@sqrl - Sorry that wasn't meant to be authoritative, it was an opinion that I thought stated a lot of the reasons that people weren't taking this seriously, quite well. I'm not substituting his opinion in the place of my own, I'm just saying I agree with him, and he said a lot of it better than I could.
"If that is the case then you let their skill determine how much they get paid. If they are a good writer then the studio or group they work for should be willing to pay them fair value for the work otherwise someone else will be willing to pay them fair value. If nobody is willing to pay you a wage you consider fair value then perhaps you have a missconception of what is fair."
That's a very rose-colored glasses vision of how capitalism works. Go read up on the late 19th century for a bit. Just because people are making enough to live comfortably on (which is like, $30,000/year, by the way - far, far, far less than is made by a single show of television) doesn't mean they're getting a fair share of the money that is being earned from their work. What you're basically arguing, as far as I can tell, is that because you're not getting your weekly dose of television entertainment (which is produced in no small part by these writers), they're jerks for not letting hollywood take a larger percentage of the money than is fair. In situations like this, without unions, corporations have all the power.
Now if you want to argue that too much money is funneled into the entertainment industry, go ahead. But that's a different story entirely.