

In this case, the supply of writers has decreased. The number of writers willing to take what the studio was offering went down. In other words, the value of their labor went up so the equilibrium shifts up as well.

---

Talk about simplistic view. There are fewer secretaries today than 10 years ago. That doesn't mean the remaining ones have become more valuable and are earning more. Again.. equilibrium price for writers was clearly below what the unions demanded. The reason some writers were no longer willing to take what the studio offered was because their value was not worth the ridiculously high cost of living in California. Not because they were more valuable and therefore able to go write scripts for more money elsewhere. They simply got out of the business altogether, like many secretaries.

Quote:

---

It feels like you are looking at this situation strictly from the lens of producers (studios). They alone don't set the value of labor.

---

Where did I say that? I said EQUILIBRIUM PRICE which is set by both sides. If I thought the studios alone set the value, then I think the salaries should be $0. If the writers alone set it, it would be a gazillion dollars.

---

I'm curious what your econ credentials are. You seem to be pretty confident in your views.

I am by no means an economist. All I've done is teach regular high school econ, AP Microeconomics, and AP Macroeconomics.

---

The appeal to authority fallacy is especially fallacious in economics, since there are econ PhDs that disagree nearly 100% with other econ PhDs. Paul Krugman for example, who has a Nobel Prize and is a complete idiot disagrees vehemently with Milton Friedman who also has a Nobel Prize and is generally considered one of greatest economist of the 20th century. So how about addressibg the content of post rather than pretend teaching a HS course makes you an expert?

BTW, in the paraphrased words of the late great Walter Williams: "Macroeconomics is nonsense." There is a reason Keynesians have been wrong on virtually every prediction they have made over the past 50 years. Their fundamentals are completely wrong. Teaching macroeconomics is like teaching alchemy. But politics keeps it alive despite its obvious failures.

---

So no credentials then?

"Credentials are worthless!" screams the man with no credentials.

AustinAg2K said:

---

I don't know, the more I read of your posts, the more I keep thinking about that ****** at the bar. There's a reason that Good Will Hunting scene popped in my head...

---

laugh/cry

aTmAg said:

---

That's not the way it works. Why are the current wages no longer enough? It's not because the value of their work has increased (the demand for their work has not increased nor has the supply of writers gone down). It's because the cost of living in California has gone up due to liberal policies (which they ironically support in droves). The equilibrium price is the same, the unions simply want MORE than the equilibrium price. If they didn't, then there would be no reason for a union at all.

---

This illustrates your fundamental misunderstanding of the situation and just throwing "liberal policies" crap at the wall because it sounds good to you.

The current agreements are not enough due to a number of changes in the industry, largely the advent of streaming. Streaming services don't have to report viewership numbers and are using this to severely limit what's paid out to writers (and others) via residuals, often their primary source of income.

An example from the writer of Suits, currently one of the top viewed shows on Netflix:

Quote:

---

Lilla told Decider that she "received $12,568.57 in residuals" in 2016 for the season 5 episode "Blowback," which premiered in January of that year. "I imagine it was probably being sold internationally and re-airing on USA," she said in an interview published on Thursday, August 10. "This year, 2023, where Suits has been viewed for billions and billions of hours on Netflix, I received the grand total of $414.26 on that episode."

---

So it's not "liberal policies" but a fundamental shift in the how the industry works that's being used against the people creating the content.

aTmAg said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

nai06 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

nai06 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

nai06 said:

---

Henry Ford isn't responsible for the 5 day work week nor the 8 hour work day.

By the time Ford instituted his policy in 1926 there were at least 70 other major manufacturers with a 5 day work week already. The Jewish Sabbath Alliance of America was lobbying for a 5 day work week for both Christians and Jews as early as 1910.

Has far as a 8 hour day goes, hell workers and the labor movement have been pushing for that since the civil war. See the Haymarket Square Riot of 1885.

---

I didn't mean to imply Ford invented the 5 day work week. My point is that he (and others) did it long before unions were involved. The notion that if it wasn't for unions, we would all be working 7 day weeks for 12 hours is simply false. Unions try to take credit for that to justify themselves. It's a load of crap. Competition drove employers to do it as trained workers became harder to replace. It's the free market at work.

Quote:

---

Writers and actors have decided that the current wages they make are no longer enough. The going rate is no longer enough to secure the services of a writer or actor. Studios can't pay X because no one is willing to work for that amount. So the equilibrium is shifting.

---

That's not the way it works. Why are the current wages no longer enough? It's not because the value of their work has increased (the demand for their work has not increased nor has the supply of writers gone down). It's because the cost of living in California has gone up due to liberal policies (which they ironically support in droves). The equilibrium price is the same, the unions simply want MORE than the equilibrium price. If they didn't, then there would be no reason for a union at all.

---

I keep coming back to this last part.


Not trying not be disrespectful, but this is a very simplistic view of economics. It's the kind of thing that is taught in regular HS econ (I should know, I used to teach it). In actual practice, it's never as simple as the textbook.

---

You being a former HS econ teacher explains a lot. My HS econ teacher didn't have a clue either.

Your view isn't more "nuanced", it's simply wrong. If the writers were really worth what the unions demanded, then the studios wouldn't have willingly endured a 5 month strike over it. They would have simply paid it and moved on.

Quote:

---

In this case, the supply of writers has decreased. The number of writers willing to take what the studio was offering went down. In other words, the value of their labor went up so the equilibrium shifts up as well.

---

Talk about simplistic view. There are fewer secretaries today than 10 years ago. That doesn't mean the remaining ones have become more valuable and are earning more. Again.. equilibrium price for writers was clearly below what the unions demanded. The reason some writers were no longer willing to take what the studio offered was because their value was not worth the ridiculously high cost of living in California. Not because they were more valuable and therefore able to go write scripts for more money elsewhere. They simply got out of the business altogether, like many secretaries.

Quote:

---

It feels like you are looking at this situation strictly from the lens of producers (studios). They alone don't set the value of labor.

---

Where did I say that? I said EQUILIBRIUM PRICE which is set by both sides. If I thought the studios alone set the value, then I think the salaries should be $0. If the writers alone set it, it would be a gazillion dollars.

---

I'm curious what your econ credentials are. You seem to be pretty confident in your views.

I am by no means an economist. All I've done is teach regular high school econ, AP Microeconomics, and AP Macroeconomics.

---

The appeal to authority fallacy is especially fallacious in economics, since there are econ PhDs that disagree nearly 100% with other econ PhDs. Paul Krugman for example, who has a Nobel Prize and is a complete idiot disagrees vehemently with Milton Friedman who also has a Nobel Prize and is generally considered one of greatest economist of the 20th century. So how about addressibg the content of post rather than pretend teaching a HS course makes you an expert?

BTW, in the paraphrased words of the late great Walter Williams: "Macroeconomics is nonsense." There is a reason Keynesians have been wrong on virtually every prediction they have made over the past 50 years. Their fundamentals are completely wrong. Teaching macroeconomics is like teaching alchemy. But politics keeps it alive despite it's obvious failures.

---

That's a lot of words to answer 'Casually read Cato Institute periodical summaries and listening to The Peter Schiff Show.'

---

Show me where I'm wrong then.

---

Go deeper than political and theoretical talking points you've heard on tv and news radio to show me you are right first. That might not be everybody's bar for engagement on this one but it is mine.