Support NeoGAF

[Toons]

If money cant replicate humans doing the work, then what's the issue?

All the creative types have to do is prove their content is better than the junk an AI program can churn out, and there should be no problem holding a job.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding with how capitalism works.

If we lived in a society that vslued art for arts sake you would be correct but we don't. As a result, artistic endeavors like film, only continue to get made if they make money, as in turn a profit.

I can guarantee you that humans can produce better works than AI. I can NOT GUARANTEE that human produced works will make more money than AI trash. And in a capitalist system, only the thing that makes rhe money is tenable to continue to be created. Not even the most passionate autuer will continue to create forever, especially not film, because... they'd be losing money.

The humans aren't competing with ai on quality, they are competing with AI on making money.

 

[Toons]

Not at all. As I said, nobody should be slaving away burning themselves out. I'm not accepting a job running around the office from meeting room to meeting room sweating.

Put in a decent day's work, dont take the company hostage, and if you're that good you'll get your money. It's not like people are all forced to make bad wages. People (especially in the US) can get paid a lot. You just got to be worth it to get it. Not hard to understand.

You are *woefully* misguided if you actually believe this is the reality for 90% of the country. Saying "people can get paid alot if you're just worth it" in a time when everything including basic necessities is only getting more expensive, and wages aren't meeting them, is laughable.

The people with the money determine what money gets paid out AND how much everything costs. That right there debunks your argument, because it isn't about how much any individual is worth, its about how much worth can be EXTRACTED from them.

None of the folks paying your wages, or pricing the items you need give a rats ass about the worth of anyone but them and theirs. The Healthcare industry is already proof of this to the point they don't even try hiding how much they artificially inflate prices.

You have some wild misconceptions about how things operate in this country.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

You are *woefully* misguided if you actually believe this is the reality for 90% of the country. Saying "people can get paid alot if you're just worth it" in a time when everything including basic necessities is only getting more expensive, and wages aren't meeting them, is laughable.

The people with the money determine what money gets paid out AND how much everything costs. That right there debunks your argument, because it isn't about how much any individual is worth, its about how much worth can be EXTRACTED from them.

None of the folks paying your wages, or pricing the items you need give a rats ass about the worth of anyone but them and theirs. The Healthcare industry is already proof of this to the point they don't even try hiding how much they artificially inflate prices.

You have some wild misconceptions about how things operate in this country.

People are worth more or less as the company values them. The more valuable you are, the more you get paid. Simple. Its semantics anyway because both our views get to the same conclusion. Companies will pay more if the person is more valuable.

My company can fire me and hire 3 new college grads for the same money. Or hire 1-2 and bank the rest. Well, I'm still at work making good money using one brain. If companies are that cheap, every job would be making bad money. Most jobs arent even unionized yet lots still pay well.

I also dont live in the US, but unless someone lives in a communist country with suppressed wages, every country and company works the exact same way. You get money agreed to with your employer.

Anyone saying people are underpaid is wrong. You know how this is true? Because every government sets an incredibly low minimum wage. So even the government doesn't even believe in people guaranteeing making much higher wages. The bar is set low (lets say $10/hr for sake of argument) and it's up to them to get the rest on their own.

 

[Toons]

People are worth more or less as the company values them. The more valuable you are, the more you get paid. Simple..

Thats not true at all. Most CEOs make way more money than a collective of employees who, if they were to stop doing there jobs, could tank the entire company. Bob chapek, who recently got ousted from Disney, was certainly making far more money than a whole bunch of the people doing much more important work, like safety commissions from their cruise lines. This is just objectively wrong.

My company can fire me and hire 3 new college grads for the same money. Or hire 1-2 and bank the rest. Well, I'm still at work making good money using one brain. If companies are that cheap, every job would be making bad money. Most jobs arent even unionized yet lots still pay well.

This is anecdotal, and even then it isn't accurate. If your company was actually convinced they could do that, they would. They arent convinced of that because those three college grads would find a competitor that is paying what you're making alone and go there instead. Supply and demand applies to jobs just as much as it does to goods. You're literally ignoring basic economic philosophy. Again, its not just about which is cheaper but which is more efficient.

I also dont live in the US, .

That explains a ton actually.

Anyone saying people are underpaid is wrong. You know how this is true? Because every government sets an incredibly low minimum wage. So even the government doesn't even believe in people guaranteeing making much higher wages. The bar is set low (lets say $10/hr for sake of argument) and it's up to them to get the rest on their own.

Again, objectively wrong.

The legal minutes wage is *7.25* in the U.S. the legal minimum wage in Canada is currently over $16 an hour.

That means you can have the *exact* same job in the US as a guy in Canada and take home less than half the money.

Theres no other angle from which to view this. People are underpaid in the U.S.

Bonus, is that the cost of living is actually *higher* on average in the U.S. this whole concept of value vs compensation is beyond flawed on your end, because the goods that the compensation is for are also charged different and their relative value is completely different.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Thats not true at all. Most CEOs make way more money than a collective of employees who, if they were to stop doing there jobs, could tank the entire company. Bob chapek, who recently got ousted from Disney, was certainly making far more money than a whole bunch of the people doing much more important work, like safety commissions from their cruise lines. This is just objectively wrong.



This is anecdotal, and even then it isn't accurate. If your company was actually convinced they could do that, they would. They arent convinced of that because those three college grads would find a competitor that is paying what you're making alone and go there instead. Supply and demand applies to jobs just as much as it does to goods. You're literally ignoring basic economic philosophy. Again, its not just about which is cheaper but which is more efficient.


That explains a ton actually.



Again, objectively wrong.

The legal minutes wage is *7.25* in the U.S. the legal minimum wage in Canada is currently over $16 an hour.

That means you can have the *exact* same job in the US as a guy in Canada and take home less than half the money.

