4 ms·

> I don't see why they should be entitled to perpetual income any more than the company that supplied the film should be entitled to perpetual income. Why do y

by lapcat 3y ago

> I don't see why they should be entitled to perpetual income any more than the company that supplied the film should be entitled to perpetual income. Why do you think of it in terms of "entitlement". Residuals were negotiated between actors, writers, and the studios. Just like stock options are negotiated for some software engineering jobs, for example. And many companies in various industries have forms of employee profit sharing. This is no different. The issue here is that the market has changed, and the preexisting deal for residuals didn't take into account the streaming services. So the writers and actors are naturally looking to renegotiate the terms. What's wrong with that? It's a contract negotiation. Now, if you want to completely overturn capitalism and institute some kind of Marxist labor theory of value, we can argue over that, but it seems a bit tangential here.

gruez 3y ago
>Why do you think of it in terms of "entitlement". Because that's the angle that the OP was going for, pointing out how it's some sort of injustice that capital gets a perpetual income stream but labor doesn't.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > Because that's the angle that the OP was going for, pointing out how it's some sort of injustice that capital gets a perpetual income stream but labor doesn't. Well, "injustice" aside, doesn't it seem somewhat arbitrary, inconsistent, bizarre to be ok with capitalists having perpetual income from their products while ridiculing labor (the "snarky shots fired at you") for wanting perpetual income from their products too? You said this, which seems to deny even the possibility of perpetual income for anyone except the owning class: > If you want perpetual income, create your own enterprise, or become an investor yourself.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    > Well, "injustice" aside, doesn't it seem somewhat arbitrary, inconsistent, bizarre to be ok with capitalists having perpetual income from their products while ridiculing labor If I bought a car and used it to drive for Uber are you okay with paying the factory workers a share of your income? If you owned a mom and pop restaurant should the people who built the restaurant get a share of your profits? If you started a software business are you okay with the authors of every library you used getting a share of your profits?
    - lapcat 3y ago
      This response is quite bizarre. First of all, you seem to be conflating the employee-employer relationship with the consumer-seller relationship. As a consumer, I don't negotiate with the factory workers who built my car, because I don't even know them. The factory workers negotiate with the car company, and I negotiate with the car dealership. The car dealership is not my employee, nor am I their employee. We have a one-time transaction, and then I probably never see them again. I didn't perform any labor for the dealership, and they didn't perform any labor for me. All they did was sell me a car. Of course the salesperson performed labor for the dealership, and maybe the salesperson got a cut of the car price, but I don't know for sure, because that's between the salesperson and the dealership, in their negotiated contract. My contract with the dealership was, I give them $X, and they give me vehicle Y. FWIW the dealership never even asked for a portion of my income, and I didn't ask for a portion of theirs. Neither of us had the leverage to do so, and we didn't have an ongoing financial relationship, so it didn't make any sense whatsoever to do revenue sharing. I'm currently self-employed and thus get perpetual income from my own software. Before that, I was a longtime employee of a software company, and they had a revenue sharing plan. This was actually their idea, not mine, to entice employees to stay with the company. It was part of the negotiated contract. Writers and actors have an ongoing relationship with the studios. They're more or less employees and have negotiated a contract that gives them residuals. It's all about negotiation. Both sides agreed to this. The studios aren't trying to abolish the concept of residuals. The only sticking point in negotiations is the streaming business, most of which now benefits the studios alone, so of course they don't want to give up more money. It's a financial negotiation that you're trying to turn into some strange philosophical issue. What you get as a result of negotiation is simply a matter of leverage. Some have the leverage, some don't. Labor unions tend to give labor more leverage. Actors have a lot of leverage, because people go to the movies to see the actors, not to see the producers.
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        > don't negotiate with the factory workers who built my car, because I don't even know them. The factory workers negotiate with the car company, and I negotiate with the car dealership. And you pay the car dealership for a one time use of the car. The factory workers pay to exchange their labor to build the car. Writing is a one time labor. What’s the difference? > Writers and actors have an ongoing relationship with the studios No they don’t. Writers are contracted to write for a show. They are not employees of any given studio. > I'm currently self-employed and thus get perpetual income from my own software Do you pay a perpetual license for every library that you use? > Before that, I was a longtime employee of a software company, and they had a revenue sharing plan Are you still getting a revenue share after you are no longer an employee? > Writers and actors have an ongoing relationship with the studios No they don’t, once the show is finished they no more have a relationship with the studio than you have after you leave a job. > It's a financial negotiation Yes, it is a negotiation. Just like if you worked for a startup and settled for lower pay in exchange for equity. Neither they or you “deserve” more than the market will bear and what you are able to negotiate.
  - gruez 3y ago
    >doesn't it seem somewhat arbitrary, inconsistent, bizarre to be ok with capitalists having perpetual income from their products while ridiculing labor (the "snarky shots fired at you") for wanting perpetual income from their products too I used the dichotomy of laborers vs capital owners to contrast the two roles and make things easier to discuss. In real life many "employees" are both laborers (ie. getting paid a lump sum for their time) as well as capital owners (because of the equity that their company provides them). Even for jobs that don't provide any equity, anyone can become a member of "the owning class" for as little as $1[1]. >Well, "injustice" aside, doesn't it seem somewhat arbitrary, inconsistent, bizarre to be ok with capitalists having perpetual income from their products while ridiculing labor (the "snarky shots fired at you") for wanting perpetual income from their products too? I never claimed that labor shouldn't have a perpetual income stream, just that they aren't entitled to one. Capital also isn't entitled to a perpetual income stream either. Bonds are an example. [1] https://learn.robinhood.com/articles/how-to-start-investing-for-as-little-as-1-dollar/ https://learn.robinhood.com/articles/how-to-start-investing-...

