The 2011 Wage Survey has been compiled, and is available at this link:
You will note some market rates went up ... and others down. The wages listed cover writing, animation, technical positions, storyboards, and various others. We worked to be comprehensive. (In those areas where we were not, it's because of insufficient data.)
This survey will be available on the TAG website as well as in September's PegBoard. We started this survey in the early 1990s and consider it to be essential for artists working in the industry.
Posts
18 comments:
Thanks for the results, Jeff!
Just out of curiosity, would it be difficult to list the number of responses in each specific category? Like how many character designers? how many color stylists sent in replies? etc.
If it's not too much trouble, maybe for next year?
Thanks again!
Once again it's difficult for me to see how these wage survey results can help in future wage negotiations. Under Feature Story Artist I've learned that some lucky (or lying) artist is making six grand a week, someone, probably a trainee, is making $1454.55, and somewhere in the fuzzy muddy middle someone is making $2000. Good luck arming yourself those numbers during your next contract negotiation.
And those figures are all if you work 40, 45 OR 50 hours a week. But good luck guessing which percentage is which.
USELESS.
Yes, you certainly are useless.
Do you understand the underlying concept that someone who earns $2000 for 40 hour work is better compensated than someone who earns $2000 for 50 hours work? Is it really that complicated?
All these figures are for a 40 hour week. It's up to YOU to break down your pay to a 40 hour base so you can compare apples to apples.
There's always going to be a fuzzy middle. Again, it's up to YOU to decide if you deserve to be near the top or near the bottom of that fuzzy middle, and negotiate for it.
No, stupid. No. NO NO NO.
I already explained it AD NAUSEUM in the previous blog post about this.
This isnt about being able to do the math to convert a 40 hour work week pay into 50 or vice versa. A monkey can do that. This is about (and pay attention) when you combine salaries that are derived from different hours per week, and then AVERAGE them, you DONT GET A TRUE average.
Here, I'll copy and paste my previous post to spare you the trouble of digging it up:
-----------------------------
Here's an easy way to look at it. Let's pretend that we have 3 artists, A, B, and C. They each make 2000 a week at their respective studios, and for the sake of hypothetical, let's say thats the dead-on average. Artist A works a 40 hour week, artist B works a 45, and artist C a 50. When they report their wages to Steve, Steve converts those weekly salaries to 2000, 1684, and 1454.4, respectively to compensate for the 40 hour work week. He then averages those, and gets 1712.8 per week, per artist for 40 hours of work.
And you know what? That's correct! That IS what those artists make for 40 hours of work.
BUT the point is, it's also USELESS. The whole point of a survey is to spread and take advantage of knowledge. Artist A now thinks, damn, I'm above the average. And if artist C wants to know what his co-workers are averaging, he cant. What Mr. "Do the Math Dumbass" suggested above is to take 1712.8, divide it by 40 to get an hourly rate (42.82) and calculate a weekly salary of time and a half, to reflect his studios average. Know what that number is?
$2355.10 So now Artist C has a misinformed view of average wages in his studio. It's IMPOSSIBLE to get an accurate average when it's done this way.
And this example is for people making the same weekly amount, and an even distribution of respondents (in this case, 3). Now imagine if 75 Dreamworks artists responded, 100 Disney, and 30 of the rest. Now the numbers are completely, utterly useless.
-------------------------------
You may casually think I'm not understanding the situation, but I completely do. The average is legitimately useless since it averages data with inconsistent variables (in this case, hours works a week)
PS) Sorry for calling you stupid. This is important information and I dont want anyone thinking it isnt true because of my tone.
Can't speak for everybody, but I found the info useful when I negotiated my current pay-rate.
My line producer was going to give me union minimum (which I knew through the contract and this type of wage survey), but I knew people were getting paid more than that. I asked for the median for my job category (which was over $200/week more than what was being offered) and got it.
Had I not known the "going rates", I would be earning $200 less every week. So, thanks to the wage survey, I'm earning $10k more for the year than what was being offered. (yes I'll be working on the project for over a year)
As with a lot of things in life, YMMV.
Also, if you think the averages are over-inflated, why not ask for it? You might just get it. Usually when you negotiate, you ask for too much and the company offers too little. Hopefully, you'll meet somewhere in the middle.
OK Mr. Useless, this is Ms. Stupid again. I get your point but I still don't agree with it. Maybe I really am stupid.