Theres no other angle from which to view this. People are underpaid in the U.S.

Bonus, is that the cost of living is actually *higher* on average in the U.S. this whole concept of value vs compensation is beyond flawed on your end, because the goods that the compensation is for are also charged different and their relative value is completely different.

We can agree to disagree, but nothing is going to change anytime soon.

And my last point about government is actually the most overriding point of them all. If government sets incredibly low minimum wages, it goes to show even they dont believe in high wages for people. And if the government doesn't why should any company?

The only exceptions are any companies trying to illegally pay below minimum wages. But if they are adhering to laws and workers are willingly accepting the wage offered then it's all good. If they wages are that bad then dont accept it and find another company. Prove their worth and money will come.

 

[Nobody_Important]

We can agree to disagree, but nothing is going to change anytime soon.

And my last point about government is actually the most overriding point of them all. If government sets incredibly low minimum wages, it goes to show even they dont believe in high wages for people. And if the government doesn't why should any company?

The only exceptions are any companies trying to illegally pay below minimum wages. But if they are adhering to laws and workers are willingly accepting the wage offered then it's all good. If they wages are that bad then dont accept it and find another company. Prove their worth and money will come.

This is getting dangerously close to politics but the government setting the minimum wage as low as it is in the US has absolutely nothing to do with what politicians think those workers are worth and everything to do with the fact that lobbyists in the US would never allow a proper increase of minimum wage at the moment.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

This is getting dangerously close to politics but the government setting the minimum wage as low as it is in the US has absolutely nothing to do with what politicians think those workers are worth and everything to do with the fact that lobbyists in the US would never allow a proper increase of minimum wage at the moment.

And in reality they dont need to. The avg annual wage in Canada and the US is similar in the $50,000 or so range, yet the minimum wages in Canada in every province is something like $15-16. So it shows in the US you can make good money despite rock bottom min wage floor. So the money is out there. It's not like everyone is skewed to making bad money with terrible job security.

All someone has to do is prove their worth and you'll get paid.

Sports is the most visible industry of public salaries, negotiations and contracts. Some get paid great, some get shafted. If you're that good you'll get $20M per year. If not, he'll skew to $2M. Why does the $20M guy get paid huge? Awesome stats. Here's his performance and worth, he gets paid. The guy getting a $2M contract wont be a star player. He'll be filler to round out a spot as the team hits the salary cap.

 

[Porcile]

Entertainment industry is gross. 90% of actors are probably on the brink of homelessness if they don't work low-skilled part-time jobs.

 

[Rentahamster]

Because every government sets an incredibly low minimum wage.

They do?

List of countries by minimum wage - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Generally, it seems like the countries that don't have a minimum wage are either shitholes I'd rather not live in, or places that have a robust social safety net that takes care of a lot of citizens' basic needs. Furthermore, of the nice countries that don't have a minimum wage, they also have collective bargaining safeguards in place by law. See Finland, Iceland, or Sweden for example.

Finland

None; however, the law requires all employers, including non-unionized ones, to pay minimum wages agreed to in collective bargaining agreements; almost all workers are covered under such arrangements.[10]

Iceland

None; minimum wages are negotiated in various collectively bargained agreements and applied automatically to all employees in those occupations, regardless of union membership; while the agreements can be either industry- or sector-wide, and in some cases firm-specific, the minimum wage levels are occupation-specific.[10][36]

Sweden

None; in Sweden the law provides for the right of workers to form and join independent unions to bargain wages collectively, and it prohibits antiunion discrimination.[10]

It's like they already realized that unions are an effective way to keep corporate greed in check and allow workers a way to earn what they deserve for a fruitful life, and in doing so don't even need to mandate a minimum wage from the government.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

They do?

List of countries by minimum wage - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Generally, it seems like the countries that don't have a minimum wage are either shitholes I'd rather not live in, or places that have a robust social safety net that takes care of a lot of citizens' basic needs. Furthermore, of the nice countries that don't have a minimum wage, they also have collective bargaining safeguards in place by law. See Finland, Iceland, or Sweden for example.

Finland

None; however, the law requires all employers, including non-unionized ones, to pay minimum wages agreed to in collective bargaining agreements; almost all workers are covered under such arrangements.[10]

Iceland

None; minimum wages are negotiated in various collectively bargained agreements and applied automatically to all employees in those occupations, regardless of union membership; while the agreements can be either industry- or sector-wide, and in some cases firm-specific, the minimum wage levels are occupation-specific.[10][36]

Sweden

None; in Sweden the law provides for the right of workers to form and join independent unions to bargain wages collectively, and it prohibits antiunion discrimination.[10]

It's like they already realized that unions are an effective way to keep corporate greed in check and allow workers a way to earn what they deserve for a fruitful life, and in doing so don't even need to mandate a minimum wage from the government.

Good point.

But if those countries are heavy into unions where it sounds like you might be forced into one, that's not a great option either. Because not everyone wants to be part of a union with set rules of pay tiers, union dues, seniority ranks, or any other union rule it may involve.

 

[Nobody_Important]

And in reality they dont need to. The avg annual wage in Canada and the US is similar in the $50,000 or so range, yet the minimum wages in Canada in every province is something like $15-16. So it shows in the US you can make good money despite rock bottom min wage floor. So the money is out there. It's not like everyone is skewed to making bad money with terrible job security.

All someone has to do is prove their worth and you'll get paid.

Sports is the most visible industry of public salaries, negotiations and contracts. Some get paid great, some get shafted. If you're that good you'll get $20M per year. If not, he'll skew to $2M. Why does the $20M guy get paid huge? Awesome stats. Here's his performance and worth, he gets paid. The guy getting a $2M contract wont be a star player. He'll be filler to round out a spot as the team hits the salary cap.

