Somehow any iota of outrage I might have felt just evaporated. Elites griping about even bigger elites don't muster much sympathy.
What a reductive view. Labor unionization sucks in this country for opinions like this.
EDIT: One of my friends was a writer on a FOX broadcast show a few years ago. With the writer's room salary and residuals from one broadcast episode script, she and her husband were able to buy a house in LA near El Segundo. She's a showrunner now for a streaming show, but makes less now than she did as a staff writer. For a tech analogy: imagine if you made it to CTO and made less than you did as a junior programmer even though the company was making even more off of your work than it did before.
Somehow any iota of outrage I might have felt just evaporated. Elites griping about even bigger elites don't muster much sympathy.
Yes, this is how everyone outside of tech thinks about tech people these days... Remember that you said this the next time you're out of work and looking for sympathy and people are talking crap about you.
[0] https://variety.com/2023/biz/news/wga-contract-inflation-min...
The rate for a writer-producer is $7.4k/week. That is for a writer that also does producing duties.
Most writers are not also employed in production capacities. Staff writers make a lot less, and seasons are a lot shorter than they used to be, so there is a lot more downtime between gigs (since few writers have the clout to work on multiple shows at the same time).
Not all writers write for 48 weeks per year, but that’s the minimum. So it’s fair to say that writers are well paid. But the median is probably pretty close to $260k.
[0] https://variety.com/2023/biz/news/wga-contract-inflation-min...
As the article notes: "The staff writer’s weekly minimum — $4,546 — would likewise need to rise 10% to equal the minimum in 2019-20 in inflation-adjusted terms."
And the article notes the average annual earnings of writers as well: "The median staff writer on a network show works 29 weeks for a wage of $131,834, while the median staff writer on a streaming show works 20 weeks for $90,920."
Or in other words, less than half of what you claim. Writers were well paid, they're not anymore.
But I'll just throw in that this sentiment is dangerous. Squabbling over the difference between 40k and 260k, is missing the mark, and exactly what CEOs want you to think about because ultimately... The difference between the CEO pay and the upper end of the writers is 0.26/76.8M vs. 0.04/76.8M
Or 0.3% of CEO salary for the average, and 0.05% of CEO pay for the lower end. You can bet the CEO wants you to be fighting about how much more pay the other writers are getting over you, and not how much they're getting over everyone else. Like, yeah, by all means let's worry about how one writer is making 15% of another writer sometime after we've dealt with the obviously larger problem.
Also, what have they legitimately added to the company to deserve that much pay?
But the strike is really about increasing the minimum wage, not the average. The "average wage" isn't really a good metric in the first place.
Can you still have support and sympathy without outrage?
What are some of the strikes in the last few decades where you have felt outrage, and how did that help the strike effort?
Certainly it would have to be a small enough amount that they might face some kind of financial hardship under normal circumstances. If a company is paying all their employees (which to be clear I know is not the case here, but just as a hypothetical example) enough that they can comfortably raise a family in even the most expensive cities in the world, I'm not going to spend my time criticizing that person regardless of how much they make.
you know, strikes aren't always only for money for one's self.
This strike is also about keeping a career pathway open for the future. One point is that the route the companies want to go gives short-term profit (writers are involved less) but will result in long-term disaster for the film industry (as fewer writers will understand the ropes).
But hey, even if that doesn't affect your sense of outrage, why do you accept the company owners and upper management by default are expected to get all the money?
This means that the years they are making an "average" of $260k needs to offset the years when they aren't landing any writing gigs at all.
And indeed, this is part of how Hollywood pay is structured: the seemingly inflated pay is adjusted for the fact that the work itself is highly sporadic.
I doubt average amounts are in any way meaningful in this context.
What we really need to know is median pay per year but I suspect that's going to be a difficult set of numbers to find.
Not that CEOs aren't hugely overpaid either...
A company with a current market cap of $28B paid half a billion to its CEO over the past 5 years?
"Meanwhile, average pay for Hollywood writers has remained virtually flat at about $260,000 as 2021, the Times reports"
That's actually higher than I thought. Good on them. Writing is hard.
Not to say he doesn't make a lot of money...
They screened it and it was so bad they threw it and the 90mil they spent on it in the bin as there was nothing salvageable. Sometimes, despite all hard work and good intentions, the final result is still trash.
If it was going to make a billion at the box office, they would not "write it off" for tax purposes.
[1] disagrees. Do you have a better source?
"Batgirl’s test score, which was for a director’s cut, is comparable to scores for the first It (2017), which wound up grossing $700.3 million globally, as well as an early score for the upcoming Shazam! Fury of the Gods. Both of those films tested in the 60s."
(SFOTG is, admittedly, a bit of a flop sitting on about $130m gross currently.)
[1] https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/batgirl-...
[1] https://www.productionhub.com/blog/post/the-return-of-sectio...
