• Squizzy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    16 hours ago

    I would say he probably is 10% of the value of the movie yeah. I am all for living wages and all that jazzand there should be windfalls for all involved in creating something huge but there is no suffer here- Tom gets it or Sony do so I am all for talent getting paid more than corporate would like

    • gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      I don’t believe those are the only two options, maybe they are in the current political system. I couldn’t accept 100 million if I worked with people I knew weren’t getting paid adequately, even if I thought I did 10% of the work.

      • Squizzy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        13 hours ago

        They are the options though, he can then share his if he wants which others have done or mandate a minimum or something but that is for unions to do.

        I absolutely could, the alternarive being for neither to have it and it be shared.

        • gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 hours ago

          I think that’s narrow-minded but maybe I’m being naive. As neither one of us are in that position we can only continue to speculate. But until major actor throws their weight behind a union they are effectively a part of the owner class. You can’t have 100 million dollars and not be a part of the owning class, at some point you stop being a worker and I think that amount is when you no longer have to work while still having a good life (like 5 mil). If the options were keep it or lose it to the owners, you’re right keeping it is the better option.