Yeah I'm over your whole insane outlook on the situation tbh.

Your entire argument relies on the idea that the world is fair and employers are unbiased. But the world's not fair. Companies are extremely biased.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Yeah I'm over your whole insane outlook on the situation tbh.

That's fine. You can disagree with me if you want.

But end of the day, everyone knows people get paid different amounts. Different jobs pay different, and within that company or industry people get paid different again.

Some high, some in the middle, some low. There's a reason why some people are worth more than others. Its not random. If you want better pay and job security, prove it to the boss and you'll get rewarded. If not, then the boss and company doesn't think you're anything special beyond what they get now.

Since this thread has to do with media strikes and AI or whatever. Hey, prove that their creative works are that much better making the company better to keep them over a faceless AI dronebot and you'll keep your job.

 

[Toons]

We can agree to disagree, but nothing is going to change anytime soon.

And my last point about government is actually the most overriding point of them all. If government sets incredibly low minimum wages, it goes to show even they dont believe in high wages for people. And if the government doesn't why should any company?

First of all, you're assuming that's the case across the board, but it's not. In Germany for example, the minimum wage is set by an independent fair labor sector based on the economic health of the country.

In the US, its set by a not at all independent labor sector, and the minimum wage hasn't changed in decades, despite obvious changes to the economic health of the country in that time frame.

You just have a ton of incorrect information informing these stances.

The only exceptions are any companies trying to illegally pay below minimum wages. But if they are adhering to laws and workers are willingly accepting the wage offered then it's all good. If they wages are that bad then dont accept it and find another company. Prove their worth and money will come.

You're speaking from a place of ignorance so I'm being graceful here, but you're wrong and thats not an opinion, it's a fact. wages have nothing to do with value in the US, at all. I went from a job paying 9 bucks an hour a few years back, straight to a job that paid 18 bucks an hour, and the one that paid 18 was actually less laborious than the prior one, but had different expectations and setups, its not a job anyone could have taken on, but it was a new initiative who desprraty wanted to attract people to get them a starting base. Folks who signed onto the same job after me had varying rates that weren't the same as mine wne I started. Itd literslly just a racket here in the states, depending heavily on your geographical location, economic health, and luck.

Theres no concrete "value" quantifier that makes you get paid more lol. And that's even the case in Hollywood. That's a pretty obvious example actually. RDJ made 30 million dollars for playing iron man in a support role in a movie. Edward Norton got paid 4,200 to be in moonrise kingdom.

 

[Rentahamster]

Good point.

Thanks

But if those countries are heavy into unions where it sounds like you might be forced into one, that's not a great option either. Because not everyone wants to be part of a union with set rules of pay tiers, union dues, seniority ranks, or any other union rule it may involve.

Why is it not a great option? The results seem to speak for themselves. It's not a perfect system, but it seems to be benefiting workers better on average than the kind of system you are advocating for. Every industry needs some kind of regulation in order to keep it in check. America is a prime example of what happens when the rich people get to make all the rules and stack the deck in their favor so that while companies are making more money than ever, the workers are proportionally keeping less of the profits than ever.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

First of all, you're assuming that's the case across the board, but it's not. In Germany for example, the minimum wage is set by an independent fair labor sector based on the economic health of the country.

In the US, its set by a not at all independent labor sector, and the minimum wage hasn't changed in decades, despite obvious changes to the economic health of the country in that time frame.

You just have a ton of incorrect information informing these stances.



You're speaking from a place of ignorance so I'm being graceful here, but you're wrong and thats not an opinion, it's a fact. wages have nothing to do with value in the US, at all. I went from a job paying 9 bucks an hour a few years back, straight to a job that paid 18 bucks an hour, and the one that paid 18 was actually less laborious than the prior one, but had different expectations and setups, its not a job anyone could have taken on, but it was a new initiative who desprraty wanted to attract people to get them a starting base. Folks who signed onto the same job after me had varying rates that weren't the same as mine wne I started. Itd literslly just a racket here in the states, depending heavily on your geographical location, economic health, and luck.

Theres no concrete "value" quantifier that makes you get paid more lol. And that's even the case in Hollywood. That's a pretty obvious example actually. RDJ made 30 million dollars for playing iron man in a support role in a movie. Edward Norton got paid 4,200 to be in moonrise kingdom.

If the US wage has barely budged, so be it. The gov doesnt care about boosting people's wages. So many companies wont either.

As for your last point about jobs and pay, what you're worth is what you accept. Companies make an offer based on many things. Some just wing it. Some look at industry standards. Some might be so desperate they'll pay anything. It doesn't really matter. They pay is what is agreed upon. I've turned down most jobs because the comp sucks. I want more. We mutually agree to not go past the screener interview. I think I'm worth more. But if I decide to bolt and accept a job that pays less, then so be it. Thats what I'm actually worth now.

If someone accepts a $12/hr job that's what they are worth to both sides.

It's like when someone gets hired to fill in for someone who left. Sometimes the newbie gets paid more, sometimes less. Why is that? Many factors. But whatever the final amount is that's what they are worth.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Thanks


Why is it not a great option? The results seem to speak for themselves. It's not a perfect system, but it seems to be benefiting workers better on average than the kind of system you are advocating for. Every industry needs some kind of regulation in order to keep it in check. America is a prime example of what happens when the rich people get to make all the rules and stack the deck in their favor so that while companies are making more money than ever, the workers are proportionally keeping less of the profits than ever.

It might benefit some, but not others. And by the sounds of those country rules, it's not even an option. Sounds like you're forced into it.

The last kind of place I want to work at is a union job where I pay dues and have to follow rules. If I want to speak to HR or the boss about this or that I want to speak to them directly and forge my own destiny. And not have a union rep do it. And if someone wants to talk to me, come speak to me. I have an open door. I want to hear from you, not a union rep.

