Video Game Voice Actors Vote In Favor of Strike

[Fox12]

I can only imagine what the world would be like if everybody who worked in television, film, games, music, books, etc. had a real job. We could probably end world hunger, or if all the money that went into entertainment instead was put into space travel we could have a colony on the moon by now.

I don't really get this mind set. The entertainment industry creates jobs, stimulating the economy and generating wealth. Would the world really be a better place if Shakespeare worked as a stable boy? Somehow, I don't think so. I always felt like this was a way to tear down people who were in a place that others envy. The thing is, it's driven by the free market, so the only way these people can achieve success is by creating a product that others enjoy, and voluntarily spend money on.

Besides, what's a real job? An occupation that makes them as miserable as everyone else? If a person can make money doing something they enjoy, let them. Entertainment is a real job. It pays real money and everything.

It's not about how much they enjoy their work, people can enjoy jobs that are much more useful to civilization. I would say a real job is one that provides tangible benefit to the survival and advancement of mankind. The entertainment industry is more like feeding into a bad habit, the better they are at their jobs, the less productive the rest of society becomes. It encourages people to just sit around, getting fat, rather than to develop other useful skills or to be more productive in their lives.

I could maybe understand this mindset if we weren't living in the most productive period in the history of mankind, with the highest education rates in history. Which just happens to coincide with the entertainment boom. Clearly people aren't becoming less productive as a result of entertainment.

Look at it this way. By your argument, lets say that Steven Spielberg makes way too much money. He's a millionaire, but he hasn't contributed anything obviously "tangible" to society. Until you stop to think about it. The cameraman makes a pretty normal salary that allows him to feed his family, and part of that salary goes to the government through taxes, where it is used for the common welfare of mankind. The same is true for the editor, the costume designer, the makeup artist, the janitor, and the guy who grabs coffee for everyone. Now, Steven, and any big actors he's brought on board, may not seem very important, but they're part of what makes the film a major financial success. This allows all of those employees to stay employed and feed their families.

Now lets say Steven has a revelation, and decides he wants to contribute more to society. He enters the job market, looking for blue collar work as a plumber. Only he realizes no one in his area is currently hiring a plumber. Or a technician, or fireman, or a police officer. He's not really suited to be a scientist or doctor, his mind just doesn't work that way, so he'd never be able to go far or contribute much. So he gets a job shoveling ditches for a construction company.

But he could be making movies that are successful, and employing hundreds of people. That movie would then be released in theaters, contributing to the employment of everyone there. Then it gets released on DVD, and is a huge success, supporting jobs at retail outlets around the country. And at every step of this process, people are getting taxed out the wazoo, which supports out government, military, and infrastructure. So, is Steven contributing more to society as a construction worker, or as a film maker and artist? We only need so many ditch diggers.

Look, I'm a cashier in his early twenties. I don't have a glorious place in society at the moment, or a lot of money. Hopefully I'll be a teacher in a few years. But I think money should be made by any ethical or neutral means you can get it. And frankly, I think it would be sad if all I had to my life was work and sleep. Art allows us to connect to something beautiful, and I think that's just as important as any other job.

 

[Drathnoxis]

I could maybe understand this mindset if we weren't living in the most productive period in the history of mankind, with the highest education rates in history. Which just happens to coincide with the entertainment boom. Clearly people aren't becoming less productive as a result of entertainment.

There have been a lot of changes in the last 200 years that have boosted productivity. The question is whether the rise of the entertainment industry is one of them. I find it kind of hard to believe that it is. It's true that people need to unwind, but just the sheer size of the industry is completely disproportionate to the need.

Look at it this way. By your argument, lets say that Steven Spielberg makes way too much money. He's a millionaire, but he hasn't contributed anything obviously "tangible" to society. Until you stop to think about it. The cameraman makes a pretty normal salary that allows him to feed his family, and part of that salary goes to the government through taxes, where it is used for the common welfare of mankind. The same is true for the editor, the costume designer, the makeup artist, the janitor, and the guy who grabs coffee for everyone. Now, Steven, and any big actors he's brought on board, may not seem very important, but they're part of what makes the film a major financial success. This allows all of those employees to stay employed and feed their families.

Now lets say Steven has a revelation, and decides he wants to contribute more to society. He enters the job market, looking for blue collar work as a plumber. Only he realizes no one in his area is currently hiring a plumber. Or a technician, or fireman, or a police officer. He's not really suited to be a scientist or doctor, his mind just doesn't work that way, so he'd never be able to go far or contribute much. So he gets a job shoveling ditches for a construction company.

