DAREDEVIL: BORN AGAIN Production Has Been Disrupted By WGA Strike

@tBHzHomer - Hollywood writers should get minimum wage because 99.999% of their work is garbage.

@tBHzHomer - Yes, Jessica Gao, Mindy Kaling, the Rings of Power, Book of Boba Fett, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Witcher: Blood Origin, and Willow writers deserve more money for the excellent job they did this past year.

@PartyKiller - Maybe if they weren't overworked and/or underpaid their writing would be better. And anyway, if the studios thought they're bad at their jobs, why hire them? No one forces them, studios can choose who they hire to write for them and they're the ones who should do quality control. But once they hire the writers,they have to pay them, simple as that.

@tBHzHomer - actually, the more I'm hearing from this the more I'm actually against it.

The pay increase is just one part of it, and something that the studios already agreed to. The rest of their demands are more ridiculous though. Such as required 12 week jobs, required 6 writer teams, and weekly pay days on top of the 50% pay they're already getting upfront without the need to provide a draft.

@Origame - this is what I found about their demands. I see nothing wrong with them.

https://apnews.com/article/wga-writers-strike-demands-d403f5b4666f20e2ce3e379bcaef5f2a

@CorndogBurglar - Not as good as they could or should based on what the studios make. I’ll support most collective action against the upper class.

Considering the players are the entire reason the sports makes money in the first place, yes absolutely. They should get their fair share of any profits. You give me them having more money than the average person as a reason to not support them, but the people they would strike against have far more money than that. Like it’s not even close. I imagine you and I are closer income wise to those sports players than the players are to the team owners. But who do you think actually contributes more to the team’s value?

@Polaris - They aren't overworked. HAHAHA! But your logic says they won't earn their money until they make even more. That they've been holding out.

99% of them are non-artists who wanted Hollywood money and so they got schooling and got the jobs. But they have no actual talent. Their work proves that.

@PartyKiller - So don't hire them if they're so bad. But if they get the job and do the work, whether you like the result or not, they deserve a fair compensation. Also Studios are making money out of it, even if you think most movies/shows are shit, have you seen the revenue Studios get? And the ones who create the "content" are the ones who earn the less.

@CassianAndor - So should a person making French fries at McDonald's get paid a million dollars a year simply because McDonald's is a company with a net worth $195 billion?

Not all jobs are equal. People's income should not be based on how much their company is worth, or how much they make. That's ludicrous.

Two things: 1, if employees should be paid based on their company's worth and income then you're left with a crazy situation where no jobs have any real meaning. You can have a fry cook at a fast food restaurant making as much or more than someone with a very complicated job that usually requires college degrees, like project management. So now everyone would just decide to go the easy route and work in the lowest positions possible in a fast food restaurants for a living. Jobs that teenagers do when they turn 16. Why on earth would anyone bother with anything more difficult or high level if you earn a million dollars a year flipping burgers?

And 2, what exactly do you propose is an acceptable amount for companies to have to pay their employees? And how do you enforce that? Should they have to spend 80% of their income on payroll? 70%? 90%? Because now you're limiting company growth since a large part of their profits is going towards employees and not the actual company.

Look, most people think they are underpaid for the work they do. In some cases that's true. But with writers you're talking about people wanting to be paid a large amount of money before they even know if people liked their work or not. Before the companies hiring them even know of they are going to make a large amount of money on the project. That isn't fair either. There's a level of risk involved for both parties.

But to your main point? No. Companies should absolutely not pay employees based on how much money they make. They should be given the freedom to pay according to industry standard for the particular job and provide raises when someone does better than the norm.

But simply saying the amount of money the company earns should dictate how much their employees get paid is 100% wrong. It's also doesn't just hurt big corporations, it hurts small business also.

@tBHzHomer - also, if it's about the exclusivity deal, how's about negotiating to not have exclusivity deals on streaming series? Or that exclusivity deals should only be issues for series that are 20-ish episodes? The solution shouldn't be to give them work days they don't need to do their job that can be done much sooner.

@tBHzHomer - they wanted a pay increase of 5%, then they were given a counter offer of 4%. They are clearly fine with a pay increase. Are you really gonna b!tch about the 1% they didn't agree to? And keep in mind, these people are already getting paid on average $5,000 a week when they are paid on commission. They're hardly struggling.

