But you just highlighted the reason collective bargaining (aka Unions) are necessary.  The studios won't pay for one of them, but they will pay for all of them.  The studios are collectives - they're a handful of groups with all the money, so having a group with all the workers to negotiate with them, and have their own way of fighting back, is only fair.

As for the issue of fewer millionaires, lets just say that there's something to the piece of wisdom that having money is the best way to make money.  Very few of these supposed geniuses started off poor, regardless of what rags-to-riches american dreams may tell you.  So I'll have to say that your proof is non-proof, especially since a shitty would-be-writer can probably still get published (hi Gossip Girl and romance novels!), while a shitty would-be-millionaire is just not counted.  This also answers why there aren't people willing to give them what they want - to get anything made with any sort of mass-audience on television, you have to already have money.  No matter how talented I was, if I started raising money tomorrow, I'd still never have enough to make a major-budget film.

"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."

If they're a dime a dozen, why can't they replace the screen-writer's guild?  They're 15000 of them, so that's only $150 dollars!  In all seriousness, though, I think that if a collective strike has a real impact, it proves that while an individual writer may be replaced, all of them can't be.  Which means, they as a group can have some impact on their lives in ways that they as individuals can't in a capitalist system.

Your capitalism answer is still not an answer.  Amoral means doesn't concern itself with morals.  Your responses have all be economics-focused and ignored morality.  Therefore, amoral.  (not to be confused with immoral)

I'm not sure if I addressed all your points, though. 

Personally I think that this was bound to happen as media downloads got more and more popular, as that is what the union guys want to share in the profits of.

I know that the studio people are going to have a hard time crossing the picket lines, but they have to so that everybody will have a job when the strike is finally over. :-/

 As I said before, I'm going to research this aspect of the question more so that I can have an informed opinion on it.  As of right now, I have two people's uncited words on it, which I don't doubt is what you believe, I just need more evidence, and comprehensive information on both sides of the story.

no 24? OMG

I accept the sad reality that we need an institution we call the governament as a way of organizing our societies. I understand that it must have the power to mandate things on its citizens, and finance itself through taxes. I know for a fact that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all others that have been tried. Heck, as an european, I even embrace having the governament involving itself with my daily life a lot more than most americans would ever dream of. Still, I would strive to escape any governament that went too far (for my definition of too far).

I see unions as a fundamentally different thing. A union interests me only if it doesn't limit my rights further for the greater good. There's something seriously wrong with a union forcing me not to work, not for a day but hypothetically for months with no end, because of a fight I don't think is my own. I'm all for solidarity, and if it's important to a majority of my coworkers, and not against my personal beliefs, I'll go on strike for their rights any day. But I won't do it for a month, nor would I expect anyone to do that for me, whatever the reason. And there's something seriously wrong with people that can actually afford going not getting paid for months even going on strike and making a huge fuss about it. But maybe that's why I've never been unionized, unless I'm forced into it.

And that to me, is where the problem starts. That's what empowers these guild things beyond what I think is acceptable. They have the power to stop others from working in the business, or at the very least seriously marginalizing their work. Why should a young writer that simply wants his break and has nothing to do with this fight not be able to work without being threatened of forever being marginalized? A guy that can't get through the month without getting paid? What, is the guild going to put food on his table? Right...

 Membership is not forced upon anyone; they assumedly knew upon deciding to become a scriptwriter that they would be joining the Guild, and all that entails.  Much like with any job, before taking it, you are told certain things are required and agree to this as part of the job.  I wouldn't expect a job in the CIA without a thourough background check, for example.  There are just things that are required to fill certain positions (for example, the need to unionize against one of the most powerful industries in the country for example???).

 And I know the arguments for wearing a seat belt.  I do wear a seat belt every time I am in a car.  I do it because I have made a rational decision, though - not because the choice was forced on me.  At the same time, I am free to not wear a seat belt if I so desire - though, there are consequences to that action.  Much like the writers are free to break the picket lines... so long as they are cognizant that there are and will be consequences.  Much like everything in life, it is a game of balancing pros and cons.  The union is not *FORCING* anything.  They are simply providing consequences if you go against them.

