Jump to content

Why economics and politics ARE important to Cinematography.com


Brian Dzyak

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

Hi Brian

 

Well, my position is that if a film has enough reliable talent on it, then the backers, whoever they are, will flip the bill regardless of where they shoot. If the talent doesn't have a track record, then the money people will cut corners where they can.

 

I think your reasoning is going a bit far afield, but I can see your perspective. However, I think things are just a bit simpler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 176
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Oh, the tears of derisory mirth running down my cheeks...

 

I have the feeling that most local 600 members make more in a week than I do in a year.

 

And it shouldn't be that way. If, say, Warner Bros., has a production that it decides to shoot in the UK that it could just as easily have done in it's own backyard in Burbank, then it shouldn't be permitted to get qualified people like you on the cheap for less than they would've paid to do it where the Corporate headquarters is. I've heard the Libertarian argument that suggests that since workers in other nations (other than the US) are willing to work for less, US workers should be willing to drop their own rates as well, ya know, to compete.

 

And that's the game the Corporatists want to play. While prices continue to rise on goods and services for just about everything, Corps are permitted and encouraged to scour the planet looking for lower and lower wages from increasingly desperate people. They take tax incentives/bribes, talk the local labor force into taking lower wages, then threaten to pull up stakes on future work if the wages aren't even lower and the tax incentives/bribes don't stay "competitive." Call it what it is: extortion. Corporations tell governments, "Pay us or we'll go somewhere else." Then, if there isn't a strong labor union to hold the line on working conditions and wages, the bar is set lower and everyone else around the world gets screwed too. And on and on it goes...

 

 

I know that you guys over there have BECTU, but I don't know how much power it has. And didn't there used to be a union of sorts in the UK that was broken? I can't find any history on that at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Brian

 

Well, my position is that if a film has enough reliable talent on it, then the backers, whoever they are, will flip the bill regardless of where they shoot. If the talent doesn't have a track record, then the money people will cut corners where they can.

 

I think your reasoning is going a bit far afield, but I can see your perspective. However, I think things are just a bit simpler.

 

 

While it's true that big talent (in front and behind camera) generally means a nearly "blank check" for a particular production, the reality is that those in charge of the budget will only pay the bare minimum of what they are FORCED to pay. So, if for some reason, a movie HAS TO BE shot in a place where IATSE, SAG, Teamsters, WGA, DGA have jurisdiction, then naturally the money will be there to make it happen. But if the Producers can possibly shoot that same project somewhere else far away from the fair wages and rules imposed by others, they won't hesitate to move to wherever they have to. How many movies set in places like NYC or Chicago have been shot in Canada, Prague, or elsewhere? And why would Producers do that? Money, of course. They can pay foreign workers LESS, not be under restrictions designed to protect worker's rights, and get tax incentives bribes (and likely take advantage of currency exchange rates)...then "import" that product BACK to their Corporate HQ in the USA without any tariff penalty.

 

This model only serves to continually hurt wages of EVERYONE around the world and it steals tax revenue from governments (local and national) while only profiting Corporations which have no limitations on crossing borders like people do. This entire paradigm (for the film industry and just about every other industry as well) has been sold as the "Free Market" but it clearly is anything but "free." The only way to get a true "free market" in a global economy would be to enact a single world currency and drop all restrictions on borders so that workers would be truly free to work wherever they want/need to.

 

Am I overstating the situation? I don't think so, but I'd be welcome to hearing alternative points-of-view. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good grief.

 

 

 

 

I know that you guys over there have BECTU, but I don't know how much power it has. And didn't there used to be a union of sorts in the UK that was broken? I can't find any history on that at the moment.

As to that, here you go. 'Nationalising the film industry, ACTT, 1971

http://www.bectu.org.uk/filegrab/NationalisingtheFilmIndustryACTTpublication1973.pdf?ref=548

 

'This union calls for the immediate nationalisation without compensation of the means of production, distribution and exhibition of films'.

 

Is that more to your taste?

 

With ideas like that, the ACTT broke itself. Rather typical of the left here in the 1970s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Recent text from the union:

 

CAMERA GRAPEVINE:

[Production company] are asking for reduced rate on a viral. Do not accept it. PROTECT THE UNION RATE!

 

What is the BECTU rate for "a viral". For that matter, what's "a viral"?

 

I really don't approve of this sort of thing.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recent text from the union:

 

 

 

What is the BECTU rate for "a viral". For that matter, what's "a viral"?

 

I really don't approve of this sort of thing.

 

P

 

 

Well, from what I can glean, a "Viral" is merely a product meant to go to the internet. Does it mean ANYTHING different for those creating it? Not at all. It still means that a crew goes out to shoot material and someone posts it and then finishes in some format suitable for the internet people to load it to the computer.