@tBHzHomer - directly from the wga

https://freshmenscreenplay.com/how-much-screenwriters-make/

@CorndogBurglar - Oh and to your question, one could argue that technically all profits are unpaid labor.

@CassianAndor - "It again sounds like you’re siding with the billionaires (which is a lot more than a millionaire!) who only have that obscene amount of wealth they could never even hope to spend a fraction of in their lifetime, because of the hard work of their employees you claim aren’t worthy of making enough money to live."

I never once said people aren't worthy of making enough money to live. But all jobs are not created equal. A person flipping burgers does not deserve to make the same kind of money as a high skill job. It doesn't even deserve to make as much money as other labor jobs like Construction. The amount of skill and labor just isn't equal. Period. And not only that, but big corporations have so many employees under them that it's hard to even say how much each individual employee earned their company. Does one burger flipper earn McDonalds a million dollars a year? I highly doubt it. So why should a corporation lose money by paying that employee more than they are bringing into the company?

And you're also ignoring all the downstream impacts and fallout I mentioned in my last comment:

1. If everyone made a million dollars doing menial, low skill work then there would be no reason for anyone to get an education of any kind. If you can make a million dollars stocking shelves at the local grocery store or Best Buy, or flipping burgers at McDonalds, then why would anyone even finish High School? You don't even need high school diplomas for those jobs. So if everyone is doing low skill work, then how do the high skill jobs get done? No one in their right minds would do that work. Who would go do a moe dangerous job like construction in the hot sun, or spend tons of money on a college degree to get a high skill job of they can just go to a fast food restaurant?

2. What is an acceptable amount for companies to have to spend on payroll? 80% of their profits? 90%? 75%? And who regulates that? The government? The government are the real problem with why our society is struggling the way they are right now. You're comment you made about "all profit being unpaid labor" would lead me to believe you don't think companies should be allowed to make any profit at all. Why? Let's look:

3. "one could argue that technically all profits are unpaid labor." The term "Unpaid labor" insinuates that employees are owed an amount that they aren't getting paid. So what you're saying is that companies should not be able to make any profit. You said "ALL profit is unpaid labor". You also said in an earlier comment that people should be given the right to live comfortably and have a savings. So why is that same luxury not afforded to business owners? You're forcing them to break even and not earn a penny more. Which leads to the next point:

4. Why should companies have to spend all of their money on labor? They can't earn a profit and have a savings? If that's the case, why would any companies exist? Why would anyone start a company if they are forced to break even?

5. Companies employ the country. Without companies, the entire country would be out of jobs. Unemployment would run rampant. As much as you hate to admit it, we NEED companies and corporations. Without stores we have to live off the land. Without banks the vast majority of the country couldn't afford to have a car or a house, or even afford an apartment. Hell, apartments wouldn't even exist because they too are corporations. We have these things BECAUSE companies and corporations make a lot of money. You think banks would hand out auto loans if they didn't have billions and sometimes trillions of dollars? Of course not. And banks are just privately owned corporations.

6. If you want to talk about minimum wage and how the world used to work, then blame the right people. We had giant mega corporations and banks back then too, even when everything was better. Corporations don't control minimum wage. Governments do. And they keep raising minimum wage because they keep causing inflation to take place at a quicker rate than ever before.

You want to talk about the real problem here? Blame the people that get put in office that are putting both individual citizens and companies alike in this situation. Politicians make decisions that cause inflation. Businesses and people can't keep up with the inflation so the government responds by raising minimum wage. This helps citizens a little, but companies are taking a hit on two fronts. Inflation causes their products to be more expensive to produce, transport, and sell. And higher minimum wage also causes them to pay more out of their pocket for their employees. Why should they have to take that kind of hit when no one else does? Of course they are going to raise their prices so they don't lose money. Anyone else would do the same thing. So then we're right back to step 1, and the citizens are right back to not making enough money based on their own life decisions and skills.

I would love a Utopian society where everyone has all the money they need to live comfortably. Just as much as anyone. But reality doesn't work that way. No country in the entire world has figured out how to make that happen. But for all the reasons I said above, basing employee income on their companies worth is not feasible in any way. There are always other downstream impacts to consider other than, people get more money.

@CassianAndor - And there it is. You can't face the truth of why what you're saying doesn't work, and you certainly can't debate it effectively. So you resort to name calling.

