Freelance Living Wage

[Guest]

Well, yes, right now that's actually literally true.

 

But that's not really the problem. The problem is that, in the UK and to some extent the US, you're currently likely to do a bit less well than your parents did. Regardless of how well they did.

 

Ok someone doesn't work, now they are 100% dependent on government benefits? Is that how they will survive?

 

R,

[Phil Rhodes]

Right now - sure, they'll actually make more money - under, OK, some moderately restrictive circumstances, but still - yes.

 

Ridiculously.

 

But that's not really what this is about. The real problem is that no matter how hard you work, you're likely to do (in the 1950s) a little bit better than your parents, or (now) a more significant bit worse than your parents.

 

Unfashionable, and highly counter-revolutionary from the perspective of peppy libertarians with permanent fixed grins and a determination to be excessively upbeat about absolutely everything, but unfortunately true.

[Maxim Ford]

One thing that appears to enrage the white populace of Canada and the UK is how many immigrants come to both countries arriving with little to nothing. Then after 10-15 years the immigrants are living in bigger homes and driving nicer cars, than the native "white folk." How does this happen?

 

Well when I see the number of hours new immigrants put into working at the corner shop or gas station it doesn't surprise me. They don't leave the shop at 5pm, they work all day Saturday and Sunday, and they never take vacations. No wonder they succeed financially. Especially when they move to a country where there is no political corruption, & no police or criminal gangs that they need to pay bribes to just to stay in business.

 

No white Canadian or Briton wants to work the kind of hours many new immigrants do, but we do expect the same financial rewards. I can't fault any new immigrant that comes to Canada and becomes a self made millionaire through sheer hard work and determination. Fact is that in Canada and the UK a lot of new immigrants succeed to this degree, even though they have none of the advantages starting out that Canadians and Britons have.

 

Now Maxim will be on here decrying the fact that many impoverished immigrants who become financially successful should be taxed at an enormous rate in order to support everyone else. Because they became wealthy by lying, cheating, and ripping off the rest of society. The idea that they worked hard and made sacrifices doesn't enter into the minds of people like Maxim.

 

R,

Nice story. Where are the facts to back it up?

 

For years Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty and others broadcast into Eastern Europe that the West was a paradise, that they could have jobs, a health service, freedom, cars and colour TVs.... Communism collapsed, and their economies were destroyed by neo liberal economics.

 

People come here out of desperation, and even though wages have fallen here, they are still higher than no wages at all.

And of course some will work harder and succeed, and some will end up homeless, some will end up alcoholics, some will return home.

 

Newspapers, TV and politicians will select the stories they want ...lazy British, hard working Poles, etc

 

But the facts are that living standards are falling, for all. That there are not the well paid jobs to move up to. That house prices in London and SE are so expensive that many will never have the chance to buy their own house. That most jobs are forced part time casual and badly paid. That landlords charge high rents for poor property.

 

Boddington in his rude and ignorant way says he knows what I think. That I think hard work should be taxed. He is wrong. I support the right of people to live and work anywhere in the World they want. I think all people should have a good standard of living which technology promises.

 

A banker who parcels up bad mortgages and sells them in financial packages brings ruin to millions of people and as they have control of the financial system take what ever rewards they feel like taking....those people need to be brought under control.

 

A society which is fairer is happier.

[Guest]

Nice story. Where are the facts to back it up?

 

Not every immigrant to the UK is a spoiled, lazy, entitled brat like you.

 

R,

[Justin Hayward]

you're currently likely to do a bit less well than your parents did.

 

you're currently likely to do a bit less well than your parents did.

Your parents were filmmakers?

[Phil Rhodes]

No, why?

 

 

 

Not every immigrant to the UK is a spoiled, lazy, entitled brat like you.

 

Really, Richard, that's a bit much. You have no idea what this man's work ethic is. What's more, you've spent a lot of time in this thread emphasising how you feel entitled to the lion's share of the proceeds from a film.

 

Once again - you are not special.

 

P

[Maxim Ford]

 

Not every immigrant to the UK is a spoiled, lazy, entitled brat like you.