 

The point is that "they" want to use the final output media (theatrical, TV, Internet, DVD, etc) as a way to cut the wages of those people who create the content. So, a "theatrical" release somehow is worth more for labor costs than something that only goes to the internet, regardless of the fact that it still takes the same amount of labor effort and equipment to produce the material.

 

This idea of "side letters" that circumvent union contracts in the USA has been in effect for a while now. Crews have shown up on set, worked two weeks, then get their checks, only to find out then that IATSE has signed a "side letter" with the Production company that essentially lowers the agreed upon rates for labor. Why would they do that? Because if they don't, the production will go somewhere else, where crews agree to work for LESS money. Does this mean that crews are entitled to a share of the profits because the cost of production was lower? Of course not. It just means that the Production company was able to manufacture the product at a cheaper price so that it can pocket the bigger profits on the other side.

 

This is, what they call, a "Free Market." In reality, it means using every tool they can to decrease production cost (f*** over crews) and maximize THEIR profits (which, naturally, are not shared with the crews who took lower pay). Agree with it or not, but that's the Globalized world that has been created. "Foreign" crews can agree to get paid less than IATSE rates just to have work, or they can band together to tell Studios that they won't be taken advantage of anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Bryan, if you had ever F*cked over a crew, you'd realize how much fun it is! ;)

 

 

 

In seriousness though, you are seeing things from a very one-sided perspective. Ultimately this is a BUSINESS that has to make money, not guaranteed jobs for crews.

 

It's not like the compa nies make GUARANTEED money. A lot of movies LOOSE money. So it is their gamble, their reward.

 

 

Sure wages need to be reasonable, but you act as if the studios should have some other goal than making money. They are responsible to their SHAREHOLDERS to make money or they get fired. . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to ask you, also, what alternative solution you'd offer to dealing with foreign outsourcing and cut rates on virals and the like.

 

Instead of keeping the production in the U.S. by offering the companies a discount, you propose what? Force the companies to pay the same rate and prevent them from going elsewhere? That doesn't seem to be in keeping with the principles of freedom that built this country.

 

You can put a tariff on the company to discourage them to outsource film work, but banning it altogether is akin to tyranny. This isn't your banana republic, Brian.

 

 

 

We live in a changing world. The days of the '60s and '70s are over for the United States and we will probably never have them back PERIOD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to ask you, also, what alternative solution you'd offer to dealing with foreign outsourcing and cut rates on virals and the like.

 

Instead of keeping the production in the U.S. by offering the companies a discount, you propose what? Force the companies to pay the same rate and prevent them from going elsewhere? That doesn't seem to be in keeping with the principles of freedom that built this country.

 

You can put a tariff on the company to discourage them to outsource film work, but banning it altogether is akin to tyranny. This isn't your banana republic, Brian.

 

 

 

We live in a changing world. The days of the '60s and '70s are over for the United States and we will probably never have them back PERIOD

 

 

The concept of "Freedom" does not equate with "Freedom to sink your own nation's economy" as much as the Conservatives want to believe it. Placing limits on Corporations has proven to be very successful in the past to create strong economies that benefit everyone. But allowing business to run rampant without any rules is proving to be disastrous for just about everyone except the scant few at the very tippy-top.

 

Your prediction in the last sentence is not necessarily true. FDR saved our nation from the first Republican Great Depression that was caused by very similar laissez faire attitudes toward our economy. His policies began a fifty year period that saw increased GDP, better worker wages and a strong Middle Class. Reagan and his ilk came along to undo it all in the name of "Freedom" as you allude to above, but at terrible cost, not only to real people, but to our national economic strength as well. And this has deep ramifications for other nations as well. Conservative ideology wants to allow US Corporations the "freedom" to scour the planet in search of cheap labor and we can clearly see that thirty years of this push has not only led to the weakening of the US economy, but the ripple effect extends to everyone else too. And as this pattern continues, worker wages are further suppressed as Transnational Corporations play states and nations off of one another in the mission to rape them for tax incentives/bribes and lower worker wages.

 

Sure, we can justify this by claiming that it is in the name of "Freedom," but if we follow that line of logic, then I propose that we immediately overturn all traffic rules because they infringe on our rights as citizens to do whatever we want to. Sound ridiculous? The only argument FOR traffic laws is to protect others from the reckless behavior of people. And that is precisely the point of imposing regulations on Corporations. Rules are there to protect everyone from the recklessness and greed of others. But a certain attitude in the US that pushes for deregulation in the name of "Freedom" led directly to disasters like the oil gusher in the Gulf of Mexico. The George HW Bush Administration purposefully removed oil Corporations from the tyranny of safety regulations so these companies haven't been forced to be safe. So, all in the name of "Freedom," we can see in a dramatic way just why it is vital to place hardcore regulations on Corporations that would choose to endanger lives and our economy just so that they can become wealthier.

