It's a strange time for workers.
People are working longer, real wages have fallen across the globe, and we're often reminded that we are competing with third world employees, earning mere cents for 'similar' work.
I wonder if the same conversations happened when slavery was legal?
"You want how much in wages? But Artis over there works for nothing!"
Absurd, to be fair. But this hypothetical still touches on an important principle:
People should be paid fairly for what they produce.
This idea come up a LOT in filmmaking circles. We are all basically freelancers after all. And don't get me started on piracy.
But this simple expression is also the cause of the great societal divide you see increasingly today. It divides because there are two simple responses to this statement. You either agree with it, or you don't.
There are many, MANY people, I'm sorry to tell you, who do not. To these people, there is a different modus operandi that governs the societal construct:
People should be paid whatever they can negotiate for what they produce.
The implication is that this second statement provides an enormous upside, far greater than the first. 'What you can negotiate' has nothing to do with fairness after all. You could negotiate $1M for work that is only worth $1.
Or, has happens far more often, $0.10 for work that is worth $1000.
Whatever you can get, remember?
It's the magic carrot that is dangled in front of the ignorant masses. Let the world operate this way, without regard to a 'fair' wage, because you too can be rich like 'us'...maybe.
But nothing could be further from the truth. It's fools gold.
The game is so stacked against you, the negotiating power so concentrated out of your hands, that you have almost no chance of thriving in this laissez-faire approach.
I've seen it first hand. Recently, I was in touch with an Oscar-winning production company, based overseas.
The company were planning to shoot a small section of their latest low-budget, independent feature film in Australia, and they were looking for a local production company to partner with.
I was delighted to get the email, of course.
As the discussion evolved, however, it became clear that they were particularly concerned about spending too much money on this small section of the film. Understandable, given it is always important to be shrewd with your film's budget.
The concerning aspect for me, however, is that the budget I proposed was at the cheapest/minimum rates for the crew, the minimum rate for the actor, and the minimum to acquire all of the relevant copyright for the actor's performance.
In short, it was the minimum for all involved, but in the end it was still considered too much.
The final email, while certainly polite, indicated that they were instead going to fly out an existing crew member, and a local theatre group was going to be involved. Supplying a free actor, I presume.
Cost effective no doubt. But fair? When a company is making something that they expect to exploit for a significant profit, why should people work for them for nothing?
And I wish this were just about fairness, but it is a tentacle on a much larger, much more destructive, beast.
Income inequality.
A buzz word, no doubt, but one of the handful of greatest problems we face going forward. The imbalanced distribution of wealth is literally eroding the foundations of our society.
Overly dramatic? In a word, NO.
The USA is the living proof of what happens when you leave only people at the very bottom and the very top of the economic pile. The businesses that meet the needs of the middle class, what has traditionally been the largest part of the economic spending pie, become unsustainable and fold. And we all lose.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/business/the-middle-class-is-steadily-eroding-just-ask-the-business-world.html?ref=nelsondschwartz&_r=0
We all lose, including the wealthy, because the real world is based on RELATIONSHIPS. I pay you, you pay someone else, they pay someone else, who pays me, and so on. Those who look for short term gain (i.e. by screwing over other people and paying less than what someone is worth), break down these economic relationships and hurt everyone, including themselves eventually.
Now, before I go down the rabbit hole of explaining economic theory, let me provide this easy clarification.
NO SPENDING MONEY FOR THE LARGEST GROUP OF SPENDERS (THE MIDDLE CLASS)
=
LESS MONEY BEING SPENT, LESS DEMAND FOR GOODS AND SERVICES, LESS ECONOMIC ACTIVITY, LESS JOBS FOR ALL, LESS PROFIT FOR THE WEALTHY
And this is the future we face as income inequality worsens. Less jobs. Less economic activity. Less opportunities for all.
In a recent TED talk, millionaire businessman Nick Hanauer explained this very principle, saying simply:
"In a capitalist economy, the true job creators are middle class consumers; and taxing the rich to make investments that make the middle class grow and thrive is the single shrewdest thing we can do for the middle class, the poor, and for the rich."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Wc9bWc-WRs
So, whether you are a filmmaker or not, every business, the entire economy in fact, thrives when there is a less concentrated distribution of income.
And it doesn't start with governments. Governments reflect the attitude of the citizens that elect them (...allegedly).
It doesn't start with companies or with rich people.
It starts with you. And a choice.
People should be paid fairly for what they produce.
OR
People should be paid whatever they can negotiate for what they produce.
What do you believe?
- - - - - - - - -
WANT TO COMMENT? THEN BECOME A SUBSCRIBER AND ALSO GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL.
http://www.openingactfilms.com/contact-us.html
