It’s not a problem with contracts, but the relative power of the parties to the contract. Where one party has lots more power, contracts tend to be highly exploitative to the less powerful party. Whether that’s a scandal (it is) ultimately boils down to the matter of one’s values.

But why defend a system that enables that? Why fault the least powerful person involved for bargaining away such much? It’s clear who benefits most, so why take the side of the powerful? That’s what I just can’t understand.

If you care about such things, it’s worth more than that because SAG negotiates wages for actors and $100/day is a fraction of SAG scale. There are lots of other reasons, mostly having to do with how labor must be worth at least as much as wages plus the amount the employer profits from it. If it weren’t worth more,…

As others have said, it’s part of the same pattern that enables the Weinsteins/Spaceys.

Buddy, this is stupid.  

Yeah, signing a contract with someone more powerful for substantially less pay than your work is actually worth is the problem.  Thanks for letting me know you think exploiting workers is good so I can move on without engaging further.

I’m not going to do this anymore.  If you think that it’s impossible to exploit someone because they signed a contract, bully for you. 

Fun, I get to talk to someone whose beliefs are Reality.

How does it feel to add literally nothing to this discussion except your own spin on “actors deserve to be exploited for being actors”? Has the internet broken your brain? Do you think saying “fuck right off” and using emphatic all-caps makes me think more of the same stupid, tired, boring things you and the rest of…

Are the actor’s statements not “evidence” to you? And do you not see they irony of ignoring the actor’s own words and claiming (without evidence) that it’s about what she wants to get paid now as opposed to a few weeks ago? Is it really worth defending the famously exploitative film/TV industry like this? You’re…

As soon as you define coercion as “gun to head,” you’re acting like only extremes count. Like other commenters have said, just saying “No” could have catastrophic career consequences for a young actor. Remember how ruining those who refused/tried to expose him was one of Weinstein’s tricks? This tends to show how the…

Recall stories of sleazy directors who sexually coerce young actors by saying “There are hundreds of guys/girls just like you waiting outside for a chance this part.” I doubt you’d think that’s okay, but really, that’s just this taken a couple steps farther.

This is a libertarian argument that has been rebutted pretty well by critics of libertarianism and I encourage you to seek them out.  

The internet is real mixed bag.

Because certain forms of libertarianism (idiotically) see the contract as the basis of all social obligations. Maybe don’t call other people stupid when you have such a slippery grasp of the concepts they’re addressing.

Do even understand how foolish you look right now? Normally I’d troll someone when they’re this mad and make it worse, but honestly, that level of anger and certainty about another person’s character based on such limited information is not healthy. I wish you well.

By the way, you could also interpret “skimp on craft services” as “buy food that costs less” instead of “feed people less.”  But that doesn’t suit your moronic umbrage, so I don’t blame you for being a moron about it.

I am going to guess that you are definitely not mad right now.

Do you not see the numerous problems with what you’re saying? Like, someone can do something in the moment because they basically have to. Imagine you did nude modeling for $100/day (a fraction of scale), but only because you needed to make rent. You’d probably be glad you didn’t get evicted, but that doesn’t mean the…

You’re clearly some kind of Amelia Bedelia-level supergenious who didn’t read “or whatever” in that sentence.