 

Your suggestion of providing Corporations a "discount" is nothing more than a bribe, either paid directly to a Corporation or is revenue taken from tax payers in order to subsidize a private for-profit business. In other words, it's the Conservative goal of publicizing the costs while privatizing the profits. So, how about instead of just handing out bribes to Corporations to keep the work in a particular place, the act of the bribe turns the project into a joint venture where the state or nation (whoever is giving the bribe) becomes an income partner just like any other investor. I'm sure that this would make Corporations think twice before they accept hefty tax incentives/bribes... the bigger the bribe, the bigger stake from the GROSS the state/nation would receive. Not just a repayment of the initial bribe/investment, but a repayment PLUS a hefty percentage on the back end. Would that keep everyone happier or is the goal to just let the Studio Execs get wealthier so they can live in bigger mansions while the workers earn less and states are extorted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your saying that corporations should NOT be free to make business decisions, but instead be forced to produce product in this country is tantamount to a government dictatorship, socialism, or communism.

 

 

If you wish to live in a society where industry is run entirely by the government, there are several countries in Europe, Israel, and a host of others where you can live.

 

I do not understand, Brian, how you can advocate freedom on the one hand for the worker, but not on the other, for the investors.

 

 

Your notion that movie companies are just a bunchy of suits sitting in offices making money is TOTALLY simplistic, like the notion of a small child. Those people are puppets, figureheads.

 

You could cut their pay to $0.50 a year, and it would have almost no impact on wages for workers, because there are so many workers to split the savings up amongst.

 

 

I know a lady who insisted to me that everyone in the country could be a millioinaire if Bill Gates gave all of his money away divided up evenly amongst every American. That simply isn't the case. Dividing Bill Gates' wealth up wouldn't even give each American enough money to pay off their portion of the national debt!

 

 

Speaking of the national debt, Brian, how do you propose that we fix that problem? Most of our tax money is going to be used just to pay INTEREST on it if it continues to grow. All of the people out there who think the American dream should continue. . . on foreign credit. . . are going to have to swallow a reality pill in a few years.

 

The "Good Ole' Days" are over, Brian, and you are going to have to come to terms with that if you don't want the uglier kind of wake-up call that people who don't adapt are going to get when the check comes due.

 

 

 

And, no, FDR didn't single-handedly pull the U.S. out of the Great Depression and save the country from the Evil Republicans, WWII, and the industrial machine it fed for four years were what stimulated this boom we were in for 60 years that is now ending.

 

Are you advocating another World War? Are you advocating the same sort of isolationism and protectionism that got the U.S. INTO Pearl Harbor? We stuck our heads in the sand then and let other countries' problems come after us.

 

Do your really think we can go back to pretending that the rest of the world doesn't exist? I assure you, if we ignore the plights of our neighbors, especially in Mexico, their problems will eventually come to us.

 

 

PLEASE look at the big picture. Don't just protect your own way of life and your own livelihood (birds and reptiles fend for their young and defend their nest eggs), but rather consider mankind as a whole.

 

You need to open yourself up and put yourself in the shoes of others, Brian. That's what separates human beings from the rest of the animal kingdom, the ability to see past our own selfish needs.

 

 

 

I don't want to preach to you anymore, and I hope that this last post I make on this thread doesn't go in one ear and out the other; in summary look at the big picture and learn to see the world as it really is in shades of grey rather than in black and white only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rules are there to protect everyone from the recklessness and greed of others. But a certain attitude in the US that pushes for deregulation in the name of "Freedom" led directly to disasters like the oil gusher in the Gulf of Mexico. The George HW Bush Administration purposefully removed oil Corporations from the tyranny of safety regulations so these companies haven't been forced to be safe.

 

I agree with you that George W. Bush's deregulation and corporate protectionism was bad for this country, but you can't blame him for that oil rig.

 

My understanding is that it was built before his administration came to power.

 

 

There was a BP policy (note that BRITISH Petroleum is NOT a company that you can blame the Republicans for) to save money and cut costs when they were drilling the hole, from what I hear. Ultimately, though, Brian, it was probably a high-paid, low-education Union worker that did the half-a$$ed work.