 

R,

I understand you do not like the idea that the rich our taking much more out of society than they put in. Instead of challenging the idea you insult me, a person you know nothing about. This reflects poorly on you.

 

Whether I am lazy or hardworking does not alter the facts to which I speak.

 

How economic inequality harms societies

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ7LzE3u7Bw

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yV_ZSmWanI

 

Address the issues or don't post.

[Mark Dunn]

 

 

 

 

What's more, you've spent a lot of time in this thread emphasising how you feel entitled to the lion's share of the proceeds from a film.

 

 

 

P

He is if it's his picture.

Edited December 9, 2013 by Mark Dunn

[Mark Dunn]

 

Address the issues or don't post.

This forum isn't your worker-controlled socialist paradise yet. You don't get to say who comments and who doesn't.

Edited December 9, 2013 by Mark Dunn

[Phil Rhodes]

 

 

He is if it's his picture

 

Not without limitation, he isn't. This is true by law - regarding minimum wage rules - but it's even more true by custom and common sense. The owner can't take all the money out of a company, or it will collapse, and this generalises perfectly well to national and international economics.

 

The attitude that the power to take something equates to a moral right to take something is fundamental to the subject of this thread. Boddington appears not to have thought about this very hard, at least beyond statements along the lines of I want more stuff, I deserve to have it, and I am going to take it regardless of absolutely any other consideration whatsoever. This attitude breaks economies, as it did in 2007-8, and no matter how much anyone wants to makes it into a political issue so they can throw stones, it remains one of really quite simple fiduciary logic.

 

P

[Mark Dunn]

 

Not without limitation, he isn't. This is true by law - regarding minimum wage rules - but it's even more true by custom and common sense. The owner can't take all the money out of a company, or it will collapse, and this generalises perfectly well to national and international economics.

 

The attitude that the power to take something equates to a moral right to take something is fundamental to the subject of this thread. Boddington appears not to have thought about this very hard, at least beyond statements along the lines of I want more stuff, I deserve to have it, and I am going to take it regardless of absolutely any other consideration whatsoever. This attitude breaks economies, as it did in 2007-8, and no matter how much anyone wants to makes it into a political issue so they can throw stones, it remains one of really quite simple fiduciary logic.

 

P

You didn't say all, you said 'the lion's share'.

[Phil Rhodes]

We can argue about what "the lion's share" means all you like, but the point remains.

[Guest]

What's more, you've spent a lot of time in this thread emphasising how you feel entitled to the lion's share of the proceeds from a film.

 

Once again - you are not special.

 

P

 

Yep....If I used 100% of my own money, then I am entitled to 100% of the proceeds (if any). I own the movie outright, it's my property, it belongs to me. If I spent 100K making a low budget found footage movie, then I sell it for 10 million dollars, I just made a profit of $9, 900, 000.00. And that's all there is to it. Same for any other human being on the planet that makes something with their own money. A guy like Maxim Ford for example who keeps 100% of the proceeds from his stock footage sales. Just one example of many.

 

Also, a feature film project is not like a normal business that has on-going business activities. Once the film is completed the crew move onto a new project. There is no obligation on the part of the producer to keep paying the crew beyond the last date of production. Once the movie is over and done with, the movie is no longer incurring expenses and it has no further need of crew to service it.

 

Is that crew in the UK that worked on Star Wars in 76 still waiting for Lucas to call them? Are they still getting pay cheques from him?

 

R,

[Mark Dunn]

Sorry, forgot to quote. Seems as if I'm repeating Richard but I started typing first and I'm slow.

Phil, are you perchance confusing or conflating turnover, profit and proceeds?

 

I'm entitled, (sorry if you don't like the word, but it has its usual meaning here) to all the profits of my business, after tax, and it's my, er, business what I do with them.

Of course I must first pay my cost of sales and overheads, which would of course include employee wages if I had any. They would get paid first, naturally, before I saw any profit, and they would bear none of my risk of not making a profit, which is my wages. That risk I hope to be rewarded for, in the form of profits, over and above what I might have earned as an employee for that work.