But he could be making movies that are successful, and employing hundreds of people. That movie would then be released in theaters, contributing to the employment of everyone there. Then it gets released on DVD, and is a huge success, supporting jobs at retail outlets around the country. And at every step of this process, people are getting taxed out the wazoo, which supports out government, military, and infrastructure. So, is Steven contributing more to society as a construction worker, or as a film maker and artist? We only need so many ditch diggers.

The thing is though, is that you can't 'generate' wealth through the entertainment industry, you can only shift and concentrate it. You can only generate wealth by creating or converting natural resources into usable forms. Actually you could say that the entertainment industry decreases wealth, it takes resources, but it doesn't provide anything really useful in return. Look at all the VHS tapes that are now only good as landfill fodder. The entertainment industry is basically busywork in the economy.

All the people you mention who are doing jobs in the entertainment industry, could just as well support their families by doing any other job, and if there is money to pay them in the entertainment industry there would be money to pay them to do something else if the entertainment industry did not exist. All the taxes would be payed regardless of where the people worked. The only difference would be in a system that uses different tax brackets for different incomes. But, even then I doubt anywhere has a tax bracket for people making more than $500,000. Here in Canada the highest tax bracket is for those making over $138,586 so it wouldn't make a difference for taxes if Steven Spielberg made 5 million a year or if 35 people each made $140,000.

Look, I'm a cashier in his early twenties. I don't have a glorious place in society at the moment, or a lot of money. Hopefully I'll be a teacher in a few years. But I think money should be made by any ethical or neutral means you can get it. And frankly, I think it would be sad if all I had to my life was work and sleep. Art allows us to connect to something beautiful, and I think that's just as important as any other job.

I would say that a cashier provides a more valuable service than anybody working in any part of the entertainment industry. If we had no cashiers society would come to a screeching halt, being able to purchase goods is the foundation of our economy. The work is boring and stressful, and can be physically damaging. It's a crime that people doing such jobs are payed so little and looked down upon, when the work is so absolutely necessary. Alternately, if we had no film makers, the impact would be minimal. Life would go on unimpeded.

This is really the crux of my issue. In modern society, the necessity of a job has little relation to the salary it pays. It almost seems like the more difficult and unpleasant the work, the less you get payed.

EDIT: And I'm not saying that there should be nothing but work and sleep, there are other forms of entertainment. There are sports and musical instruments and all sorts of hobbies and activities that provide much more benefit than sitting in front of a screen for hours.

 

[Pseudonym]

"The truth is, back end bonuses are not uncommon in the video game industry. Last year, Activision's COO took home a bonus of $3,970,862. EA paid their executive chairman a bonus of $1.5 million. We applaud their success, and we believe our talent and contributions are worth a bonus payment, too." wrote SAG-AFTRA in a statement.

SAG-AFTRA is asking for it's actors to be rewarded a bonus after two million sales/downloads/online subscriptions of any particular game, and then for every two million thereafter up to eight million.

So they think they matter so much that they should receive payments similar to those of CEO's? I already am not much of a fan of paying CEO's that much. Despite there probably being dozens of other people who did a lot more work in making the game that sold so well good. When I hear these kind of statements all of my sympathy goes away. These are not hardworking people being exploited, these are people who feel entitled to belong to a small aristocray, everybody else be damned. If they succeed, well, I won't hold it against them that they make a lot of money but I see no reason why I should care that voice actors don't receive these kind of bonusses.

 

[COMaestro]

I can only imagine what the world would be like if everybody who worked in television, film, games, music, books, etc. had a real job. We could probably end world hunger, or if all the money that went into entertainment instead was put into space travel we could have a colony on the moon by now.

I don't really get this mind set. The entertainment industry creates jobs, stimulating the economy and generating wealth. Would the world really be a better place if Shakespeare worked as a stable boy? Somehow, I don't think so. I always felt like this was a way to tear down people who were in a place that others envy. The thing is, it's driven by the free market, so the only way these people can achieve success is by creating a product that others enjoy, and voluntarily spend money on.

Besides, what's a real job? An occupation that makes them as miserable as everyone else? If a person can make money doing something they enjoy, let them. Entertainment is a real job. It pays real money and everything.

It's not about how much they enjoy their work, people can enjoy jobs that are much more useful to civilization. I would say a real job is one that provides tangible benefit to the survival and advancement of mankind. The entertainment industry is more like feeding into a bad habit, the better they are at their jobs, the less productive the rest of society becomes. It encourages people to just sit around, getting fat, rather than to develop other useful skills or to be more productive in their lives.

