I majored in English in college.  You're going to have a hard time convincing me that A) good writing is overvalued and b) good writing is easy to come by.  The majority of, say, television writing, is absolute shit, with a handful of shows and writers being decent - and a tiny percentage actually being good.  The industry either can't recognize good writers, or there aren't enough who want to deal with the BS that is hollywood who want to write there - either way, I will say that without the writers they have, at the very least, it would take them a long time to find similar levels of talent.

As to which of those I could do?  I'm an English major, not an Econ major.  But as for a script worthy of said movie, like I said, that doesn't happen very often.  I think it's absolutely ridiculous to say that intelligent raising, investing and management of money is in a different league of difficulty than writing, acting and directing.  BTW - that's usually partially the producer's job.

And the "that's Capitalism" excuse is rampantly amoral.

Cool.

What about the rest of my post? My main point has been brought up several times in this thread now, by at least three different posters. Your answer to that is... silence and cherry picking everything else?

Unless your assuming unanimous vote, which I doubt, this is affecting a lot of people that did not vote for it: those that voted against it, those that abstained, etc. And besides, knowing how some unions work, in all likelihood the majority of members didn't even vote, and probably didn't even know there was a vote going on.

But again, I'm not contesting their right to call a strike, I'm contesting their (and every guild/union/association 's etc) right to impose that strike on everybody else - in particular those that voted against it.

The argument that the Union shouldn't have the right to impose the strike on the Union Members is inherently a red herring.

In any sort of Majority-controlled institution, there *will* be people that disagree with the rule of the majority. To say that those individuals should not have to follow the will of the majority is to destroy the institution. You saying that writers should be allowed to write if they don't agree is the same as saying Unions shouldn't exist - it is a valid argument, but you can't have both Unions and people who are in the union that don't follow its directives. The two are mutually exclusive.

Or, to put it another way:
I don't believe that I should be forced to wear a seatbelt. I think laws that relate to my safety and my safety alone are ill-conceived and anti-freedom.

Unfortunately, the society I live in disagrees, and thinks that seatbelt laws are a Good Thing(tm).

I am perfectly free to continue not wearing a seatbelt, just as writers are perfectly free to continue writing... in both cases, we will have to live with the consequences of getting caught breaking the rules of the institution we are a part of.

Note: I am very much anti-institution. I do not believe that people have a moral obligation to follow the laws of a society that they do not agree with. At the same time, I DO believe that it should be a rational choice with full knowledge of and accounting for any consequences of partaking in the action.

It's the last season of Scrubs and this is probably going to kill the show....

It doesn't effect me, but my mom isn't that happy about it.

That's like saying because you voted against a tax you shouldn't have to pay taxes. 

Well I don't think I said the writing is overvalued but I think I could make an argument for that too if needed. For now I will just stick to the simple stuff.

So, if you want to ask the question "Why don't they just find other writers?" then I have to ask the question "Why don't these writers go off and work for people who are willing to give them what they want?" If they are truly undervalued then they should be able to capatilize on that disparity and profit from it.

And raising and managing money is in a different league of difficulty. The proof is that quite simply there are far more writers than there are millionaires and quite frankly a lot more people try becoming millionaires than try becoming writers.

As far as it being an excuse, I would call it a damn good reason. Capatilism as a system works very well and it has its own problems. But this is not one of them.

On the issue of who recognizes good writing, I would have to say you missed the point. The people at home choose what is good writing and that is at the heart of capatalism. So if the networks are getting better ratings on "Reality phone sex" than reruns of MASH...that is the people deciding and while I would personally agree I prefer MASH because it was a great show that the people decide by watching what they do like and not watching what they don't like. What is traditionally considered skilled writing and "entertaining writing" are not the same thing and if you are in the TV writing business to be a traditional writer you are in the wrong place.

Quite simply put up and coming writers with a fair bit of talent are basically a dime a dozen right now and until that changes you are going to have a hard time convincing the folks who do have the money that it is worthwhile to invest big bucks in each one that comes along. Big writers who make a name for themselves don't just bring their talent they bring their name to a project and in doing so they themselves are a commodity because they are a symbol of quality.

Honestly, the system isn't that complicated. And while pure capatalism isn't fair, this system is far from pure capatalism and is a hell of a lot more fair than any other system that I know about.

Sorry - I've been attempting to answer these while having one of the more stressful days at work in recent memory.

Luckily for me, I feel like the above writers managed to pinpoint much of this.  I don't know how impossible it is to get work without being part of the Writer's Guild (I have your word to go on at this point - but I plan on researching it more when I get a chance), but if you're part of a union, you've basically agreed to go along with the majority.  Otherwise the union would have no collective bargaining power with which to combat the collective bargaining power of the handful of giant corporations that run the television/movie industry.

And as always, being a lazy ass who doesn't pay attention to when a vote that will majorly impact your life is going on makes any complaints about the vote rather ignorable.  Voting against it, I can see you objecting, but if you don't care enough to find out that a vote's going on, then you shouldn't care enough to object.

The problem is two fold tho.

Problem 1) To get work they have forced any writers to be part of their union or be shunned. This is a fundamentally flawed system as it gives them absolute power and prevents other people from having different opinions. This is essentially a monopoly on the workforce.

Problem 2) Since you are either part of the guild or you're not a working writer you have to be part of the guild to be a writer. And then even when you disagree with their choices you are forced to go along with it.

There has to be some way for a minority to exist. This is a frighteningly controlled system and in my opinion is a gross abuse of power.

It effects me alot.
Uhm cough.
Because: No family guy, american dad, simpsons, prison break, the office, scrubs. SUCKS!!!