Just took another look at the terms that ended the writers' strike and what stands out to me is that the total value of the deal is $233 million/year. To put that into perspective: Disney's streaming revenues were $5.5 billion *last quarter* and Netflix's profit was $1.5 billion *last quarter*

Upshot: the studios and streamers shut down production over a friggin rounding error on their accounting spreadsheet. smdh.

This begs the question: why are executives at studios and streaming platforms still unwilling to reach a deal to end the actors' strike, so that everyone can finally get back to work? Is their pride clouding their judgment? Or is their greed so insatiable that they're willing to literally risk making zero money instead of sharing a tiny, tiny bit more of the wealth with actors?
@DataDrivenMD last major strike of this type lead to reality television, which lead to ash bowl inmate p01135809 building a cult following of morons and riding it to power, destroying the government. I think the studios want to do that again.
Story moral: people need real art or things go downhill for society, and today, av is the primary art form for the masses.
Btw, the Hollywood strike before that lead to president Ray Gun

@DataDrivenMD because it's not just about the money right now. It's about putting workers in their place and squeezing real humans out of jobs, because they are convinced creativity doesn't matter... up to the point at which it can be used to threaten their control and inspire rebellion.

Actors are very visible workers who are very good at being inspiring. It's not about the drop-in-the-ocean money. It's about the Return to the Office and Flexible Working and Disability Rights in a Pandemic>

@DataDrivenMD >it's about everything else they and other executives want to say no to in order to retain a strangle hold on our lives and minds.
@DataDrivenMD AI actors don't eat, sleep, picket or even gripe that they are paid $0. That might have something to do with it.

@DataDrivenMD The union initially estimated the contract would cost the industry $429 million/year. So the strike did result in a more favorable contract for the studios, but was the cost worth it?

The phrase "stepping over dollars to pick up a pennies," comes to mind.

@DataDrivenMD
I think it is ego in the corporate echo chamber. Success looks like this so this is how to be successful, except it’s that way because of this argument and other ways are rejected.

You have a history of toxic ā€˜success’ where the opportunity cost of doing it better is never accounted for. It is what feminism calls the patriarchy.
ā€œI’m in charge, I’m paying so do it my way or quit.ā€
It’s the weak ’strong man’.

This blinkered approach still doesn’t recognise it’s a value exchange where the studios need to compensate with cash because it’s all they have. Confused by the total volume of cash being worth more than the pay of the individual while not equating to the market value of the individual.

It’s the culture of less money is better as growth is shrinking, slamming against the want to be the best.

It is in effect an agency problem except failure is from incompetence not malice. Also, survivor bias as stories of good deals don’t survive the editors.

"Enough"

Read the full transcript of the speech "Enough" by John C. Bogle.

James Clear

@DataDrivenMD The hell of an economic system driven by shareholders and giving them a mentally stimulating ludicrously unsustainable ROI every quarter or ELSE they'll panic. It's doomed to fail and be horrid for everyone. System's broke to shit so bad it's amazing there's anything at all and we haven't destroyed everything

https://mastodon.world/@edgeoforever/111136862362423526

edgeoforever šŸŽ (@[email protected])

Attached: 1 image https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/09/trump-milley-death-fbi-threats.html #uspolitics #TFG #elections #media so, apparently our media chooses not to cover the marching of authoritarian fascism because ā€œit would make them sound partisan ā€œ. Maybe check the party registration of your bosses when you think you make that decision. You work for team fascism and normalize transgressions.

Mastodon
@DataDrivenMD Because they delegated the decision-making to some middlemen, and their best interest is not exactly the best interest of the middlemen.
@DataDrivenMD It’s ā€œowning the libsā€ all the way down.
@DataDrivenMD it was about making sure the peasants knew their place.

@DataDrivenMD I want to see a strike that holds until all these predatory executives are hung out to dry and the companies converted into worker-owned cooperatives.

Anything less is a bandaid.

@DataDrivenMD Put another way, Disney+ has over 46M subscribers in the U.S. & Canada alone. Last month they raised their subscription prices $3/month. Just two months of that increase is $276M. More than enough to pay for the entire year of the new contract. By themselves.
@natetharp @DataDrivenMD Honestly makes me wonder why the WGA wasn't asking for more. Some bigger percentage, at least of profit. I know there are huge costs related to funding the operation of businesses this large, but just their profits alone could be better distributed, unless I'm not a big enough business-brain and I'm missing something. 

@wagesj45 @DataDrivenMD I feel pretty confident the WGA got as much as they could, otherwise they wouldn't have ended it. They had a strong hand and played it very, very well.

As I understand it, there's two things that make your proposal difficult.

1. Generally, asking for a piece of "profits" in Hollywood is fraught. They use accounting gimmicks that result in the production of mega-hit movies like _Forest Gump_ being considered unprofitable. https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/19/business/nightcap-hollywood-accounting-strike/index.html

@wagesj45 @DataDrivenMD 2. Whether a streaming project is profitable or not is currently a black box. Streaming services protect their performance metrics very, very tightly. So the concession the WGA got on streaming residual boost is quite an accomplishment because it forces streamers to use and report on a standard performance metric. But anything beyond that would be fought tooth & nail by the streaming companies.
@natetharp this is the business-brain i was hoping to hear from. thank you.
@DataDrivenMD yeah I'm really hoping I misunderstand something because that is wild. Too much to handle wild. But I'm never surprised anymore on some level because rand corp said they transfered 50 trillion over decades. https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WRA516-1.html
U.S. Economic Growth Has Not Been Shared Evenly Since 1974

For two decades after World War II, incomes grew at a rate close to the U.S. economy-wide growth rate. Anemic growth from 1969 to 1974 kept inequality in check. But since then, the benefits of growth have not been evenly distributed. Racial and gender inequality is also manifested in income inequality.

@DataDrivenMD
It was never about the money for the executives. It was about keeping certain people "in their place"

@DataDrivenMD the brainworms from the rich are really something. It's not enough to have a lot of money, they must have ALL THE MONEY. Every penny and cent from every employee, squeeze every drop of blood and suffering, yes they may not even notice it on a book but the point is they got it and cemented their place as the rightful masters and that's enough for them.

(that last bit is a joke, it's never enough)

@DataDrivenMD Incidentally, one of the time-honoured ways to get rich is to convince a bunch of rich people with more money than businesses to put one in charge of a profitable business, and then, somehow, become rich, often at a greater rate than the capitalists whose money the CEO is supposed to be growing.

Interestingly, the capitalists don't seem to mind sharing their wealth with that kind of people. Sometimes they don't even mind very much if the business ends up becoming unprofitable; they might even give the future ex-CEO tens of millions of dollars just to make him go away.