I dont want to be pigeonholed in some pecking order where it's based on seniority either. Thats like saying the person who is the oldest automatically gets paid the most with the most secure job because he's old. Thats not the kind of group I want to work for. In fact, looking at it that way it's actually discriminitory.

 

[Nobody_Important]

That's fine. You can disagree with me if you want.

But end of the day, everyone knows people get paid different amounts. Different jobs pay different, and within that company or industry people get paid different again.

Some high, some in the middle, some low. There's a reason why some people are worth more than others. Its not random. If you want better pay and job security, prove it to the boss and you'll get rewarded. If not, then the boss and company doesn't think you're anything special beyond what they get now.

Since this thread has to do with media strikes and AI or whatever. Hey, prove that their creative works are that much better making the company better to keep them over a faceless AI dronebot and you'll keep your job.

See my edit.

Your entire outlook is based on the fiction of the world being fair and companies always promoting people and paying people based on merit and hard work.

That's not always the case. Especially here in the US.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

See my edit.

Your entire outlook is based on the fiction of the world being fair and companies always promoting people and paying people based on merit and hard work.

That's not always the case. Especially here in the US.

Never said life is 100% fair. Nothing is. I just bought a case of pop and it turned out the manufacture date was 10 months ago, and the expiry date is in a month. No wonder it tastes flat.

But to be fair to other side, unions have a lot of hardcore protection policies. Why should a company be unfairly saddled with shitty employees protected by a union rep? My personal experience examples above are mostly just from short term summer jobs goes to show what kind of workers are protected by union policies. Just imagine what else is out there.

 

[Nobody_Important]

Never said life is 100% fair. Nothing is. I just bought a case of pop and it turned out the manufacture date was 10 months ago, and the expiry date is in a month. No wonder it tastes flat.

But to be fair to other side, unions have a lot of hardcore protection policies. Why should a company be unfairly saddled with shitty employees protected by a union rep? My personal experience examples above are mostly just from short term summer jobs goes to show what kind of workers are protected by union policies. Just imagine what else is out there.

I'm sorry, but you openly admitting that your experiences were based on short little stints over the summer is not nearly the slam dunk that you think it is. All that tells me is that you are not only basing all of this off of a personal anecdote, but you're doing it off of a extremely small sample size. Which just doesn't hold up. Sorry.


Your whole argument is that if people are worth it then they will get paid and just now you admitted that that is not always the case regardless of everything you said before. Which is why unions exist in the first place. It's to make sure that employees are properly represented in labor disputes and are treated fairly. Which is the point that I've been trying to make the entire time.

 

[Rentahamster]

It might benefit some, but not others.

It looks like it benefits most. They seem to like it.

And by the sounds of those country rules, it's not even an option.

If you look at FInland and Iceland, the benefits apply to non-union workers too.

Sounds like you're forced into it.

That's the nature of laws. You're forced to comply with laws. If the laws are bad, you're forced into a bad situation. If the laws are good, you're forced into a good situation. "Forced" in an of itself, is not necessarily a negative thing. Modern liberal democracies have to operate under the rule of law for the benefit of society, and that means forcing people to do things sometimes. We then have checks and balances under that democracy to ensure that we are not forcing people to do things more than we need to, and that any use of force is reasonably justified.

The last kind of place I want to work at is a union job where I pay dues and have to follow rules. If I want to speak to HR or the boss about this or that I want to speak to them directly and forge my own destiny. And not have a union rep do it. And if someone wants to talk to me, come speak to me. I have an open door. I want to hear from you, not a union rep.

I dont want to be pigeonholed in some pecking order where it's based on seniority either. Thats like saying the person who is the oldest automatically gets paid the most with the most secure job because he's old. Thats not the kind of group I want to work for. In fact, looking at it that way it's actually discriminitory.

I could just as easily counter by saying that I don't want to work at a miserable non-union job where I have to take the least amount of pay possible, with no benefits, no vacation time, and a power-hungry boss that doesn't care about me and can fire me for any reason whatsoever. Don't formulate your worldview around extreme caricatures.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I'm sorry, but you openly admitting that your experiences were based on short little stints over the summer is not nearly the slam dunk that you think it is. All that tells me is that you are not only basing all of this off of a personal anecdote, but you're doing it off of a extremely small sample size. Which just doesn't hold up. Sorry.


Your whole argument is that if people are worth it then they will get paid and just now you admitted that that is not always the case regardless of everything you said before. Which is why unions exist in the first place. It's to make sure that employees are properly represented in labor disputes and are treated fairly. Which is the point that I've been trying to make the entire time.

You should understand things in context not absolutes.

As for unions, whether you like it or not have crumbled. Companies and people prefer non-unions jobs. That's life. As I've been trying to stress, the money is out there. Its up to people to grab it. And with the US, companies got so much money floating around with high paying jobs everywhere it's not exactly rocket science to score a decent job.

If a person wants to make more money, then ask and prove it. Just because a company says no doesn't mean it's unfair. I hope you arent saying that a company is only right if they dole out money. They'll pay if they see it's worth it. They wont if they dont.

Dont be an ass causing trouble. Dont forget, any kind of work stoppage affects more people than just them. So selfishly, what they do can bring down other people not even involved with the dispute. Thats why I said if you want to negotiate, do it concurrrently and smoothly while working.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I could just as easily counter by saying that I don't want to work at a miserable non-union job where I have to take the least amount of pay possible, with no benefits, no vacation time, and a power-hungry boss that doesn't care about me and can fire me for any reason whatsoever. Don't formulate your worldview around extreme caricatures.

Fair point. But if you can prove union rules are as lax as non-union environments (where there's none except general employee handbook rules everyone reads) I'll stick to my view. I just gave my view on it.