 

You can't just blame a suit because a suit didn't drill the hole or build the rig, an idiot who didn't have the common sense to report an engineering glitch was just as responsible. Maybe the guy was drunk/high when he did the job too. Maybe the crew that was on duty when the disaster happened were too :)

 

 

Watch a movie like "The China Syndrome" and you will see that it isn't just the guys at the top who cut corners. What about the contractor in that movie that faked the weld X-rays, or all of the workers and engineers at the plant that kept cutting corners on inspections and giving into corporate pressure to get the plant back into operation.

 

 

 

 

But I really am done on this thread now. I hope that you will eventually take your head out of the sand and quit seeing the real world as being simplistic as an old Hollywood Western.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of the national debt, Brian, how do you propose that we fix that problem? Most of our tax money is going to be used just to pay INTEREST on it if it continues to grow.

 

You are going to have a national sales tax in the USA very soon. Especially since half of all Americans no longer pay any federal income tax at all.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A) NO ONE has advocated "Socialism" or having the Government run Corporations. I'm not sure where Karl concocted that idea. What is suggested is Government REGULATIONS on Corporations and Banking so that their inherent greed doesn't threaten the entire economy, lives, or Democracy. There's a HUGE difference between Government "run" and Government regulations. Please learn it.

 

B) Now that you mention it, it perhaps IS time for the US (and other nations) to nationalize the energy industries. Clearly, the for-profit world operates on a model that encourages profits at the expense of safety and long-term stability for the nations they are meant to serve. A place like Norway successfully operates it's own energy (oil) industry that way because those natural resources are deemed to belong to the People of that nation instead of the way we do it and cede control and profits to private individuals. I fail to see the benefits of allowing for-profit companies to play god with our environment, our economies, and the overall safety of humanity.

 

C) Indeed the Bush Administration IS/WAS responsible for this recent disaster and many others, like the mine tragedy a few weeks ago. The Conservative push to remove safety regulations is directly responsible for the laissez faire attitude that allows Corporations to cut corners. If the regulations were in place as well as proper enforcement, things like that wouldn't happen. Accidents DO happen, but humans do have the capacity to put into place safeguards to deal with them if/when they do. But Conservative ideology suggests that regulations on anyone are a bad thing. History and facts disagree with that assertion no matter how much you want to pretend that the "free market" always knows best.

 

D) No, FDR didn't singlehandedly fix the problems that had been caused by Conservative ideology (that led up to the Crash of 1929), but due to his very powerful influence, the policies began a long trend that built a strong Middle Class. Had his policies not been implemented, it is very likely that our economy would not have recovered and it is entirely within reason to suspect that Germany and Japan would have changed the face of the political world in some very dire ways. It takes strong government to keep a nation and economy secure because otherwise, the inherent greed of private individuals (who run Corporations) take precedence over the common good. I do look at the big picture and I know that it isn't B&W which is how I've come to see the long-term damage that has been accomplished by such Conservative ideals that say "do whatever you want to in the name of freedom." That's fine if you live on a private island, but in a society that at least attempts to be democratic, it is unworkable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are going to have a national sales tax in the USA very soon. Especially since half of all Americans no longer pay any federal income tax at all.

 

R,

 

 

Yeah, for some reasons our Conservatives think that they can simultaneously move manufacturing (and thus taxes) out of our nation but still pay for expensive wars and the for-profit Corporations that provide the hardware and personnel for them. Where do they think the money for their wars will come from if the populace has no income to pay taxes with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where do they think the money for their wars will come from if the populace has no income to pay taxes with?

 

Well that's only true in cases where people earn so little that they don't have to pay federal tax. There are also about 15 million people in the USA who just skip filing a return every year all together. The IRS doesn't have any where near the staff to track them all down.

 

The rest are middle class Americans who qualify for so many tax credits that it wipes out any amount that they may owe. Every election more tax credits are promised and the number of people paying tax goes down.

 

National sales tax here "you" come, shall we take a guess on the starting amount? I'll say 5%.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that's only true in cases where people earn so little that they don't have to pay federal tax. There are also about 15 million people in the USA who just skip filing a return every year all together. The IRS doesn't have any where near the staff to track them all down.

 

The rest are middle class Americans who qualify for so many tax credits that it wipes out any amount that they may owe. Every election more tax credits are promised and the number of people paying tax goes down.

 

National sales tax here "you" come, shall we take a guess on the starting amount? I'll say 5%.

 

R,

 

You are absolutely correct, Richard. Year after year, Conservatives (primarily) promise "tax cuts" and "fiscal responsibility" but then enact policies that drive well-paying jobs OUT of our nation. That alone cuts billions if not trillions from the tax base because people are earning less, thus owing less in taxes. Toss in the Reagan and Bush tax cuts that allow the wealthy to hoard more money than they can possibly spend and we have even less revenue to pay for the expanded government that Conservatives ALWAYS implement despite their claims to want "smaller government." And to make it worse, we (and the rest of the world) have these "tax incentives" which allow Corporations to pay even LESS in taxes than they are used to under the Reagan/Bush policies!