I don't want to live in your world. It sounds boring and oppressive.

If the entertainment industry (which would include the athletes and musicians that you later suggest as alternate forms of entertainment, plus artists and authors) were to just disappear and all the people it currently employs were out of work, what do you suggest they do? The world only needs so many cashiers, plumbers, laborers, electricians, and so on and so forth. Most of these people would not have the education for fields such as medicine or engineering and could only acquire such education with a lot of money, which the actors and directors might have, but the thousands if not millions of other people involved in the industry would not. Thus, we just have a bunch of unemployed people.

Unless you want to get rid of money entirely, make sure everyone is provided with whatever they need to survive and have them do whatever advanced or menial task is necessary to get them to contribute to the survival or advancement of mankind. I mean really, why do doctors or lawyers need to make so much money? Why should the CEO of a multimillion dollar company make millions of dollars in bonuses each year? Just let them live on the same stipend as everyone else, build simple housing that is the same for all so no one's home is any better than someone else's, make just one type of vehicle so they all look the same, all clothing can be the same, hell all appliances can just all be the same, as long as they work.

What's the point of advancing humanity in this case? Just to prove we can? Why bother surviving if all that is important is having a job that advances humanity? A world without art and entertainment is a lifeless world that's not worth living on. The human mind has so much creativity and imagination, it would be a crime to not let those that choose to express it do so. While I will agree that many in the entertainment industry are paid far more than they need to be, I would resist any attempt to completely demolish the industry as a whole.

Plus, I find it somewhat ironic that you are espousing this kind of world while sitting at a computer wasting time that could be used on something productive. You could be reading something to educate yourself, researching a cure for cancer or out working a "real job" but instead you are wasting time arguing against a voice actor strike.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Unless you want to get rid of money entirely, make sure everyone is provided with whatever they need to survive and have them do whatever advanced or menial task is necessary to get them to contribute to the survival or advancement of mankind. I mean really, why do doctors or lawyers need to make so much money? Why should the CEO of a multimillion dollar company make millions of dollars in bonuses each year? Just let them live on the same stipend as everyone else, build simple housing that is the same for all so no one's home is any better than someone else's, make just one type of vehicle so they all look the same, all clothing can be the same, hell all appliances can just all be the same, as long as they work.

You basically just described Soviet Communism, and it was a spectacular failure.

People make the amounts of money they do because, theoretically, they are able to do something that most people can't (or won't) do, and it's something people desire. You can take the vast majority of people off the streets and teach them how to work at Burger King within a few days, maybe even a few hours. The vast majority of people off the streets cannot become Neurosurgeons, even if you paid for all their schooling. Likewise, even if they theoretically could pass all their classes and were smart enough, it takes about 10 years to train a Neurosurgeon, it takes less than 10 days to train someone to work at BK.

Same with pro sports. You can take pretty much anyone off the streets and teach them how to play Baseball, but only a tiny, tiny % of those people are good enough to play in the Majors.

On a side note, Doctors actually frequently do need to make the sort of money they do, because they have huge student loan debts from College, Medical School, and weren't able to pay them off as residents (residents don't make much money).

 

[Drathnoxis]

I don't want to live in your world. It sounds boring and oppressive.

If the entertainment industry (which would include the athletes and musicians that you later suggest as alternate forms of entertainment, plus artists and authors) were to just disappear and all the people it currently employs were out of work, what do you suggest they do? The world only needs so many cashiers, plumbers, laborers, electricians, and so on and so forth. Most of these people would not have the education for fields such as medicine or engineering and could only acquire such education with a lot of money, which the actors and directors might have, but the thousands if not millions of other people involved in the industry would not. Thus, we just have a bunch of unemployed people.

No the entertainment industry does not include people playing sports or practicing an instrument for fun, that's ridiculous. Yes, professional athletes and musicians are part of the entertainment industry, but a group of people playing a game of baseball in their spare time most certainly isn't.

If the entertainment industry were to just disappear (which it can't, so this scenario is already implausible) there would still remain all the money that funds the industry, this could be used on something useful, like advancing space travel, and all the people that worked in entertainment could be retrained and be moved to other useful industries. There are always things that can be done, and advancements that improve quality of life that could be made. Of course, I know that the money that funds the entertainment industry comes from the average person, and I don't know why they would spend their money on space travel. However, this is a problem with capitalism, that people waste their money on stupid frivolous things, and that the wealth collects uselessly in the hands of a few.