Classic.

@CassianAndor - "You don’t believe someone working a full time job deserves to earn enough money to support themselves and a family."

This isnt what I said at all, in any of my comments. And I really don't know how you came to that conclusion.

My entire point is that all jobs arennot created equal and they people shouldn't be paid based on how much money their company has.

If you want to be mad about wages and minimum wage not being enough to support a family then get mad at the right people. Politicians. They are the ones causing all of this by making decisions that make inflation rise at higher rates than ever. Minimum wage can't keep up. And you can't keep raising minimum wage and causing inflation or you end up in the exact spot we're in now.

Blame companies for having lots of money all you want. But they aren't the reason that every day people are having trouble affording things. That's all on idiotic politicians.

@CorndogBurglar - You seriously don’t think the politicians aren’t just doing what the companies want? We know who their owners are.

@CorndogBurglar - “My entire point is that all jobs arennot created equal and they people shouldn't be paid based on how much money their company has.”

Then what the hell should we base it on? What the owners deem worthy? Because they’d say $0 if they could. I remember us fighting a war over it. The value of the company tells us exactly what the value of the labor is.

@CassianAndor - Of course. I never meant to say people shouldn't be paid enough to live. And if it came off that way then that's my mistake.

What I was saying is that jobs are not equal. I was saying this in response to you saying that companies should pay labor based on the amount of money the company earns. That would imply that they have to distribute their profits out amongst their employees. If everyone can make a very good living off of a low skill job, then we would have very little people getting educations. Because why would they if they can live comfortably without it? For example, McDonalds earns enough to pay their employees a million a year. Probably pretty easily.

There would be a huge demand for high skill jobs. And by this logic, only greed, or people motivated by money would want to do those jobs. Having a lack of high skill jobs is a bigger problem than it sounds.

"Then what the hell should we base it on? What the owners deem worthy? Because they’d say $0 if they could. I remember us fighting a war over it. The value of the company tells us exactly what the value of the labor is."

No, not what the owners deem worthy. It should be based on skill level. Here's an example. Two people work in fast food, doing the same job. We'll just say they cook French fries. One works at McDonalds. One works at Burger King. Is it fair that the person that works at Burger King makes less than the person that works at McDonalds? Simply because more people like McDonalds' food? They're doing the same amount, and skill level of work. Both companies are busy throughout the day. But one person earns less. That isn't fair by any means.

"Oh and I almost forgot, non-profit banks do actually exist since you liked to bring banks up as a justification for obscene wealth. Perhaps you’ve heard of credit unions?"

Yes, I have. I have a loan for my car through a credit union. But the idea that they are "non-profit" isn't exactly what it sounds like. If you think credit unions aren't sitting on a huge amount of money then you are mistaken. They still charge interest on loans and they still charge fees. Just like normal banks.

The difference is they "return their profits to their customers". But do you know how they do that? They don't give customers (or members as their called) money. They dont give them their interest rates back. They return it in the form of LOWER fees and interest rates than banks. But they still charge those things, even if they are lower. After paying their employees and overhead for physical locations, donations to charity, etc, they still have plenty of money that its members never really see. Don't let them fool you. It costs them nothing to charge interest and fees. It's not like they are sitting with $0.00 account at all times. They are 100% turning a profit and have money that isn't being used or returned to its members.

And the same can be said for non-profit businesses. I mean, the NFL is a "non-profit" organization and they are filthy rich.

"You seriously don’t think the politicians aren’t just doing what the companies want? We know who their owners are."

No one is forcing politicians to be in the pockets of big business. They are CHOOSING to be because it makes them rich too. So I do agree with you there. It is a big problem. But the politicians have all the power in the world to NOT be in their pockets. But they continue to make that decision.

"I didn’t say it’s what I think should be done, I just said there’s an argument for it. And there is. It’s the communist argument."

Well that's funny because I edited several of my comments (as I'm sure you could see in your messages box) because I was going to outright call you a Communist for saying "ALL profit is unpaid labor". So I'm glad to hear you don't agree with it. Because that's an absolutely terrible approach. It's what I've based most of my comments on toward you, in fact.

@CassianAndor - lol all good man. At the end of the day we don't agree on everything, and that's fine. I don't hate you for it. It is what it is.