 

So, to sum up, wealthy individuals pay less tax than ever. Corporations pay less tax than ever AND get bribes from state and national governments to continue operating. Individuals who make less than around $250,000 USD a year pay MORE of a percentage IF they still have a job that hasn't been outsourced to Canada, Mexico, Asia, or Eurasia. And, as you mentioned, there is a sizable portion of the population that just doesn't pay at all but who DO draw on the "public services" that Government provides, like the military, police, fire, EPA, FDA, CDC, NIH, FAA, DOT, etc.

 

But as Karl points out, all in the name of "freedom," we are condemned to allowing Corporations and the wealthy hoard ever-dwindling resources because evidently "Freedom" in principle is more important than tangible practical realities. What the Conservative base never answers is how they intend to pay for the services government provides. They don't want to tax Corporations or the wealthy because to them, it "punishes" success. They want the "Freedom" to outsource jobs to other nations which results in fewer people actually having a job in the USA (and paying taxes). And they want governments to provide "incentives" for Corporations, which, again, results in Corporations publicizing their expenses and privatizing the profits.

 

One can only conclude that the ultimate goal of any Conservative is to have governments all over the world collapse so that Corporations can be the true power. A large part of the reason that the Colonists fought in the first place was because the British Parliament had become a puppet of the British East India Tea Company. The entire Tea Party was a fight against Fascism! Of course, they didn't have that term for it then, but that is precisely what was going on at that time. Karl suggests that the genie is out of the bottle and there is no going back. I disagree. For centuries, the paradigm of Aristocracies was the primary model for most civilized nations. It took a bit of violence, but this nation (the USA) successfully fought off that old model. FDR did it again in the 1930s, but thankfully, it was relatively peaceful that time. And it looks like the time has come again to fight against the rise of Fascism in the world. The modern Fascists hide their true agenda behind catch-phrases like "freedom" and "liberty," but what they truly want is for Corporations and the wealthy to take democracy away because democracy is an impediment to unfettered profit. Undoing regulations on Corporations and banking was really the first step (along with busting trade unions and "globalizing" the economy in order to suppress wages).

 

The effects of their agenda were first really felt by people in the auto and textile industries. It is only now being felt by everyone in the entertainment fields where governments and workers are pitted against one another to see who can hand out the biggest bribes to Corporations. THAT IS the reality of the modern globalized Milton Friedman/Reagan/Bush economic world. If one agrees with it, then yippee for them. If not, then there is a way out (as the Colonists in the 1700s taught us as well as FDR in the 1930s). Either way, anyone working in this business needs to recognize the realities of the world as it is and deal with it in order to make a living trying to do the thing that he/she wants to do with the 70ish years of life we have on the planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't have your cake unless you eat it too. Just as laborers deserve freedom to work where they want, how they want, when they want, in what field they want, so too do ENTREPRENEURS and their companies.

 

Do you know how many people in this field who are freelance make less than minimum wage when you factor in all their hours, or loose money on a whole string of projects with the hopes of eventually having that one success?

 

You can't write laws to tell them they HAVE to shot in So Cal. Think what the result would be. . .

 

 

Instead of being able to make films that probably wouldn't have gotten made without globalization and tax breaks, these movies won't get made at all, and that means taht foreign-made films will get a greater share of the market and your problem will get worse.

 

 

For every reaction in Physics, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Something is very true in the field of regulation, or business.

 

If you have a business and the government doubles your tax rate, do you think the government is going to make double their money? Almost certainly NO. Businesses will leave the county/state/country, or raise their prices and pass along the costs to consumers.

 

 

If I were to raise the tax on cigarettes in NYC another $2/pack, some people would pay it, but I guarantee a lot more people would quit, cut down, or get their cigarettes from NJ or PA. This is a simple response to negative stimulus. Amoebae do it when you shine a light on them; they wiggle back into a shady area. If they can do it business owners and corporations certainly can too.

 

 

 

I think the ONLY way to get good wages back here in the U.S., is, counterintuitively TO invest in foreign film production, but at a FAIR RATE, have an international set of rates, bring those people's standards of living up so they are comparable to ours.

 

Then and only then, I think, will the trend of outsourcing cease. And that is going to take a long long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't have your cake unless you eat it too. Just as laborers deserve freedom to work where they want, how they want, when they want, in what field they want, so too do ENTREPRENEURS and their companies.