 

[Nobody_Important]

You should understand things in context not absolutes.

As for unions, whether you like it or not have crumbled. Companies and people prefer non-unions jobs. That's life. As I've been trying to stress, the money is out there. Its up to people to grab it. And with the US, companies got so much money floating around with high paying jobs everywhere it's not exactly rocket science to score a decent job.

If a person wants to make more money, then ask and prove it. Just because a company says no doesn't mean it's unfair. I hope you arent saying that a company is only right if they dole out money. They'll pay if they see it's worth it. They wont if they dont.

Dont be an ass causing trouble. Dont forget, any kind of work stoppage affects more people than just them. So selfishly, what they do can bring down other people not even involved with the dispute. Thats why I said if you want to negotiate, do it concurrrently and smoothly while working.

It is abundantly clear you are not from the US. I'll just leave it there.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

It is abundantly clear you are not from the US. I'll just leave it there.

On pure job and pay basis, I'd love to work in the US.

My job in the US pays about 20% more, in US currency too, taxes are lower and I can write off mortgage interest. And the cost of a home is way cheaper than where I live.

US head office has 10x the number of people than my regional office with way more job roles available at better pay.

As I said, the money is out there. And no country has more cash flowing than the US.

 

[Nobody_Important]

On pure job and pay basis, I'd love to work in the US.

My job in the US pays about 20% more, in US currency too, taxes are lower and I can write off mortgage interest. And the cost of a home is way cheaper than where I live.

US head office has 10x the number of people than my regional office with way more job roles available at better pay.

As I said, the money is out there. And no country has more cash flowing than the US.

You keep saying the money is out there. The money is out there. The money is out there as if it's just waiting to be grabbed. As if America truly is the land of infinite opportunity that it paints itself as and as if all of the people struggling in America are struggling because of their own fault. It's just nonsense. You are either purposely or ignorantly hand waving a swath of systemic issues that cause the tremendous amount of inequality that permeates the US.

 

[EviLore]

The opportunity is a function of the unequal outcomes. The US is stratified across a huge socioeconomic hierarchy that you can attempt to climb with talent, ambition, hard work, or luck. You have more upward mobility in the US than anywhere else in the world, and doing well here beats doing well anywhere else. The lows are also lower for the have-nots.

 

[Nobody_Important]

The opportunity is a function of the unequal outcomes. The US is stratified across a huge socioeconomic hierarchy that you can attempt to climb with talent, ambition, hard work, or luck. You have more upward mobility in the US than anywhere else in the world, and doing well here beats doing well anywhere else. The lows are also lower for the have-nots.

Exactly. You can get there with hard work. I was just trying to make the point that it is not a given like they were implying. You can bust your ass working inhumane hours and still get screwed by the system in any number of ways.


The US has long way to go when it comes to worker rights.

 

[sinnergy]

They are probably right … but that’s the world we all created. It’s not always fair , but in knowing you did your 100% best in everything, should be enough.

 

[ProtoByte]

You are *woefully* misguided if you actually believe this is the reality for 90% of the country. Saying "people can get paid alot if you're just worth it" in a time when everything including basic necessities is only getting more expensive, and wages aren't meeting them, is laughable.

All problems largely of the public's own making.

The people with the money determine what money gets paid out AND how much everything costs. That right there debunks your argument, because it isn't about how much any individual is worth, its about how much worth can be EXTRACTED from them.

Nobody in the states is forced to work for anyone or purchase anything by non-criminal enterprise. The people with the money offer wages and propose prices, and people either agree or decline. Wages and prices get adjusted as a result. It's not a pure free market economy by any means, but it's not the central planning you're unwittingly describing.

None of the folks paying your wages, or pricing the items you need give a rats ass about the worth of anyone but them and theirs.

The same goes for the consumers.

The Healthcare industry is already proof of this to the point they don't even try hiding how much they artificially inflate prices.

Actually, no. The healthcare industry is one that requires large amounts of high-level education, training and ultimately labor that literally saves lives. People only think the prices are inflated because they don't put as much financial value into health as they should through perspective.

Most overpricing that is there has to do with onerous regulation and other assorted government interference (much of it cheered on by hypnotized public) that allows for it. Not by accident, either.

 

[FunkMiller]

On pure job and pay basis, I'd love to work in the US.

I trust you’re not from the UK or Australia either, because I am, have extensive experience over the long term with being a member of a major union… and your opinions do not reflect reality at all in either country.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Good. Backlogs and books are waiting for everyone!

This is NeoGAF, right? Have you considered...playing video games?

 

[FunkMiller]

Anyone claiming the CEOs and their companies know what they're doing...

 

[Lukaku's First Touch]

Won't someone think of the millionaire actors!!! How about these assholes take a huge paycut and give it to the writers / camera crew / catering / etc... that are probably underpaid as hell.

 

[FunkMiller]

Won't someone think of the millionaire actors!!! How about these assholes take a huge paycut and give it to the writers / camera crew / catering / etc... that are probably underpaid as hell.

Sorry, but that's idiotic.

87% of SAG AFTRA members (some 140,000 people) don't earn over $26,000 a year, which is the threshold for healthcare insurance. The movie stars aren't the problem here. It's the movie companies.

For Christ's sakes try to at least understand a subject before you comment on it.

 

[Blade2.0]

You've been beating that same horse to death since the Writer strike began.

Get new material lol

He's letting an AI generate his posts.

 

[DeafTourette]

StreetsofBeige

When I speak of worker strikes and unions... The stuff you said you'd support for unions and strikes STILL HAPPENS!

There were literally coal miner and railroad worker strikes within the last year or so. The companies can afford it, they just want fewer people to work the same amount of work. They didn't want to raise wages or give actual vacation or paid sick leave.

