In the case of the Hollywood writers’ strike, who has the moral high ground? Many have seen the consistent refrain that Hollywood executives are taking advantage of poor, overworked writers via streaming culture changes and AI’s rise.* Hollywood studio executives are trying to cut costs to preserve profits in a new and changing environment for entertainment following the streaming wars and the pandemic. However, the public eye tends to favor “the little guy” and there is widespread moral indignation against studios. It seems clear to many that the right thing to do is pay the writers more money. As a Christian, the right thing to do is more important to me than the business savvy thing to do, so I want to think a bit more about who holds the high ground in this conflict.

The studios want to preserve profit margins to give higher returns to stockholders, pay executives better, invest in new projects, etc. All of these are legitimate desires, and the owners of the studies do bear the risks if something goes sour. However, it’s not fair to say that it is right for them to continue paying writers at the current level under the changing market conditions. No one deserves any particular level of profit, and if they cannot profit while covering their costs, the studios should close up shop. Maybe the writers have the high ground?

The writers’ guild is morally appalled on two fronts. First, the current pay structure makes it difficult for the average writer to make a full time living with the changing nature of entertainment.** The specifics of the pay structure are not important to the moral argument; the core of the problem is the issue of a “living wage,” which many deem to be a responsibility of an employer. There is, of course, no easy way to define a living wage since there are many different opinions on what goods and services are essential along with the different relative costs in different areas. A living wage is an incredibly appealing idea, but it raises some difficult questions. Is it the owner’s responsibility to pay you more if you have more kids? What if you decide you want a bigger house? How many hours should you have to work to earn a living wage (almost any definition of full time hours is arbitrary after all)? If we look to the scriptures, we’ll find calls to treat people fairly, not behave dishonestly in commerce, and ensure that those in power do not allow money to influence their decisions about what is right (i.e. accepting bribes and the like).*** Is it unfair to pay someone less than they want for a deal? The principles of free market economics indicate that workers typically receive payment quite close to the marginal value of their labor.**** If the workers (in any field) are receiving a value equivalent to what they produce, isn’t that right/fair? It may be the case that a higher wage is owed to the writers; however, I don’t think they can make that case morally based on the idea of a living wage. If they want a higher wage, it should be based on the argument that they provide value equal to that wage.

Additionally, the writers are taking a moral stance against the use of AI for writing activities. The argument suggests that any AI foray into writing work is an immoral invasion of the inhuman into the human. They suggest that if you support the use of AI, you are anti-worker. This is a pretty standard attack on creative destruction caused by automation. People are afraid that the changes to their industry will cause a lack of human flourishing. However, past experience seems to indicate that increasing automation makes life better for us all. If the AI can aid in the writing process, I don’t see a moral reason to continue avoiding it. Yes, this may displace some writers, but creative people can apply themselves in new areas to better society in new and interesting ways. While this angle garners a lot of popular support, I don’t think it holds any water morally or logically.

You’ll notice, I didn’t take a side here. While I generally believe that unions, guilds, associations, etc. get in the way of the economy moving forward and responding to changes, I don’t think that has any moral component here. We’re just watching two groups attempt to negotiate. Neither side is morally right or wrong, and I don’t think that the calls for the strike to stop because they don’t deserve to get paid more or the calls against the studios because the writers deserve more are legitimate. In fact, I don’t think I can imagine a scenario in which the two parties come to a morally wrong agreement.

*For any unfamiliar with the strike, writers currently receive payments every time a show they worked on re-airs on television known as residuals. These often allowed the more working class writers to get by between actual writing gigs. In the streaming era, this structure has radically changed and reduced residual payments.

**Streaming services and the user driven content platforms like Twitch, YouTube, etc. have provided an incredible shake up to the entertainment business. Honestly, it is a testament to the long term nature of competition. We often think about competition as a static thing, “Kroger has X major competitors in the grocery business;” however, competition overtime is far more important than competition in the moment. For several years, people talked about Disney making all of the movies and a few studios controlled all of the television. Now, there is a lower barrier to entry for making visual entertainment assessable to a massive audience.

***James 2, Proverbs 16:11, and Proverbs 17:23 (also, these admonitions are everywhere)

**** This is not always exactly the case, but that’s not necessarily due to extraction or abuse. In the US and other free markets, any disparity can likely be explained by transactions costs and the process of market discovery. I admit, I’ll need to do some more research here to see if the actual wages reflect marginal value.