3 ms·

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

by 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.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > And you pay the car dealership for a one time use of the car. I'm not sure what you mean. One time use would be rental. I own the car and use it all the time. > Writers are contracted to write for a show. They are not employees of any given studio. Some writers and actors are permanent employees of a show, which is likely owned by one of the studios. Other writers and actors are temps. But the thing is, Hollywood is a pretty small town, and there are only so many studios, which is why it's possible for a union to represent all the writers, all the actors, all the directors. > Do you pay a perpetual license for every library that you use? Well, Apple currently takes 15% of my income... > Neither they or you “deserve” more than the market will bear and what you are able to negotiate. I never said otherwise. But obviously the non-streaming film and TV market bore residuals. We'll see who has the leverage and what happens with streaming. The biggest issue is that the studios are pleading poverty over streaming, which seems unbelievable. Anyway, I'm just baffled that other people in these comments are somehow baffled at the idea that residuals exist. There's nothing inherently wrong with them.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    > Some writers and actors are permanent employees of a show, which is likely owned by one of the studios And when the show is over, why “should” it be different than when my employment is over unless I hold on to RSUs (public company) or options when I leave? I chose to work for a public company that gave me less than market value in exchange for stock that gives me residual rights to income from the company. I could just as well as chosen to work for a company that paid me up front in cash my market. I’m not baffled residuals exist, I’m baffled that people think that writers and actors “deserve” them instead of it just being a negotiation between cash now and less cash and higher/risk return by accepting them in exchange for less cash up front
    - lapcat 3y ago
      > I could just as well as chosen to work for a company that paid me up front in cash my market. That's not how it works. Which non-equity jobs have a significantly higher base pay than the BigCos themselves who do offer equity in addition to paychecks?

by lapcat 3y ago

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.

lapcat 3y ago
> And you pay the car dealership for a one time use of the car. I'm not sure what you mean. One time use would be rental. I own the car and use it all the time. > Writers are contracted to write for a show. They are not employees of any given studio. Some writers and actors are permanent employees of a show, which is likely owned by one of the studios. Other writers and actors are temps. But the thing is, Hollywood is a pretty small town, and there are only so many studios, which is why it's possible for a union to represent all the writers, all the actors, all the directors. > Do you pay a perpetual license for every library that you use? Well, Apple currently takes 15% of my income... > Neither they or you “deserve” more than the market will bear and what you are able to negotiate. I never said otherwise. But obviously the non-streaming film and TV market bore residuals. We'll see who has the leverage and what happens with streaming. The biggest issue is that the studios are pleading poverty over streaming, which seems unbelievable. Anyway, I'm just baffled that other people in these comments are somehow baffled at the idea that residuals exist. There's nothing inherently wrong with them.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  > Some writers and actors are permanent employees of a show, which is likely owned by one of the studios And when the show is over, why “should” it be different than when my employment is over unless I hold on to RSUs (public company) or options when I leave? I chose to work for a public company that gave me less than market value in exchange for stock that gives me residual rights to income from the company. I could just as well as chosen to work for a company that paid me up front in cash my market. I’m not baffled residuals exist, I’m baffled that people think that writers and actors “deserve” them instead of it just being a negotiation between cash now and less cash and higher/risk return by accepting them in exchange for less cash up front
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > I could just as well as chosen to work for a company that paid me up front in cash my market. That's not how it works. Which non-equity jobs have a significantly higher base pay than the BigCos themselves who do offer equity in addition to paychecks?