This stuff was in the news... You're a smart man so it's WEIRD that you don't get this stuff. You think people in a union are lazy motherfuckers who "coast" ... Here in the US, most of the asks these unions are requesting are entirely reasonable but you label it as entitled.

Just say that you've been very lucky and blessed to have the experiences you've had with jobs and stop discounting what we have actual EVIDENCE of workers fighting for living wages and safer work conditions and actual vacation time/sick leave.

 

[Artoris]

They are probably right … but that’s the world we all created. It’s not always fair , but in knowing you did your 100% best in everything, should be enough.

"you did your 100% best in everything, should be enough"

but nobody will do that

 

[jason10mm]

I could just as easily counter by saying that I don't want to work at a miserable non-union job where I have to take the least amount of pay possible, with no benefits, no vacation time, and a power-hungry boss that doesn't care about me and can fire me for any reason whatsoever. Don't formulate your worldview around extreme caricatures.

Buy why would ANYONE work for a company like that? Workers today have the option to be incredibly mobile. And they can share work experiences with each other very easily. So a toxic workplace that isn't paying good money as compensation will just fail. Most places don't do pensions anymore, so even that carrot has little value.

Half of you guys seem to think folks are just assigned a job at HS graduation so it's the role of government to make sure that job is as nice and well paid as possible. The other half think employees ONLY value money as the deciding factor for a job and have the ability to jump ship constantly. Clearly neither is true but there IS a middle ground where modern employee info sharing can force companies to act in their favor without requiring the overhead of a union or government regulation (beyond safety and basic human rights).

CEOs are well paid because corps have been allowed to become GIGANTIC. In NO WORLD is Disney, a company with hundreds of thousands of employees, gonna be able to limit c-suite pay to some 10-25x multiplier of the starting interns pay. That level of CEO has a job, knowledge base, and skill set that is almost unique and I GUARANTEE they are working faaaaaaaar harder than any burger flipper, secretary, or animator under them and very few folks can survive in that environment.

So if half you guys want more equity in the workplace, then start by breaking up these massive corps so there is more competition, more inefficiencies and duplication of work (equals more humans hired), a shorter connection between the top and the bottom, and more concern for the smaller pool of employees.

 

[FunkMiller]

So if half you guys want more equity in the workplace, then start by breaking up these massive corps so there is more competition, more inefficiencies and duplication of work (equals more humans hired), a shorter connection between the top and the bottom, and more concern for the smaller pool of employees.

On the specific subject of the WGA and SAG strikes, if they continue on for a long time (very likely, given the fact that the studios will not budge on more transparency when it comes to streaming viewing figures, and by extension residual amounts) then the government will likely step in to secure some kind of resolution, because it'll become a matter that affects the US economy. And at that point, everything the companies are doing will be laid bare to the authorities, and you can bet your arse there will be anti-competitive stuff in there that could spark the kinds of corp break-up you mention.

The AMPTP must be getting their strategy advice from the Kremlin, because all they are doing is strengthening the solidarity of those set against them, and weakening their position if things are allowed to drag on longer term.

They're also creating a potential environment where the feds have to properly get involved, and the dirty laundry comes out in the wash. Delightful stuff.

 

[ManaByte]

Hollywood says: “fuck you, we’ll just have ChatGTP write our scripts and Midjourney create the actors”.

 

[jason10mm]

Sorry, but that's idiotic.

87% of SAG AFTRA members (some 140,000 people) don't earn over $26,000 a year, which is the threshold for healthcare insurance. The movie stars aren't the problem here. It's the movie companies.

For Christ's sakes try to at least understand a subject before you comment on it.

So you are saying that Hollywood should support ONE HUNDRED AND FOURTY THOUSAND actors with a living wage? JFC, 99.99% of those folks are just background, ain't no way they could get health care and enough to live on. What you propose would mean there are just 50 extras in EVERYTHING because that is the value of an extra. It's the nature of Hollywood to be feast or famine, it's a 100% artistic endeavor. If you choose to go down that road you are acknowledging that its a looooong shot that you get a living doing it. There is a reason why most hollywood productions looked like southern california for so long, because they just used what was around them and WHO was around them. Now we at least get more locations and more diversity in casting but guess what, that same cheap attitude applies because the returns on most productions is NEGATIVE, those few big hits gotta cover the losses on everything else. So just because Avengers cost 250 mill doesn't mean every extra in it can make $10,000 for 2 days work 'cause MONEY.

Is there funny accounting in Hollywood? Absolutely. There is a reason why you see 5 different production company logos in front of lots of films, because they are all stand up fronts to differ costs because most films are tax shelters or exploiting loopholes in order to make budget. But to think that you can elevate the base pay 50-100% and nothing will change is ludicrous. All that will do is squeeze out 80% of those folks as they will just do more with less. Great for the 20% left, but now you denied opportunity for far more folks to at least dip their toe in.

Dying on the hill of hollywood pay gaps is not where anyone should be. Let's redirect to teachers, EMS, nurses, infrastructure construction workers, etc and maybe there will be fewer tiny violins playing.

 

[FunkMiller]

Hollywood says: “fuck you, we’ll just have ChatGTP write our scripts and Midjourney create the actors”.

...and then they'll get sued, because both of those AIs scrape copyrighted material.

 

[FunkMiller]

So you are saying that Hollywood should support ONE HUNDRED AND FOURTY THOUSAND actors with a living wage? JFC, 99.99% of those folks are just background, ain't no way they could get health care and enough to live on. What you propose would mean there are just 50 extras in EVERYTHING because that is the value of an extra. It's the nature of Hollywood to be feast or famine, it's a 100% artistic endeavor. If you choose to go down that road you are acknowledging that its a looooong shot that you get a living doing it. There is a reason why most hollywood productions looked like southern california for so long, because they just used what was around them and WHO was around them. Now we at least get more locations and more diversity in casting but guess what, that same cheap attitude applies because the returns on most productions is NEGATIVE, those few big hits gotta cover the losses on everything else. So just because Avengers cost 250 mill doesn't mean every extra in it can make $10,000 for 2 days work 'cause MONEY.