 

Ah, true, but laborers don't have that same freedom (that Corporations do), do they? How many US workers are allowed to fly to Canada to work on a show that started in the US? Mr. David Mullen started a thread (that was quashed a bit by admin over on CML) when he explained how our own union in the US was limiting the US WORKERS he was allowed to use in the Central region.

 

So yes, Karl, YOU can't have your cake and eat it too. If you support pure globalization and freedom for Corporations to troll the planet without limits or regulations, then you have to support a dropping of borders for workers as well AND a one-world currency so that Corporations can't play economic disparities against anyone.

 

A "free market"... a TRULY free market may work (doubtful, but maybe). But we have never seen one in action so it's all theory at this point. It just seems more likely (to me) that nations WON'T drop restrictions on workers crossing their borders and on agreeing to a one-world currency, so the only other solution is for workers to band together to force governments to stop the bribes to Corporations. A long shot too, I know, but the only other path is to allow this current push for Fascism to continue unabated which WILL ultimately lead to less Freedom ( the single issue that Conservatives seem to care about ) as Corporations replace our democracy even more than they already have.

 

Do you know how many people in this field who are freelance make less than minimum wage when you factor in all their hours, or loose money on a whole string of projects with the hopes of eventually having that one success?

 

It's "lose," by the way. "Loose" means "not tight." "Lose" means "not winning." :)

 

 

 

You can't write laws to tell them they HAVE to shot in So Cal. Think what the result would be. . .

 

 

Instead of being able to make films that probably wouldn't have gotten made without globalization and tax breaks, these movies won't get made at all, and that means taht foreign-made films will get a greater share of the market and your problem will get worse.

 

Well, that's patently untrue. If it were, we would never have had any movies made prior to 1980. The last time I checked, the studios have pretty extensive libraries. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think the ONLY way to get good wages back here in the U.S., is, counterintuitively TO invest in foreign film production, but at a FAIR RATE, have an international set of rates, bring those people's standards of living up so they are comparable to ours.

 

Then and only then, I think, will the trend of outsourcing cease. And that is going to take a long long time.

 

Wow, do you know how many Conservatives would fight you on that suggestion? My own cousin (not in our industry) consistently complains that US workers demand "too much money" and suggests that US workers should be willing to work for a lot less, like those in the Third World, because "hey, they are just happy to have jobs!"

 

What he ignores, of course, is cost-of-living differences and currency exchange rates. But to my cousin, a die-hard willfully ignorant Conservative/Libertarian, it IS a fair playing field and while Corporations and CEOs "deserve" every penny they get, workers should be happy to accept far less money for the privilege of having a job. The last thing Conservatives/Milton Friedmanists want is for wages to go UP across the globe to meet the standards set by strong Unions (prior to Reagan) in the USA. What they want is to play people and governments off of each other to drive wages DOWN while simultaneously taking incentives/bribes...all in the effort to lower production costs while ensuring that purchase prices of the products go UP! Lower manufacturing costs do NOT equal lower prices at the checkout counter. It just means that those in charge take home more of the pie and then whine when people need things like welfare or foodstamps or affordable healthcare. Go figure... they just stole trillions of dollars from the economy and shipped jobs to god knows where and then they wonder why workers don't work and need assistance to just survive. Duh! They're either playing stupid or they are stupid. Either way, it's killing the USA and taking the rest of the world down with it.

 

So, no, your suggestion is severely wrong from both the Conservative side and the Progressive/American side of the aisle. There is a bit of "protectionism" going on in my recommendation, but as you said, you can't have your cake and eat it too. In other words, if you want the USA to be "strong" and have a working economy where the people who live here have enough income to actually buy things and sustain the economy, you have to have policies that keep GOOD jobs here in our borders. The whining that goes on about illegal immigrants in Arizona is a smokescreen for the real problem. Those illegals aren't stealing the real jobs that maintain a strong economy. Those jobs are being outsourced to Canada, Europe, Asia, and Eurasia. Want to fix the US economy and "create jobs"? Then it means stopping the egregious policies that encourage Corporations to abandon the nation that they live in. Strong tariffs, heavy taxes on wealth, and strong unions "Create" jobs... just allowing Corporations to run rampant for the cheapest labor in the Universe is not the way to create a strong Middle Class or society. And it certainly isn't a way to maintain a strong viable Democracy. Your suggestions only lead to further Fascism or outright Anarchy. I'm not sure any of us really want to see that happen here or anywhere else in the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are absolutely correct, Richard. Year after year, Conservatives (primarily) promise "tax cuts" and "fiscal responsibility" but then enact policies that drive well-paying jobs OUT of our nation. That alone cuts billions if not trillions from the tax base because people are earning less, thus owing less in taxes. Toss in the Reagan and Bush tax cuts that allow the wealthy to hoard more money than they can possibly spend and we have even less revenue to pay for the expanded government that Conservatives ALWAYS implement despite their claims to want "smaller government."

