Is that just a general statement of their contribution to society at large, or for the value of their labor? I could see the first point, but would argue that the same case should be made for the executives pulling in tens of millions of dollars per year. If the writers labor is currently equal, then the pay at the top should be drastically reduced to match the overall contribution to society. Middle managing provides little inherent good to society, whereas at least writing could be seen as an artistic pursuit contributing to local culture and commentary.

For the second point, I guess it’s kind of the same argument, if their labor value is correct at its current rate, then the top pay has been inflated simply because the money is available. Something in the “formula” isn’t right, and it’s led to ballooning pay at the top, but not anywhere else.

All very broad brush strokes, though.