What's the point of advancing humanity in this case? Just to prove we can? Why bother surviving if all that is important is having a job that advances humanity? A world without art and entertainment is a lifeless world that's not worth living on. The human mind has so much creativity and imagination, it would be a crime to not let those that choose to express it do so. While I will agree that many in the entertainment industry are paid far more than they need to be, I would resist any attempt to completely demolish the industry as a whole.

Well, I might concede that the entertainment industry isn't completely without value, and should not be completely removed. As it stands though, as one of the largest industries in the world, its size is completely diproportionate to it's worth and is basically an ever growing black hole of money, time, and effort.

Plus, I find it somewhat ironic that you are espousing this kind of world while sitting at a computer wasting time that could be used on something productive. You could be reading something to educate yourself, researching a cure for cancer or out working a "real job" but instead you are wasting time arguing against a voice actor strike.

True, but me being a hypocrite doesn't prevent what I'm saying from being true.

Unless you want to get rid of money entirely, make sure everyone is provided with whatever they need to survive and have them do whatever advanced or menial task is necessary to get them to contribute to the survival or advancement of mankind. I mean really, why do doctors or lawyers need to make so much money? Why should the CEO of a multimillion dollar company make millions of dollars in bonuses each year? Just let them live on the same stipend as everyone else, build simple housing that is the same for all so no one's home is any better than someone else's, make just one type of vehicle so they all look the same, all clothing can be the same, hell all appliances can just all be the same, as long as they work.

You basically just described Soviet Communism, and it was a spectacular failure.

People make the amounts of money they do because, theoretically, they are able to do something that most people can't (or won't) do, and it's something people desire. You can take the vast majority of people off the streets and teach them how to work at Burger King within a few days, maybe even a few hours. The vast majority of people off the streets cannot become Neurosurgeons, even if you paid for all their schooling. Likewise, even if they theoretically could pass all their classes and were smart enough, it takes about 10 years to train a Neurosurgeon, it takes less than 10 days to train someone to work at BK.

Same with pro sports. You can take pretty much anyone off the streets and teach them how to play Baseball, but only a tiny, tiny % of those people are good enough to play in the Majors.

On a side note, Doctors actually frequently do need to make the sort of money they do, because they have huge student loan debts from College, Medical School, and weren't able to pay them off as residents (residents don't make much money).

Training should not be the only consideration though. Just because a job is easy to learn, doesn't mean it isn't a valuable service or that it isn't a difficult or stressful job.

Take the current system to it's logical conclusion: everybody has at gotten at least 4 years of advanced education/training and a degree so that they can make a decent wage, now who is going to do all the basic jobs that keep the world running? The system would collapse, people with degrees would have to do the menial jobs anyway thus making all those years spent in education and training a complete waste. It is inescapable that people need to do these jobs, so how does it make sense to have a system that requires roughly 1/3 of it's population work themselves to the bone for pittance, only to be told that if they want respect and a decent wage, they have to go out and get a degree when this is an absolute impossibility?

If you say that not everybody is capable of getting a degree of some sort, I would disagree. It would be a very rare person who absolutely could not pass in any field, and those people generally aren't capable of caring for themselves in the first place. But even if we do suppose that these people exist, how is it fair to condemn them to a life of poor quality simply because of how they were born?

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Training should not be the only consideration though. Just because a job is easy to learn, doesn't mean it isn't a valuable service or that it isn't a difficult or stressful job.

Take the current system to it's logical conclusion: everybody has at gotten at least 4 years of advanced education/training and a degree so that they can make a decent wage, now who is going to do all the basic jobs that keep the world running? The system would collapse, people with degrees would have to do the menial jobs anyway thus making all those years spent in education and training a complete waste. It is inescapable that people need to do these jobs, so how does it make sense to have a system that requires roughly 1/3 of it's population work themselves to the bone for pittance, only to be told that if they want respect and a decent wage, they have to go out and get a degree when this is an absolute impossibility?

If you say that not everybody is capable of getting a degree of some sort, I would disagree. It would be a very rare person who absolutely could not pass in any field, and those people generally aren't capable of caring for themselves in the first place. But even if we do suppose that these people exist, how is it fair to condemn them to a life of poor quality simply because of how they were born?

