Like it or not, the multimillionaires are far closer to us than they are to billionaires. It’s not even close. Even at 100,000,000 you’re far closer to the everyday person.
So yes, I consider a union of actors to be a union, even if the actors are making millions. Our common enemy is still the billionaires and corporations, who are wealthy beyond imagination.
Besides, actors tend to be liberal and do a lot of philanthropy. It’s probably because with all their wealth, they still feel closer to the common person and remember their upbringing.
Solidarity means all workers, even the ones who get paid too much. Don’t fall for the divisions that billionaires want to create.
Yep. Actors who don’t have named roles probably aren’t making close to millions, maybe a couple hundred k at best. More likely less. Actors who’ve accumulated a reputation but are in things like TV shows or Netflix movies are closer to a few million. It’s why those actors, despite having popular acclaim, are still very down to earth.
If anything, their wealth makes them incredibly powerful allies. They have influence and they’ve been able to take a closer look at the process. The actors striking gave the writers a much needed boost. It’s corny, but I saw a meme for Avengers Infinity War which portrayed the writers and the heroes struggling against the invasion in Wakanda, and then SAG leadership was Thor coming in and turning the tides. It’s obviously a joke, but I think it fits fairly well as an analogy. The Screen Actors Guild is a massive asset.
The investment accounts are an interesting point though. With how it works, a lot of Americans technically own little bits and pieces of the means of production, but not enough to influence things. I’d argue the famous actors probably don’t have much influence either as investors, despite having a lot more invested.
The multimillionaires that are supporting the union don’t are doing so because either A) it’s the right thing to do, or B) because the studios may inadvertently trigger the destruction of Hollywood because of greed. Whether because of altruism or mutual self-interest, it’s the right thing to do.
Sure fine whatever but it is stretching the bloody terms. There is a world of differenxe between a near minimum wage sheet metal worker whose family is on food stamps and someone who makes more in a year than most Americans earn in a lifetime.
That assumes that all actors and screenwriters make more in a year than most in a lifetime. In reality they work from job to job, paycheck to paycheck. I know a few people who work in production in Hollywood. They tell me that working on a tv show used to mean steady employment, but now can mean just 4 weeks of work for writers and creative types.
Multimillionaires fighting with other multimillionaires isn’t exactly what I think of when I think of scab vs union.
Some quick math to put things into perspective:
Like it or not, the multimillionaires are far closer to us than they are to billionaires. It’s not even close. Even at 100,000,000 you’re far closer to the everyday person.
So yes, I consider a union of actors to be a union, even if the actors are making millions. Our common enemy is still the billionaires and corporations, who are wealthy beyond imagination.
Besides, actors tend to be liberal and do a lot of philanthropy. It’s probably because with all their wealth, they still feel closer to the common person and remember their upbringing.
Solidarity means all workers, even the ones who get paid too much. Don’t fall for the divisions that billionaires want to create.
It’s also important to remember that most actors aren’t multi-millionaires, only the famous ones are.
Yep. Actors who don’t have named roles probably aren’t making close to millions, maybe a couple hundred k at best. More likely less. Actors who’ve accumulated a reputation but are in things like TV shows or Netflix movies are closer to a few million. It’s why those actors, despite having popular acclaim, are still very down to earth.
deleted by creator
If anything, their wealth makes them incredibly powerful allies. They have influence and they’ve been able to take a closer look at the process. The actors striking gave the writers a much needed boost. It’s corny, but I saw a meme for Avengers Infinity War which portrayed the writers and the heroes struggling against the invasion in Wakanda, and then SAG leadership was Thor coming in and turning the tides. It’s obviously a joke, but I think it fits fairly well as an analogy. The Screen Actors Guild is a massive asset.
The investment accounts are an interesting point though. With how it works, a lot of Americans technically own little bits and pieces of the means of production, but not enough to influence things. I’d argue the famous actors probably don’t have much influence either as investors, despite having a lot more invested.
deleted by creator
Ah no worries.
And for sure, you can never be too careful.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Woo!
The multimillionaires that are supporting the union don’t are doing so because either A) it’s the right thing to do, or B) because the studios may inadvertently trigger the destruction of Hollywood because of greed. Whether because of altruism or mutual self-interest, it’s the right thing to do.
Sure fine whatever but it is stretching the bloody terms. There is a world of differenxe between a near minimum wage sheet metal worker whose family is on food stamps and someone who makes more in a year than most Americans earn in a lifetime.
That assumes that all actors and screenwriters make more in a year than most in a lifetime. In reality they work from job to job, paycheck to paycheck. I know a few people who work in production in Hollywood. They tell me that working on a tv show used to mean steady employment, but now can mean just 4 weeks of work for writers and creative types.