>So $900k/yr per soldier in their godless AI army when that amount of earnings could qualify thirty-five actors and their families for SAG-AFTRA health insurance is just ghoulish,
How many actors could Adam Sandler's $250M Netflix deal pay for?
How many actors could Adam Sandler's $250M Netflix deal pay for?
Jaylen Brown will be making $304 MILLION over 5 years for the Boston Celtics as the highest paid NBA player.
Wealth inequality from predominantly ads-based (tv-deals) business models is a cancer to our society.
[1]: https://frontofficesports.com/saudi-arabia-reportedly-offers...
Those athletes are paid that much because the fans (customers) value them that much.
Why not? It clearly shows that there is a screw loose. Or put differently: it reminds us of the fundamental truth that in society, people without power get as little as is available to keep them alive and sometimes less, and people with power (in this case, the power of a good negotiating position) get as much as is available to pay them.
The world doesn't _have_ to work this way. There is no reason we need to be okay with it. Poorer people could be paid more and rich people paid less and things would basically work the same way.
Because it's not productive.
Yell and shake your fist at cloud all you want, it's not going to change.
Anyone who can create returns greater than their cost of capital creates value. A screw isn't loose. If you can figure out how to add value to the world, then you get endless riches.
> "People without power get as little as is available to keep them alive"
Consider using less hyperbole in your worldview. Today has the highest living standards of any time.
And yet the suicide rate keeps ticking upward. All is not well in Paradise Earth.
It doesn't change the fact that wealth inequality doesn't need to be this unequal. You are choosing that system, over another which is less unequal, when you defend it. I can't imagine why! It's the same system, but better, with happier people, and the only difference is the rules of the game--which we get to choose.
We literally have an obesity problem among America’s poorest people. Which speaks to having a decently high standard compared to the past, where being poor literally meant you starved to death. Similarly, hospitals will never turn you away in this country. Meaning you can show up at the emergency room and have life saving surgery and the worst case is you’ll get a bill in the mail, instead of dying in the streets (there are countries where this still happens).
I’m not saying it’s perfect, I think the biggest problem has to do with mentally ill and drug addicted homeless, who don’t have the mental capacity to take care of themselves. But I do agree with GP that the conversation has more nuance.
For the purposes of criticizing power structures that allow structural inequality I don't... care? The floor is not sufficiently high right now, because tremendous swathes of people are in true poverty, aka existence that denies them dignity and self-determination, because living in this world is so expensive that they can't escape the trap of poverty. So yes, I feel totally fine saying that soccer players or whomever make way too much money, and I'd be the first to agree that the inequality is fine when it is. But we're not even close.
Doesn't matter. Humans assess their position relative to other humans, not on an absolute scale. Homo economicus does not exist. If you don't include psychology, your model of the world is very incomplete.
This is wildly false - it's nowhere near a "fundamental truth", this is just the (incredibly warped and distorted) way that you personally see the world.
Apparently it upsets author of the article that AI PM makes 900k.
How do you solve this? People want to pay attention, advertisers want a piece. They have $enough_profit_to_pay_for_ads, so they do.
Advertisers want to swap what they care about with their ads. In fact, last time I watched television, programming was more ad than TV.
To hell with advertisers.
Mbape or any footballer for that matter isn't being replaced by the close to free option by clubs.
The actors union even offered a legitimate compromise where their likeness could be used once royalties are paid.
This is completely fair and mature approach. Netflix and co get to pump out more content faster and cheaper while the portraits of actors are paying the owner of that likeness.
These aren't independent college movies or something you're making for your youtube channel.
WTF is this comment.
[1] https://www.wrapbook.com/blog/essential-guide-sag-rates#:~:t....
Unfortunately the entire reason for the strike is studios will rarely, unless you are very top talent, deviate from the minimums. They would often try to go even lower, if they could. Hence the strike is to raise the minimums.
There’s 160,000 members of SAG. There’s maybe only 50 household-name celebrities acting in any one year? Those 50 are not representative of everyone who acts at all.