What constitutes a "liveable wage"?

Did you major in journalism, especially print journalism?

If you answer in the affirmative, then actually, you did bust your ass for four years in college to drive a piece of shit car and eat fucking mac and cheese for dinner.

 

The majority of the reason why journalism wages are so low is the number of people willing to work for it. Take a look at the sports world. How many people are there who work for minor-league teams for tiny wages in the hopes that someday they will work for a big-league team?

The problem is, those big-league newspaper jobs are drying up. One thing to watch for in the next few years to see if the number of J-school grads goes down because of lack of opportunities.

 

You have two choices at that income level. A cheap car, or no money. Your call.

 

I don't disagree with the notion that one's first or second job (sequentially, not concurrently) isn't like to pay as much as the third or fourth move out of college. That is a matter of gaining experience, building up your pay over time and so on.

But in newspapers, this portrayal of the business seems to have a lot in common with, say, climbing the ladder from baseball's minor leagues. No one expects you to stay at Rookie League or Class A, right? So you earn squat there until you start to move up. One day, you make it to the big leagues and you earn enough in five years to be set for life. That's the prize, that's the game. And all those who don't make it to the big leauges face a choice of hanging on -- rather sadly, in many cases -- for relative peanuts or growing up and getting a real job.

Fortunately or unfortunately, ball players have that decision made for them by age, injury, etc., while they still have much of their life ahead of them. In newspapers, we get paid minor league wages while climbing the ladder, and then relatively minor league wages when we get to The Show. And, because we enjoy or are good at the work, we keep doing it until embarking on a new career becomes really difficult at age 45-50.

We don't hit any jackpot, earning enough in five years to live on. We stay on a minor league pay scale for most of our careers, compared to a lot of college grads. And now we're getting nudged out in middle age because the employers don't want to pay people who have been around long enough to college annual raises for a while.

Also, the farm clubs of our business want to pay you like you're just passing through, but they seem to like -- in many places -- the idea that someone would stick around and actually know a few things about the market.

Then there's the factor that, in most cities, you can move up the ladder of your chosen field while still living in one place (bigger accounting firm, bigger corporation). But in our business, every rung of the ladder requires a relocation, even if you've made it to a mid-major market. That strain on one's private life isn't accounted for in the pay rate either.

None of this bothered me in the least when I was in my 20s. But it started to chafe in my 30s and delayed a lot of my grown-up living into my 40s.

Oh and don't let me forget this: Even for those papers that give out pensions, have you seen what those pensions look like, in percentage of salary? They're a joke compared to cops, postal workers, auto workers, etc. So there's no carrot at the end either.

In terms of wages, pure and simply, journalism is a sucker's game for 90 percent of us.

 

Here's the money quote on the entire thread, folks.

And JoeW's post is dead-on nails as well. There's no reason a profession that demands a college education should pay its employees wages that would entitle them to the earned-income tax credit for MOST of their career.

I worked in the business 17 years. The most I made in that time was $38,000 and it took me until my fifth and final paper to make that much. That was the only paper in which I made my age.

Now, compare that to this NY Times article on what constitutes a middle class wage and how those jobs are disappearing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/weekinreview/20uchitelle.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin

Pilot and Piotr are correct in their supply/demand arguments, but a big part of those arguments is the honorable vow of poverty most journalists are willing to take -- and have been willing to take for time-immemoriam.

And that's what Buck and JoeW have taken pains to point out -- how ridiculous that is.

 

agreed -- gently used, a few years old is what I try to look for -- someone else has taken the depreciation hit...

If you drive a fully paid for junker (or whatever) now and can set aside the $200 or $300 a month that you would normally use for a car payment, let that grow a bit with interest, then you can pay cash for your next car 4-5 years down the line. Yes, I listen to Dave Ramsey...

 

If you made a 40k a year a more for example, and didn't have a shit ton loans, hospital bills or credit card bills to pay, I see nothing wrong with getting that new car. It may be a waste of money. But who doesn't want a new car?

For the record, I have had two used cars in my lifetime.... $3,000- which lasted four years, and now $6,000 which has lasted two years... and hopefully much longer. If I had a solid job, I would probably spring for the new car, partially because a family member's discount would net me 10 percent in savings and make it a great deal, and partially because I like new car smell.

 

This is awesome, a thread on "liveable wages" that degenerates into whether folks should dare have the extravagance of a new (not pre-owned) automobile.

If you can't buy a brand-new car every six years or so, that's not a liveable wage, far as I'm concerned.

How many rungs up the ladder do you think this is an issue that gets agonized over? How many ladders (other industries) have folks with college degrees and several years of experience agonizing over this?

By the way, let's remember that our "liveable wages" also don't come with many fringe benefits, since we're duty-bound not to accept deals or freebies. But papers never really pay us to maintain that piety.

 

Me, actually.

Had no desire for one. Never have.

 

I bought four houses (no, not at the same time) before I bought my first car three years ago. Just never saw the need to drop $400/month on a car payment if I didn't have to. I only decided to buy a new car when I could do so and still save money every month.

 

And the SportsJournalists.commie for Best STFU Post goes to ...

 

A thousand-dollar car ain't worth nothin'
A thousand-dollar car ain't worth shit
Might as well take your thousand dollars
And set fire to it