Is there funny accounting in Hollywood? Absolutely. There is a reason why you see 5 different production company logos in front of lots of films, because they are all stand up fronts to differ costs because most films are tax shelters or exploiting loopholes in order to make budget. But to think that you can elevate the base pay 50-100% and nothing will change is ludicrous. All that will do is squeeze out 80% of those folks as they will just do more with less. Great for the 20% left, but now you denied opportunity for far more folks to at least dip their toe in.

Dying on the hill of hollywood pay gaps is not where anyone should be. Let's redirect to teachers, EMS, nurses, infrastructure construction workers, etc and maybe there will be fewer tiny violins playing.

Why are you making an argument I wasn't responding to? The other dude said it's all about the wealthy minority of actors. I commented to prove that it isn't.

And you do realise that the union negotiates for the absolute minimum amount an actor can be paid, right? You're talking like the actors are all demanding massive pay increases. They aren't. They are just trying to secure a bottom line for the least of them, that is fair for everyone across the board, and reflects their contribution as a whole to the industry. No, they're not all going to have full time careers, and no one expects that.

And you clearly have an axe to grind against the entertainment industry, for what I guess is political reasons.

Whereas I'd be saying the same stuff about any industry, and would have the same opinion.

All workers in any industry must be provided with a bottom line that fairly reflects their contribution to that industry. Doesn't matter what job we're talking about. That then gives everyone involved the opportunity to excel and earn more, or fail and earn less.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

StreetsofBeige

When I speak of worker strikes and unions... The stuff you said you'd support for unions and strikes STILL HAPPENS!

There were literally coal miner and railroad worker strikes within the last year or so. The companies can afford it, they just want fewer people to work the same amount of work. They didn't want to raise wages or give actual vacation or paid sick leave.

This stuff was in the news... You're a smart man so it's WEIRD that you don't get this stuff. You think people in a union are lazy motherfuckers who "coast" ... Here in the US, most of the asks these unions are requesting are entirely reasonable but you label it as entitled.

Just say that you've been very lucky and blessed to have the experiences you've had with jobs and stop discounting what we have actual EVIDENCE of workers fighting for living wages and safer work conditions and actual vacation time/sick leave.

And if companies dont want to give then too bad. Dont be entitled. Just because a company says no doesn't mean they are wrong. If someone is worth it, the company will pay. That's why despite rock bottom minimum wages, people can get paid a lot more than that and some jobs pay huge sums even for someone in heir 20s. Go ahead and negotiate. Anyone can. Just dont be selfish and cause hassles with the rest of the company.

We all have different experiences. Some of you might not like what I say, but bottom line is the money is there.

As for demand on pay, safer work conditions, sick days etc.... unions always try to make it sound like they are getting crushed with the worst compensation ever. And thats entirely not true and you know it. There's even google articles that can say the average union worker can have a higher annual wage than a non-union worker so lets not pretend here that all the non-union job roles and bosses are hoarding all the money.

Bottom line is you'll have a higher chance of getting what you want if you prove youre worth it. If not, the company will offer someone crap.

As I said before to someone, things dont change fast. You can tell because the US minimum wages are trash which show the government itself doesn't even care about higher pay. A person's best bet for better pay, job security etc... is to man up and change yourself and earn it. That's why some people are stuck in a $10/hr job and some make $100/hr. You dont have to like that answer, but it's the truth. What you want is for every job to have some kind of guaranteed union protection of good wages where even a fry cook or paper boy gets $25/hr. Not going to happen. Especially not in the US.

As for being blessed. Well, that's a subjective opinion. Hey, I did my time doing an undergrad and masters. Who wants to pay jacked up MBA tuition fees? Not pretty, but I'll do it for career sake because I know it leads to higher pay and opportunity. And I did it on my own (not covered by the company). If I have a decent job and good pay then hey, I did my time and paid off my 3 student loans. Strive for more, get more even if it means getting hit over the head temporarily.

 

[jason10mm]

On the specific subject of the WGA and SAG strikes, if they continue on for a long time (very likely, given the fact that the studios will not budge on more transparency when it comes to streaming viewing figures, and by extension residual amounts) then the government will likely step in to secure some kind of resolution, because it'll become a matter that affects the US economy. And at that point, everything the companies are doing will be laid bare to the authorities, and you can bet your arse there will be anti-competitive stuff in there that could spark the kinds of corp break-up you mention.

The AMPTP must be getting their strategy advice from the Kremlin, because all they are doing is strengthening the solidarity of those set against them, and weakening their position if things are allowed to drag on longer term.

They're also creating a potential environment where the feds have to properly get involved, and the dirty laundry comes out in the wash. Delightful stuff.

It's a siege. But its the writers (and now actors) INSIDE the castle. The producers can ALWAYS wash their hands and start over, or redirect to buying foreign produced stuff, or pivot and focus on re-releasing older stuff. How long can those guys survive without income and how long will the heavyweights lend support when they are cut off from the constant PR cycle they need to stay relevant? Face it, if EVERY writer and actor NEVER worked again, how long do you think the Hollywood machine would take to get up and running with all new faces?

I'd say 2 months at best. There are THOUSANDS of folks that would try their hand at acting. There are THOUSANDS of folks pitching scripts EVERY WEEK. Would the end product be great? Probably not, for a few years at least, but we could reset the entire actor/writer pools and I don't think much would change.