 

Uh, Clinton and Obama BOTH ran campaigns promising tax cuts for people. It's not just the Republicans that play the game Brian, the Democrats do it just as much.

 

Next you'll tell me the Democratic party does not accept multi million dollar campaign contributions from giant corporations either.

 

If I lived in the USA I would not be a fan of the Republicans, but let's face it the Democrats really are not much better. The difference with the Democrats is that they are more hypocritical than the Republicans.

 

They criticize the Republicans for cutting taxes, cutting services, accepting millions from corporations. All the while they do the exact same thing when they obtain power.

 

In Canada Bill Clinton is revered and George Bush is reviled. One of the issues people here cite is that George Bush was pro death penalty. Well excuse me....so was Clinton! Clinton was governor of a death penalty state and executions where carried out in AR whilst he was the governor.

 

So really Brian the Democrats could never and will never hand you the type of America you want. Your only option is to find a third party to support.

 

Also, I'd love to know what these jobs are that you keep posting have been outsourced to Canada? Mexico I get, but Canada? Like what for example?

 

I can tell that way more jobs have packed up in Canada and moved to the USA than the other way around.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for putting it in a global perspective, Richard.

 

 

I wish poor Brian would grow up a little and see things in shades of grey.

 

 

I WISH, truly WISH WISH WISH WISH WISH that things were as simple as he sees them, but, unfortunately, they are not.

 

 

BTW, Brian, I am a member of a IATSE. I support Unions. I DON'T support the lazy bastards that give them a bad name.

 

 

But I do, frankly, support the Union goons that (used to?) beat the sh!t out of people that tried to turn our jobs into minimum-wage, part-time hobbyist positions.

 

 

We work here, never see our familes, and they want to turn around and tell us to get paid minimum wage to boot?

 

 

Who WOULDN'T pick up a lead pipe were we not about to get our families kicked out of the tenament apartments we put them in?

 

At the same time, times have changed, and, as a business owner, I see things from the flip side of the coin. I wish you would too. . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, Clinton and Obama BOTH ran campaigns promising tax cuts for people. It's not just the Republicans that play the game Brian, the Democrats do it just as much.

 

Um, we DID get tax cuts from both Clinton and Obama. This is the what makes the Tea Baggers here so damn funny...they are whining about taxes at a time when 95% of them are paying lower taxes than they have in years.

 

This game of "Democrats do it too" is just false and getting tiresome. It's a Fox "News" conceit to distract from the facts. Is our Democratic Party perfect? Not even close. It's much more like the Republican Party of thirty years ago instead of being the truly American/Progressive Party in the way that FDR was. We really do have two versions of Conservatives running our nation, but that said, this idea that Democrats tax more is just a lie perpetuated by Republicans who want to create the illusion that they are the Party of fiscal responsibility. Reagan and both Bush's grew the US government to unprecedented sizes while increasing the national debt more than anyone ever has. In contrast, Clinton left a SURPLUS and Obama gave tax CUTS to about 95% of US taxpayers.

 

You'll never hear that on Fox "News."

 

Now, is there room for improvement on the Democratic side? Hell yeah. As I said, we can't rely on Conservative ideology to preserve silly ideas like Democracy, Freedom, and economic stability. That group only cares about one thing: unmitigated profit no matter the ramifications to anyone or anything else. Progressive ideology seeks to provide a modicum of social justice, to close the gap on economic disparity, and to preserve true democracy and freedom where Corporations don't tell Governments what to do.

 

To that end, it is imperative that the US break free of the two-Party political system AND severely revamp the system of election finance. Allowing Corporations to have full rights as "persons" and dump as much money as they want into elections and issues is inherently destructive to true democracy. While I don't see much movement on the political front for either of those ideas from established politicians, it will take reasoned voices from everywhere to drown out the noise from the Conservative marketing machine that seeks to build and sustain a new globalized Fascist world where Corporations run things instead of people doing it.

 

So, do the "Dems do it too"? Sure, some of it, but by and large, no. Not like the Fascists/Conservatives/Regressives would have us believe.

Edited by Brian Dzyak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for putting it in a global perspective, Richard.

 

 

I wish poor Brian would grow up a little and see things in shades of grey.

 

 

I WISH, truly WISH WISH WISH WISH WISH that things were as simple as he sees them, but, unfortunately, they are not.

 

 

BTW, Brian, I am a member of a IATSE. I support Unions. I DON'T support the lazy bastards that give them a bad name.

