What constitutes a "liveable wage"?

To use circulation as a barometer, and tossing away cost-of-living factors (we take for granted 30K in Odessa buys more than the same amount in NYC), it would be nice if journalists were more public with their salaries. Knowledge is power, part of the reason these places can get away with paying so little is that a lot of people don't know that there are places that pay better in comparable markets.

The C'dA job thread is a good example of this. A paper that size should pay a minimum of $32K per year for someone with a year of experience or more. And that's basement. Papers of the same size across the southeast and southwest in much more economically depressed areas pay this or more with benefits. Knowledge is power.

Here's how it should work, as it did for one of my friends ... e-mailing this thread back and forth we shared a job history of sorts:

HIS
First job: Weekly, sports writer: 19K a year, South
Second job: Mid-major daily, desker, 33K to start off, 52K when left four years later, South
Third job: Sports editor at mid-size daily, 55K, Northeast
Fourth and current job: Sports desker, top 10 daily, 68K, South

MINE
First job: Reporter, small daily: 26K a year, Midwest
Second job: Copy editor, bigger small daily, 29K per year, Great Plains
Third job: Desker, mid-major daily, 62K, South

So the more we compare and out places that pay like shit, the better. Conversely, if a place pays well, we should highlight them.

 

There are way too many good points on this thread to count, but I wanted to say this is one of the more fascinating discussions I've seen on here. I've had a lot of the same thoughts about what a guy 12 years out of college should make and the ever-slimming chances of a mediocre deskie in his mid-30s moving up to bigger and better things, so it's both good and bad to see others with those same thoughts.

 

I don't think it does suck as much as a grocery store clerk job. I would rather do what I do than take the paths most of my friends took. They make more -- in some cases a lot more. Maybe they wouldn't love doing what I do. Maybe it's not worth it to them. It is to me, though.

As for the point about how the industry did change -- I agree, and I'm a lot more willing to have sympathy for those in the business for awhile. The people I'm mainly bitching about have been in the business about 6 months. That means at the earliest, they had great opportunities to do something else as recently as two years and six months ago. They didn't seize on those opportunities, and now seem utterly shocked by the size of their pay check. Spare me.

It's like a lawyer six months into his first job bitching day and night, "Read another 100 page brief???? THIS IS BULLSHIT!!!"

I think it's dangerous for us to become complacent with not making shit. I'm not advocating that at all. But these people aren't working to correct the problem. They're bitching to me, day and night.

 

I always fear coming off like an asshole on these threads, but I repeat:

Many creative professions -- art, architecture, music, interior design, interpretive dance, acting, and yes, writing -- are marked by a large divide between those who have "made it" and those who have not. I think that's partly because the measuring of talent is subjective and there is an element of luck involved, but mostly it's because there is a wide range of talent within the profession -- because there is no one way to become a journalist. They are not created equal.

In other words, I'm sure some plumbers are more skilled than others, but if you hire a licensed plumber, you're going to get your shitter fixed, and they'll all charge roughly the same to do it. Yet no one would argue that some guy struggling on a stage in Albany should be paid as well as Daniel Day Lewis.

So, whenever someone asks me about entering the profession and the poor starting wages, I tell them that they have to be as honest with themselves as they have ever been: Am I okay at this, or am I good at this?

There are too many talented people out there for you to become a millionaire by just being okay.

That's a hard truth, but it is the truth. There is money to be made in this business, really good money, but you have to earn it. You have to work hard and be talented and probably get a lucky break or two, but when those breaks happen, you have to have whatever it takes to make good on them.

That's the deal. Some architects struggle designing garden sheds for $100. Some architects design the addition to the Louvre. There are starving artists. There are starving journalists. There are very few starving Pulitzer winners.

 

That's the nail on the head right there.

 

I'll try this...

ME
First job: Writer, daily (circ 17,000-ish), $23K to start off, $25K nearly two years later, Northwest

That's all I've got so far...

 

What's more telling is we're debating the logic of buying a brand spanki' new, fully loaded, pimped out, Toyota Corolla. Not a Cadillac. Not a Lexus. Not a Lincoln. Not a Corvette. Not a BMW. Not a Mercedes. Not a Jaguar. Not a Hummer. A Toyota Corolla.

I think the fact that we're calling a vehicle that is the definition of a economy car an extravagant purchase says as much about the industry as anything.

 

Exactly right, Jones.

And I'll add one thing to it: If you want to be one of the guys/gals who makes it, you've got to be relentless and aggressive about pursuing opportunities.

No one is going to discover you, no matter how much of an effing stud/studette you are.

In this day and age, no one beats a path to your door to make you rich and successful. It's up to you to look out for you.

 

I agree with the basic idea about the divide between those who make it and those who don't in creative professions. And yes, there are money to be made in journalism for a select few. However, I question whether journalism falls in the same category as things like interpretive dance or painting. I would say being a journalist is more akin to being a graphic designer in a design firm/ad agency. There is certainly a creative element to the work, but at the same time, your primary goal isn't to produce "art", but to provide a service. And on that level, journalism does suck in general when it comes to pay. Artists starve because they can't find a steady clientelle or can't make steady sales of their work. Journalists find steady work (at least, compared to starving artists) and still starve. Moreover, when a painter creates a masterpiece, he'll price it at tens of thousands of dollars. If a journalist creates a masterpiece, he'll probably price it at a few cents per word. There's a huge difference between the monetary value an artist and a journalist attach to their respective work.

And yes, lono is right about needing to be relentless in pursuing opportunities if you want to make it.

 

One thing needs to be added to the discussion:

Newspapers pay shit wages. And if the BFE Times pays shit wages to its staffers, it's going to pay even less to its stringers.

There are, however, people who will pay handsomely for your ability to craft a story:

- Trade publications
- Industry newsletters
- Tech writers
- Magazines
- Websites
- Advertising/PR/Marketing agencies

There are probably more opportunities than ever before to make good money writing.

But if you want to make a comfortable living writing, you need to disabuse yourself of the notion that you're going to do it by selling high school gamers at $40 a pop.