You’re not understanding my point. Yes science and engineering are the product, but that does not make scientists and engineers the product unless they’re someone like Bill Nye the Science Guy or Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Those guys are 100% the product for whatever they’re involved in.
A lot of people know how to use AutoCAD to help bring someone else’s idea to life. They’re replaceable by the next person who knows how to use AutoCAD. Replacing the average engineer will likely have no consequences for the product, and the public won’t care. But if you replaced the writers of Suits, most people would notice immediately that something has changed. This is something that leads to shows being cancelled. The individuals who are capable of huge success deserve fair compensation. $3000 for 3 billion minutes is not fair compensation.
A lot of people kwows how to write. Less people know how to use autocad.
As said it looks like you don’t have a clear idea how science and engineering work.
“Someone else’s idea” is the idea of scientists and engineers. They are the people who have the ideas, design products and implement ideas. Products are created by them. There is no suit who come up with ideas, and you cannot replace scientists and engineers with suits. Considering them as easily replaceable is the way companies fail. This is the reason their contracts come with more perks and benefits than other positions. You could compare them to writers, directors and crew members in a movie. What science and tech are missing are actors. The 2 guys you mentioned are more comparable to actors than writers.
That said, scientist and engineers deserve a piece of long term profits of the products they contributed creating, similarly as writers. Unfortunately they don’t have strong unions as writers… But they should
Yes, I only have experience in all three fields we’re discussing, I mustn’t have a clear idea.
A lot of people kwows how to write. Less people know how to use autocad.
The ratio of people on each side of the coin is completely irrelevant, but you’re wrong even if it was relevant. Far more people can use AutoCAD than can write a hit show. If you’re talking about the ability to put words on a page, my toddler can write, too. It’s irrelevant, no one is reading his screenplays.
Considering them as easily replaceable is the way companies fail.
Only when we’re talking about replacing them with less educated workers, or eliminating their positions entirely which I absolutely do not support and was not referring to. Sticking to same level of education and experience, they are typically interchangeable with one another. Of course they bring ideas and have their own unique approach to problem solving. So do teachers. We all have a favorite teacher, but one we don’t like as much is still capable of achieving the goal of teaching the subject matter. Teachers are just as interchangeable with each other as engineers and scientists.
Hit sitcom writers are far less interchangeable and this process is difficult to tackle. You can’t just assume because someone is educated in the field and has experience writing that they will be capable of good writing for your show. They could suck even with their education and experience, or they might be great but have a style that doesn’t match what you’re looking for. Messing with a show’s formula is a total gamble. You could be a fantastic writer and still get cancelled. You could succeed in one show and fail at the next for no foreseeable reason. This is the reason their pay is often broken down differently than most other occupations. The level of unpredictability between their occupation and most others can’t be compared.
scientist and engineers deserve a piece of long term profits of the products they contributed creating, similarly as writers. Unfortunately they don’t have strong unions as writers
No one is fighting for a secondary pay system on this end because it would be absurd and detrimental to scientists and engineers in most cases. Why break their compensation structure down like this when that would be opening the door to a reduced base pay rate and subsequent gamble if the product they spent years on never takes off? It would be as counterintuitive as waiters fighting to keep the tipping system. That system usually doesn’t benefit anyone but the business owner. There’s no need for this when there are more reliable ways to properly compensate scientists and engineers for their hard work. A writer might get paid even less if they don’t accept this situation, because there’s no guarantee that their show will be picked up or won’t get cancelled.
I am not that guy, but this is not how science work. Science and engineering are the product, and scientists and engineers do it as writers do it…
They are absolutely comparable
You’re not understanding my point. Yes science and engineering are the product, but that does not make scientists and engineers the product unless they’re someone like Bill Nye the Science Guy or Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Those guys are 100% the product for whatever they’re involved in.
A lot of people know how to use AutoCAD to help bring someone else’s idea to life. They’re replaceable by the next person who knows how to use AutoCAD. Replacing the average engineer will likely have no consequences for the product, and the public won’t care. But if you replaced the writers of Suits, most people would notice immediately that something has changed. This is something that leads to shows being cancelled. The individuals who are capable of huge success deserve fair compensation. $3000 for 3 billion minutes is not fair compensation.
A lot of people kwows how to write. Less people know how to use autocad.
As said it looks like you don’t have a clear idea how science and engineering work.
“Someone else’s idea” is the idea of scientists and engineers. They are the people who have the ideas, design products and implement ideas. Products are created by them. There is no suit who come up with ideas, and you cannot replace scientists and engineers with suits. Considering them as easily replaceable is the way companies fail. This is the reason their contracts come with more perks and benefits than other positions. You could compare them to writers, directors and crew members in a movie. What science and tech are missing are actors. The 2 guys you mentioned are more comparable to actors than writers.
That said, scientist and engineers deserve a piece of long term profits of the products they contributed creating, similarly as writers. Unfortunately they don’t have strong unions as writers… But they should
Yes, I only have experience in all three fields we’re discussing, I mustn’t have a clear idea.
The ratio of people on each side of the coin is completely irrelevant, but you’re wrong even if it was relevant. Far more people can use AutoCAD than can write a hit show. If you’re talking about the ability to put words on a page, my toddler can write, too. It’s irrelevant, no one is reading his screenplays.
Only when we’re talking about replacing them with less educated workers, or eliminating their positions entirely which I absolutely do not support and was not referring to. Sticking to same level of education and experience, they are typically interchangeable with one another. Of course they bring ideas and have their own unique approach to problem solving. So do teachers. We all have a favorite teacher, but one we don’t like as much is still capable of achieving the goal of teaching the subject matter. Teachers are just as interchangeable with each other as engineers and scientists.
Hit sitcom writers are far less interchangeable and this process is difficult to tackle. You can’t just assume because someone is educated in the field and has experience writing that they will be capable of good writing for your show. They could suck even with their education and experience, or they might be great but have a style that doesn’t match what you’re looking for. Messing with a show’s formula is a total gamble. You could be a fantastic writer and still get cancelled. You could succeed in one show and fail at the next for no foreseeable reason. This is the reason their pay is often broken down differently than most other occupations. The level of unpredictability between their occupation and most others can’t be compared.
No one is fighting for a secondary pay system on this end because it would be absurd and detrimental to scientists and engineers in most cases. Why break their compensation structure down like this when that would be opening the door to a reduced base pay rate and subsequent gamble if the product they spent years on never takes off? It would be as counterintuitive as waiters fighting to keep the tipping system. That system usually doesn’t benefit anyone but the business owner. There’s no need for this when there are more reliable ways to properly compensate scientists and engineers for their hard work. A writer might get paid even less if they don’t accept this situation, because there’s no guarantee that their show will be picked up or won’t get cancelled.