Edited December 9, 2013 by Mark Dunn

[Phil Rhodes]

I'm entitled, (sorry if you don't like the word, but it has its usual meaning here) to all the profits of my business, after tax, and it's my, er, business what I do with them.

 

Absolutely. My position is that it's proper for you to recognise that you didn't do - say - 90-plus-percent of the work on a movie, so it's unreasonable to take - say - 90-plus-percent of the proceeds.

 

Again - and I've said this several times now - yes, you can do that, nobody can stop you doing that, but it's increasingly starting to be realised that the pay offsets are getting so unimaginably huge that you shouldn't do that.

 

Personally if I were to produce something that was very popular and made lots of money, it would give me the greatest possible pleasure to go to the cast and crew with a cash bonus in recognition of our good luck in having been involved in a successful project. But I appreciate that in the minds of modern economic thinkers, the only people who deserve bonuses tend to be those who are already rich.

 

P

[Guest]

Personally if I were to produce something that was very popular and made lots of money, it would give me the greatest possible pleasure to go to the cast and crew with a cash bonus in recognition of our good luck in having been involved in a successful project.

 

I agree with you 100%, and I would do the same. George Lucas did this for people on Star Wars, even though he had no contractual obligation to do so. Nothing would make me happier than to give every crew member, regardless of position, an additional $5,000.00 or $10,000.00. Because that would mean the movie would of made a lot of money. Which is a positive.

 

R,

[Stephen Williams]

 

I agree with you 100%, and I would do the same. George Lucas did this for people on Star Wars, even though he had no contractual obligation to do so. Nothing would make me happier than to give every crew member, regardless of position, an additional $5,000.00 or $10,000.00. Because that would mean the movie would of made a lot of money. Which is a positive.

 

R,

You mean all the crew members except Max, his 5-10k will go to a charity for the poor :D

[Guest]

You mean all the crew members except Max, his 5-10k will go to a charity for the poor :D

 

Well yes Stephen I just assumed that would be the case. I mean a kind soul like Max would never dream of taking money for himself.

 

R,

[Maxim Ford]

yes profit is legal, but that is because capitalism makes it legal. The workers who made Star Wars did not own it, did not even own 1% even though they did 90% of the work. Others took a 100% of the profit.

 

I understand that your defense of greed for the few and misery for the many makes you feel a little guilty and therefore you need to paint me, a person you know nothing about as the hypocrite. That will not fool anyone, the points made hear have remained unanswered,

 

“You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.”
― Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto

[Phil Rhodes]

 

 

I agree with you 100%, and I would do the same.

 

I don't understand. You've spent most of this thread going "mine, mine, it's all mine."

 

P

[Keith Walters]

So if Richard's movie bombs totally and he loses say 3 million, will all the crew he hired then come back and refund their wages and per diems? According to some of the "logic" expressed here, that would be the case....

 

(Of course if used another famous brand of camera, he wouldn't have needed a crew at all, and probably not anybody who can act.

I believe you can even get algorithms now that can handle catering...).

[Mark Dunn]

 

yes profit is legal, but that is because capitalism makes it legal.

 

If you think profits should be illegal, how do I, a small business owner, get by? Profits are my wages. Who should own them? I use my private property to generate profits. Should I not own the tools of my trade?

Never mind grand sweeping statements or manifestos. Answer the particular. What about the individual self- employed businessman, you or me?

Edited December 10, 2013 by Mark Dunn

[Guest]

 

I don't understand. You've spent most of this thread going "mine, mine, it's all mine."

 

P

 

And it's still mine. Just as your private property is yours. At least for now, until a change in government in the UK has you sharing your dish soap with the neighbour across the hall.

 

R,

[Guest]

So if Richard's movie bombs totally and he loses say 3 million, will all the crew he hired then come back and refund their wages and per diems? According to some of the "logic" expressed here, that would be the case....

 

No Keith it only ever works one way. People only take credit and want a slice of the proceeds when the movie succeeds. When it bombs they all scurry away and hide. Give their money back? Ha Ha, right!

 

R,

[Phil Rhodes]

Aaaand so do producers. Next?