A job's 'value' is subjective. I don't like musicals, and thus a person who acts in musicals brings absolutely nothing of value to me (as far as their job is concerned, that is). On the other hand, they bring lots of value for someone who loves musicals. Even going beyond entertainment, value is still subjective. An Endocrinologist is significantly more valuable to a person with type 1 Diabetes than they are to a person who has never had diabetes.

I'm not sure where you're getting this "current system" from. At least in the US, you need to pay for college, so not everyone is going to go.

Regardless, you actually bring up a good point. We have this strange habit in the US today of insisting that you NEED to have a college degree to get a decent paying job. It's utter bunk, and right now there are tons of people with massive student debt working as waiters and baristas because they got degrees that don't translate to any in demand jobs. Meanwhile, skilled labor positions (like Pipefitters, Welders, Electricians, etc.) are in very high demand and most companies can barely fill them fast enough. All of those aforementioned jobs don't require college degrees and pay extremely well and have excellent job security.

I suppose everyone could get a degree of some sort, but again, if it's a degree that doesn't actually prepare them for any in-demand job, then what's the point? Education is great, but it should educate you for some sort of purpose. Especially nowadays, if you just want education to learn, you can find almost anything on the internet.

Interesting final word: I used to work for an HVAC-R company. Our Apprentices did a 5-year apprenticeship (where they were working during it), and then at the end of that 5 years they became Journeymen (assuming they passed their tests). Average starting salary for a Journeymen was approximately $68,000/yr (and that's without any overtime). Average salary for a lawyer fresh out of law school (which requires 7 years of school, 3 of which it will be essentially impossible to work during)? $62,000.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/15/pf/jobs/lawyer-salaries/

A degree does not always equal a higher paycheck.

 

[COMaestro]

Unless you want to get rid of money entirely, make sure everyone is provided with whatever they need to survive and have them do whatever advanced or menial task is necessary to get them to contribute to the survival or advancement of mankind. I mean really, why do doctors or lawyers need to make so much money? Why should the CEO of a multimillion dollar company make millions of dollars in bonuses each year? Just let them live on the same stipend as everyone else, build simple housing that is the same for all so no one's home is any better than someone else's, make just one type of vehicle so they all look the same, all clothing can be the same, hell all appliances can just all be the same, as long as they work.

You basically just described Soviet Communism, and it was a spectacular failure.

This is what I was going for and I'm aware it was a spectacular failure. My statement was hyperbole.

I don't want to live in your world. It sounds boring and oppressive.

If the entertainment industry (which would include the athletes and musicians that you later suggest as alternate forms of entertainment, plus artists and authors) were to just disappear and all the people it currently employs were out of work, what do you suggest they do? The world only needs so many cashiers, plumbers, laborers, electricians, and so on and so forth. Most of these people would not have the education for fields such as medicine or engineering and could only acquire such education with a lot of money, which the actors and directors might have, but the thousands if not millions of other people involved in the industry would not. Thus, we just have a bunch of unemployed people.

No the entertainment industry does not include people playing sports or practicing an instrument for fun, that's ridiculous. Yes, professional athletes and musicians are part of the entertainment industry, but a group of people playing a game of baseball in their spare time most certainly isn't.

If the entertainment industry were to just disappear (which it can't, so this scenario is already implausible) there would still remain all the money that funds the industry, this could be used on something useful, like advancing space travel, and all the people that worked in entertainment could be retrained and be moved to other useful industries. There are always things that can be done, and advancements that improve quality of life that could be made. Of course, I know that the money that funds the entertainment industry comes from the average person, and I don't know why they would spend their money on space travel. However, this is a problem with capitalism, that people waste their money on stupid frivolous things, and that the wealth collects uselessly in the hands of a few.

Okay, but tell me this. A day laborer comes home after a hard day at work. He's tired, hungry, his body is aching from everything he did during the day. Do you think this man wants to unwind by playing some baseball or football with his friends, sit and strum on a guitar for a while, or is he going to want to just sit down, eat some dinner and watch some television or listen to music or read a book? I guarantee you for a good 90% of the population in a similar situation, they're going to pick one of the latter options as it doesn't involve them having to do much of anything. The other 10% might find it in them to play a game with some friends, probably because the love the game so much and if given the opportunity would like to make a living doing just that. Hey, kinda like we have now, right?

Also, just throwing money at a problem doesn't mean it's going to get fixed. Sure, more money going into space travel would probably help it along, but it takes people with the drive and passion to research it, to develop new technologies, and to innovate in order to truly move forward. Allocating more funding to the space program would allow these people to do more of what they want and love, but it does not automatically make more engineers or scientists who have that same drive.