by lapcat 3y ago

gruez 3y ago

>Why do you think of it in terms of "entitlement". Because that's the angle that the OP was going for, pointing out how it's some sort of injustice that capital gets a perpetual income stream but labor doesn't.

lapcat 3y ago
> Because that's the angle that the OP was going for, pointing out how it's some sort of injustice that capital gets a perpetual income stream but labor doesn't. Well, "injustice" aside, doesn't it seem somewhat arbitrary, inconsistent, bizarre to be ok with capitalists having perpetual income from their products while ridiculing labor (the "snarky shots fired at you") for wanting perpetual income from their products too? You said this, which seems to deny even the possibility of perpetual income for anyone except the owning class: > If you want perpetual income, create your own enterprise, or become an investor yourself.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  > Well, "injustice" aside, doesn't it seem somewhat arbitrary, inconsistent, bizarre to be ok with capitalists having perpetual income from their products while ridiculing labor If I bought a car and used it to drive for Uber are you okay with paying the factory workers a share of your income? If you owned a mom and pop restaurant should the people who built the restaurant get a share of your profits? If you started a software business are you okay with the authors of every library you used getting a share of your profits?
  - lapcat 3y ago
    This response is quite bizarre. First of all, you seem to be conflating the employee-employer relationship with the consumer-seller relationship. As a consumer, I don't negotiate with the factory workers who built my car, because I don't even know them. The factory workers negotiate with the car company, and I negotiate with the car dealership. The car dealership is not my employee, nor am I their employee. We have a one-time transaction, and then I probably never see them again. I didn't perform any labor for the dealership, and they didn't perform any labor for me. All they did was sell me a car. Of course the salesperson performed labor for the dealership, and maybe the salesperson got a cut of the car price, but I don't know for sure, because that's between the salesperson and the dealership, in their negotiated contract. My contract with the dealership was, I give them $X, and they give me vehicle Y. FWIW the dealership never even asked for a portion of my income, and I didn't ask for a portion of theirs. Neither of us had the leverage to do so, and we didn't have an ongoing financial relationship, so it didn't make any sense whatsoever to do revenue sharing. I'm currently self-employed and thus get perpetual income from my own software. Before that, I was a longtime employee of a software company, and they had a revenue sharing plan. This was actually their idea, not mine, to entice employees to stay with the company. It was part of the negotiated contract. Writers and actors have an ongoing relationship with the studios. They're more or less employees and have negotiated a contract that gives them residuals. It's all about negotiation. Both sides agreed to this. The studios aren't trying to abolish the concept of residuals. The only sticking point in negotiations is the streaming business, most of which now benefits the studios alone, so of course they don't want to give up more money. It's a financial negotiation that you're trying to turn into some strange philosophical issue. What you get as a result of negotiation is simply a matter of leverage. Some have the leverage, some don't. Labor unions tend to give labor more leverage. Actors have a lot of leverage, because people go to the movies to see the actors, not to see the producers.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      > don't negotiate with the factory workers who built my car, because I don't even know them. The factory workers negotiate with the car company, and I negotiate with the car dealership. And you pay the car dealership for a one time use of the car. The factory workers pay to exchange their labor to build the car. Writing is a one time labor. What’s the difference? > Writers and actors have an ongoing relationship with the studios No they don’t. Writers are contracted to write for a show. They are not employees of any given studio. > I'm currently self-employed and thus get perpetual income from my own software Do you pay a perpetual license for every library that you use? > Before that, I was a longtime employee of a software company, and they had a revenue sharing plan Are you still getting a revenue share after you are no longer an employee? > Writers and actors have an ongoing relationship with the studios No they don’t, once the show is finished they no more have a relationship with the studio than you have after you leave a job. > It's a financial negotiation Yes, it is a negotiation. Just like if you worked for a startup and settled for lower pay in exchange for equity. Neither they or you “deserve” more than the market will bear and what you are able to negotiate.
- gruez 3y ago
  >doesn't it seem somewhat arbitrary, inconsistent, bizarre to be ok with capitalists having perpetual income from their products while ridiculing labor (the "snarky shots fired at you") for wanting perpetual income from their products too I used the dichotomy of laborers vs capital owners to contrast the two roles and make things easier to discuss. In real life many "employees" are both laborers (ie. getting paid a lump sum for their time) as well as capital owners (because of the equity that their company provides them). Even for jobs that don't provide any equity, anyone can become a member of "the owning class" for as little as $1[1]. >Well, "injustice" aside, doesn't it seem somewhat arbitrary, inconsistent, bizarre to be ok with capitalists having perpetual income from their products while ridiculing labor (the "snarky shots fired at you") for wanting perpetual income from their products too? I never claimed that labor shouldn't have a perpetual income stream, just that they aren't entitled to one. Capital also isn't entitled to a perpetual income stream either. Bonds are an example. [1] https://learn.robinhood.com/articles/how-to-start-investing-for-as-little-as-1-dollar/ https://learn.robinhood.com/articles/how-to-start-investing-...