Actors are a hyper-complex subclass (speaking of the US, probably also true elsewhere). You've got the usual layers of complexity that most workers in the US have, like imperialism, racialization, etc, and the relationship between higher income and having marginal access to pre-defined systems of capital.

But also, their labor is wholly superstructual, both in the sense of what it produces (which is usually a mistake to put too much weight into) and its relation to the superstructural reproduction of the dominant ideology. This local worker-owner dynamic has a unique relationship with the larger worker-owner dynamic of the nation/world. This might be a contributing factor for its level of unionization compared to other sectors.

There are also the gradients between being in the reserve army of labor or otherwise employed*, versus selling their labor (dominant variable for the majority of working actors), versus selling their image (dominant variable for highly successful actors). The nature and duration of those experiences are going to color someone's outlook, in addition to whatever immediate material interests they give them.

And there's all sorts of selection happening regarding who gets to enter the actor subclass and where on the above scale they land, from lookism and the usual social classes, to basic resources like fucking rent in LA, to networking access, and even explicit political ones like McCarthyism.

As a whole, the section of working actors as well as reserve army of actors can probably be grouped with rest of the US proletariat for general purposes. Every sector is going to have its particularities, though.

*And the class character here can have a strong influence, like how a lot of struggling or formerly struggling actors have experienced the service industry, which may leave them with an echo of radical class politics even if their immediate interests change.