 And you know, I do see a difference between the 'cartel'-like unions and the networks (although you might as well throw the movie industry in there too, they are just as guilty).  The unions are acting on behalf of the majority of their members, who contrary to some others' beliefs *are* just trying to make an honest living.

 Imagine you were a writer, and you were paid for DVDs and not Downloads.  All of a sudden your network decides not to sell it on DVD, and to only offer it online for download.  Where are you supposed to make this living, when they are in charge of distribution?  You can't offer it on DVD yourself, because they own the rights to it.

 See the Wikipedia page on Hollywood Accounting.  If you give these people a quarter, they will take a hundred... and ask for change. 

Sorry, but I really don't think that's a reasonable think to ask of someone that simply wants to write scripts for a living. 

Consequences that in this case are equivalent to not engaging in script writing ever again. Which as I've said, I think is totally unreasonable. As much as I think it's unreasonable to ask anyone not to work for months for something they themselves don't believe in, whatever the reasons. 

And the networks are acting on beahalf on the majority of their stockholders, who contrary to some others' beliefs have a pile of money invested in their financial success.

I never said these people don't have the right to strike, nor that they are not right in having their strike. Justifying the strike is a miss on me, really. I belive strongly in the right to strike, so whatever reasons they have to go on strike are good enough reasons for me. But you know what else I also believe strongly? The right not to strike.

And where I come from, associations of mandatory membership, like the bar association (and a lot of professions have those around here: doctors, nurses, engineers, notaries, accountants, journalists, etc), are not allowed certain powers, and their statues have to be aproved by general law. Other associations may act as they wish, but no one can be compelled to be a member (as in, just because they want to write scripts for a living). And the truth is they don't need these kinds of tactics to work effectively.

I'm really sorry, but the way that these associations work, the fact that membership is compelled on anyone who wants to work in their respective lines of business, and the way they treat any dissenting members, just sickens me. But that's the way I personally feel about this, so if you don't feel the same, we'll just have to agree on disagreeing.

 First off, how do you splt up the quotes?  Thats hott.  With 2 t's.

 Second, the major difference between the writers guild and all the other professions you listed is that the writers guild is going against the most powerful industry in the world.  Do you think they would be able to do *ANYTHING* if they did not provide a united front?  If they were not 'forced' to strike by the guild, the studios would just make it clear that anyone that striked would *NEVER* work with them again.  It is not a power-balanced relationship, which is the only kind of relationship that your solution could work.  There is one group with the money, rights, and means to create the work.  If the guild was not working as a whole, then anyone that striked would be banned from working with any major studio, and would probably have to find a new line of work entirely. 

 Now, I agree in theory that a group with forced membership should not be allowed certain powers.  However, in practice, this would get torn apart in *ANY* strike.  The ENTIRE PURPOSE of striking is to make a company realize how they actually do require you.  If they can get the services elsewhere, with no consequences, they will.  The entire purpose of the Union is to provide those consequences, and the power that collective bargaining provides.

 Also, just as a note:  The writers guild is NOT the same as the Bar, nurses' union, doctor's union, etc.  Those are organizations that you legally must be a part of to practise your profession.  The Guild is something that you only have to be a part of if you want to do business with the companies that the guild works with.  To expand on that; you are not free to practise law by yourself without being in the Bar.  You are free to write, direct, etc. your own work without being in the guild.  It is only if you want to work with the studios that you need to be a member, because the Guild will boycott any company that hires not-union workers.  In other words, it isn't a statutory union.  It only has mandatory membership because of market pressures.

If the studios can afford to not hire any writer who strikes, then that means those writers are not as valuable as they think they are and shouldn't be being paid any more anyway.