If DiCaprio asked for such a price and the companies didn't think they could make it back, he wouldn't get it. He is able to set that price due to demand for DiCaprio specifically. I don't necessarily agree with it either but they do consider these things, and they wouldn't pay him that much otherwise.

I never understood why Hollywood insists on using A list actors to do voice acting for animated features. Most of the time it's not even apparent who's performing and I hardly find it a draw that some big name is listed on the billboard.

Dis we really need Chris Pratt and Jack Black to do the voices for the Super Mario movie? Especially when Chris Pratt is basically using his regular voice the whole time?

If a movie with famous actor makes 100M more than without them, why shouldn't they get a significant portion of that?

Is that DiCaprio number salary, or profit/revenue sharing as a producer? Looking at [0] it seems like his highest salary was $30M. He made more on Inception and Titanic, but that was total income, not salary.

Anyway, when thinking about it as cost and value, then it makes sense in our economic model.

I don’t understand your point. The natural progression of things is how we got to this point. You’d need some massive shock to the system (like a legislative law) to change it at this point.