 

 

But I do, frankly, support the Union goons that (used to?) beat the sh!t out of people that tried to turn our jobs into minimum-wage, part-time hobbyist positions.

 

 

We work here, never see our familes, and they want to turn around and tell us to get paid minimum wage to boot?

 

 

Who WOULDN'T pick up a lead pipe were we not about to get our families kicked out of the tenament apartments we put them in?

 

At the same time, times have changed, and, as a business owner, I see things from the flip side of the coin. I wish you would too. . .

 

 

I'm interested in your version of the "flip side." Please enlighten us as to how you will defend the current drive to create a Global Fascist environment? I'm confused by your post above. You rightly complain about the push to drive your wages down, but then end with a plea to understand from the pov of a business owner. Please explain the contradiction. Thanks! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Next you'll tell me the Democratic party does not accept multi million dollar campaign contributions from giant corporations either.

 

Why would I tell you that? Of course they do! That's why we need campaign finance reform! :)

 

If I lived in the USA I would not be a fan of the Republicans, but let's face it the Democrats really are not much better. The difference with the Democrats is that they are more hypocritical than the Republicans.

 

They criticize the Republicans for cutting taxes, cutting services, accepting millions from corporations. All the while they do the exact same thing when they obtain power.

 

Oh my God! I almost choked when I read that. You really don't pay that much attention to reality down here if you believe a word of what you wrote above. The Conservatives here are inherently hypocritical on every level, from "social issues" to economics. I do welcome criticism and opinions, but at least try to base them on facts. Yes, Dems criticize Republicans for cutting taxes... yes, for cutting taxes on Corporations and really really rich people! Dems (in general) want to tax the crap out of rich people and Corporations in order to preserve a functional economy and democracy so they only get critical when Republicans insist on gouging and screwing over the poor and Middle Class while protecting the uber-wealthy. How is that hypocritical in any way from their stated positions? (hint: none)

 

Cutting services: Of course Dems criticize when Republicans cut services. Dems/Progressives believe in a functioning society and democracy that works for everyone while the Republicans/Regressives work for a society that only favors the wealthy. Again, how is this hypocritical of the stated Progressive position?

 

Accepting millions from Corporations: Yes, on this yes. And it is a big issue because anyone who has a half a brain knows that we are living in a Fascist State now, not a Democratic one. The reason is because in order to get elected in this nation, it takes MILLIONS of dollars for marketing oneself. And now, with the recent activist Supreme Court decision to allow Corporations to have the same rights as real people, it will take even more money and bowing down to Corporate wishes in order to have a chance against the nearly unlimited funds of Corporations and oligarchies around the planet. So, yes, while Republicans LOVE this state of things because they really do hate any government at all and hope to dissolve them all eventually, Dems are FORCED to play this game just for a chance to change things. Until we have some fundamental change in how we elect our representatives, the choice is to either not take any Corporate money and likely lose the election (and what good does that do anyone?) or play the game and try to get on the inside to fix things.

 

I don't know the answer to the problem but I do know that A) Democrats, by and large, are not as culpable as you make them out to be and B ) something has to change soon or else the Fascist Regressives/Conservatives will succeed and this relatively comfy life that everyone enjoys now will quickly be replaced by new Aristocracies and Fascist Dictators, here and around the world.

 

 

 

Also, I'd love to know what these jobs are that you keep posting have been outsourced to Canada? Mexico I get, but Canada? Like what for example?

 

Well, just about all of the Movies-of-the-Weeks, for starters. Quite a few episodics and a good number of features. If you've lost any of those, they certainly didn't come back here. Most of the "North American" work picked up and left here a few years ago for other locations in Europe, Eurasia, and Asia.

 

But that is the point... the work now is SO scattered as Producers chase the "incentives/bribes" around the world. Governments trip over each other to see who can hand out the biggest bribes to attract the film/tv work. As soon as one "ups the ante," another state or nation decides to become more competitive. Then it becomes a never-ending game which ultimately means that tax-payers lose out on much needed revenue, workers get paid less and less, and the parent-Corporations go home with all the profits.

 

Who defends that kind of a system besides the CEOs? I don't get it. :blink:

Edited by Brian Dzyak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference with the Democrats is that they are more hypocritical than the Republicans.

 

 

 

Ok, I'm STILL laughing at that absurd statement. :lol: I do thank you. A bit of a rough day at work so I needed the laugh. :D

 

Here's a Facebook Group I started that is chronicling the outrageous ongoing hypocrisy of the Conservatives in the US: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/group.php?gid=101574501637&ref=ts It's like shootin' fish in a barrel. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CINELEASE

CineLab

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Film Gears

Visual Products

BOKEH RENTALS

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...