> I don't understand how Disney and Netflix and HBO decide it makes financial sense to strip major series like Westworld off their streaming services because the residuals are costing them more than the series is earning

That's not exactly the sole explanation:

"Warner Bros. Discovery plans to license the series, and several others, to free ad-supported streaming television services"

"On top of that, it'll be able to fully write down the future amortization costs of those series."

https://www.fool.com/investing/2022/12/22/westworld-no-longe...

Not too unthinkable when SaaS exists :)

because companies continue to sell the thing you already made, ballooning the profit vs cost to make ratio... if actors only got paid the one time, companies and stockholders would eat an increasingly larger percentage of the true revenue of the IP.

> get paid for it over and over as long as my work was still benefitting the company.

You say this like it's laughably unrealistic. Yet it sounds completely reasonable to me. Why shouldn't you get paid in proportion to the value you create?

I do of i decide to keep the stock I earned instead of selling it and diversifying it.

Two reasons. Firstly, I still get paid for the time I don't have the opportunity or the work ethic to create value. I'm able to financially plan and feel far more secure that way. Secondly, it would create a nightmare if everyone operated this way. Imagine paying a stipend to Toyota every year your car keeps running. A payment to the builder every year your house doesn't fall down. A payment to your professors every time you get a paycheck since their work contributed to you getting a job and a payment to your computer manufacturer every time you send an e-mail. It's rent-seeking behavior that society has chosen, for some reason, to tolerate in the producers of entertainment.