Now the set guys, the camera operators, the DPs, the technical crew, the casting directors, the editors? THOSE are the real talented folks and would be VERY difficult to replace as that skill set isn't taught much in grade school unlike writing and acting. The managers that deal with the logistics, organize the sets, coordinate the shoot for effects teams, THOSE are the lifeblood of a modern film. Call me when those guys weigh in because then I'm interested in what happens.

 

[jason10mm]

Why are you making an argument I wasn't responding to? The other dude said it's all about the wealthy minority of actors. I commented to prove that it isn't.

And you do realise that the union negotiates for the absolute minimum amount an actor can be paid, right? You're talking like the actors are all demanding massive pay increases. They aren't. They are just trying to secure a bottom line for the least of them, that is fair for everyone across the board, and reflects their contribution as a whole to the industry. No, they're not all going to have full time careers, and no one expects that.

And you clearly have an axe to grind against the entertainment industry, for what I guess is political reasons.

Whereas I'd be saying the same stuff about any industry, and would have the same opinion.

All workers in any industry must be provided with a bottom line that fairly reflects their contribution to that industry. Doesn't matter what job we're talking about. That then gives everyone involved the opportunity to excel and earn more, or fail and earn less.

You posted those SAG numbers to make a case that many of them don't qualify for health insurance, implying its their sole option. And bringing in the high paid actors is relevent because the almost every production with any real budget is anchored by a high paid "name" actor who, if they were paid a lot less, would free up lots of cash for all the character actors and extras. But Keanu Reeves made FIFTEEN MILLION for John Wick 4. If he just made a paltry FIVE million instead and that 10 mill was dispersed amongst the other 36 actors listing on the IMDB page, or maybe just the bottom 25-30 folks not big names themselves, how much would they make? Keanu is a bad example because he probably does return some compensation in various ways (watches for his stunt team at least) but it illustrates that lead actor pay is EXTREMELY disproportionate but its because that lead actor brings in the $$$ (or at least they hope so and few trust accounting to take a back end % of profit). So we do have a meritocracy playing out right in front of our eyes yet somehow its the producers who are the bad guys,

Now if we were discussing construction companies that stiffed workers and couldn't build a proper bridge it would be a different conversation from me. Or electricians wiring up a home or office. Or plumbers managing a sewer system. But this thread is about HOLLYWOOD, a pampered luxury item producer, kinda hard to clutch pearls over this....

 

[funkygunther]

If someone is worth it, the company will pay.

There's even google articles that can say the average union worker can have a higher annual wage than a non-union worker

Those union workers are worth it then aren't they? In fact, they're worth more!

 

[StreetsofBeige]

It's a siege. But its the writers (and now actors) INSIDE the castle. The producers can ALWAYS wash their hands and start over, or redirect to buying foreign produced stuff, or pivot and focus on re-releasing older stuff. How long can those guys survive without income and how long will the heavyweights lend support when they are cut off from the constant PR cycle they need to stay relevant? Face it, if EVERY writer and actor NEVER worked again, how long do you think the Hollywood machine would take to get up and running with all new faces?

I'd say 2 months at best. There are THOUSANDS of folks that would try their hand at acting. There are THOUSANDS of folks pitching scripts EVERY WEEK. Would the end product be great? Probably not, for a few years at least, but we could reset the entire actor/writer pools and I don't think much would change.

Now the set guys, the camera operators, the DPs, the technical crew, the casting directors, the editors? THOSE are the real talented folks and would be VERY difficult to replace as that skill set isn't taught much in grade school unlike writing and acting. The managers that deal with the logistics, organize the sets, coordinate the shoot for effects teams, THOSE are the lifeblood of a modern film. Call me when those guys weigh in because then I'm interested in what happens.

IMO, if writers and actors all walked, the biggest issue viewers would have are all the popular celebs disappearing. But for all the no-name people it'd be a non-issue because there will be many good actors out there who can fill a void. HBO is a great example of shows where a lot of the cast are people nobody has even heard of before but the acting is fantastic.

As for writing, I dont find much writing to great to begin with. To me, the key focus on great media is the production values and actors doing the role. If you simply read the scripts of shows and movies (you can probably google it), most of the text isnt even funny. But what makes it funny is Seinfeld or Al Bundy doing it funny. Or Al Pacino or Deniro doing their mob persona.

If it ever gets to AI doing a bunch of the grunt work, what will happen is roles will still be there. It'll just be writers and editors adjusting AI scripts instead of taking it as it comes out word for word from a PC. The job function will change but it'll still involve dealing with content. At least thats what I think.

The vast majority of content out there is very predictable. Guy gets girl. Good guy beating bad guy. Bad guy wants to steal money or take over the world. Good guy plot is revenge story, 99% of the time it's a happy ending etc.... Im pretty sure AI can be fine tuned to make something similar with pretty easy to understand plots. Now if most content out there was crazy shit like Memento, then OK I dont know if AI can be clever enough to do mindbenders like a writer can.

 

[ProtoByte]

Anyone claiming the CEOs and their companies know what they're doing...

The CEOs and the literal thousands of people around and above them were convinced that giving the customer what they seemed to want with streaming would lead to higher profits indeed set the paradigm for this. But then, the plebs striking now are the ones who were getting undue pay and opportunities as a result.

That's what I think Iger means when he says that these people aren't being realistic. They don't understand that the last 10 years of television production in particular has been facilitated by billions of dollars of losses and debt money. It's literally right there. Profitability is down, but there's more content being produced at higher production values than ever before. It's not even close. It was never realistically sustainable that way.

 

[ProtoByte]

Sorry, but that's idiotic.

87% of SAG AFTRA members (some 140,000 people) don't earn over $26,000 a year, which is the threshold for healthcare insurance. The movie stars aren't the problem here. It's the movie companies.

For Christ's sakes try to at least understand a subject before you comment on it.

Doesn't occur to you that maybe there shouldn't be that many people in the union/industry in the first place?