Why does it matter? Is pixar selling drugs now? Or do you not place cartoons in art, alongside Salvador dali who worked with Walt Disney?

It matters because whether or not I take your question in good faith is dependent on how much you distort my words in the asking of it.

Your words speak for themselves. No distortion needed. The question stands.

If the question is "Is the limited bullying and serfdom of 40 people (the original Pixar team size) justified by bringing joy to billions of people (more accurate than millions) for decades (and likely a lot longer)?" Then I answer yes. I think that's a small price to pay.

I think you overestimate net joy brought by Pixar. Some people watched a movie and were entertained for the duration of the movie, some were moved by it and it lead to a couple of hours worth of joy more. Some did not understand the message in the movie and just liked colorful pictures. Yes, there were a couple of movies, but not like tens or hundreds. In the end those movies would not have the success they enjoyed without powerful marketing and distribution machine. Those movies were also used as a vehicle to sell overpriced toys.

I prefer not to mythologize (very good) products of billion dollar companies too much, even if they could stand on their own.

Would "very good art" suffice then?

Isn't that worse ? "We exploit the few for amusement of many, where option of just making them work less and pay CEOs less and remains unexplored"?