Your problem seems to be that the numbers are averaged across all of the studios, So even after all that backward and forward math, we're still comparing 45 hour pay structures to 50 hour pay structures.
My point is that it's still a fair comparison. The studios with 50s pay more, on average, than the studios with 45s, or 40s. The assumption is that the range is pretty close between studios when you break it down to the base 40. And I buy that assumption, because frankly, I think there's a fair amount of casual collusion between studios, at least the big LA feature houses.
So solidarity, brother. This survey doesn't give us all the answers, but I think it helps.
I just proved that even if every artist in the union made exactly 2000 dollars a week, the wage survey's average would still be useless, in the practical sense. It's not a fair comparison in any way. It doesnt matter if you "agree" with it or not. If I say 2+2 = 4, and you disagree with it, it's still 4.
I just dont think you understand it, unfortunately.
Dude, give it up. You made your point. A lot of us disagree, and find the survey useful. Go find another use for your amazing mathematical skills.
What the hell? Seriously? You cant "disagree" with facts. You finding incorrect information useful, when you've been shown its incorrect, is borderline insane. And then chastising the person for pointing it out? What century are we living in?
I know we're going around in circles here, but what "facts" are you talking about? No one is arguing with your math.
Is it the "fact" that comparing the base rate of a 50 hour week to the base rate of a 45 hour week is somehow wrong? Because it's not. Are you suggesting that the wage survey be broken down into subcategories of 50, 45, and 40 hr rates? That's just silly.
Oh, no, the math wizard is back.
I work at a studio with built-in OT. I negotiated an hourly rate, my employee info shows an hourly rate, some of my benefits are based on my hourly rate. The fact that I have a 45 hour work week is completely separate from that. It doesn't matter, really. A higher guarantee should have absolutely no influence on the hourly rate that you negotiate.. if it does, you are potentially giving away freebies to the company, and that's just silly.
Your argument makes some sense if all you care about is the average overall take-home pay AND only assuming that you don't care how many hours you have to work for that.
No one forces you to ever check this wage survey, btw.
Statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamppost: for support, not illumination.
-Vin Scully
Is it the "fact" that comparing the base rate of a 50 hour week to the base rate of a 45 hour week is somehow wrong? Because it's not.
No. Read the post again.
Are you suggesting that the wage survey be broken down into subcategories of 50, 45, and 40 hr rates?
YES. Or just eliminate converting it to 40 hours, and just report weekly averages. Then put a teeny tiny asterisk and caveat it by saying this is a combination of 40, 45 and 55 hour work weeks. Then everyone knows all the info, and can convert it to whatever they want.
That's just silly.
No. No it isnt. It's actually way better.
Your argument makes some sense if all you care about is the average overall take-home pay AND only assuming that you don't care how many hours you have to work for that.
Incorrect. Jeez, doesnt anyone know how to read? My argument makes sense because it points out a flawed averaging system.
Does anyone REALLY think I'm being so anal about this because I WANT an argument? No! The reporting/averaging system is INCORRECT. You ARE getting
W R O N G
information.
The fact that I have a 45 hour work week is completely separate from that. It doesn't matter, really. A higher guarantee should have absolutely no influence on the hourly rate that you negotiate.. if it does, you are potentially giving away freebies to the company, and that's just silly.
*forehead slap*
For the 5th(?) time, my argument has NOTHING to do with that. This is ONLY ABOUT HOW THE AVERAGE is calculated, and it's incorrect.
*sigh* Im exhausted. Know what, forget it it. Whatever. If you guys cant understand this, you deserve your tiny paychecks.
Math Wizard, signing off.
"Or just eliminate converting it to 40 hours, and just report weekly averages. Then put a teeny tiny asterisk and caveat it by saying this is a combination of 40, 45 and 55 hour work weeks. Then everyone knows all the info, and can convert it to whatever they want."
THAT'S your solution?! You do understand that that is LESS information, and not more right? And that it would be impossible to level the playing field so you can compare hourly rates? Clearly you don't get the whole point of this. And you are not a math wizard.
Actually, no he's right.
If you use his example from above, you'll notice that by doing it that way, you'll see that the weekly average will come out to 2000 a week (obviously). And then, if you want, you can actually reverse engineer that number to figure out what that means for you. So, you can easily see that someone making 2k a week must make 50 bucks and hour for 40 hours, $42.10 for a 45 hour schedule, and $36.60 for a 50.
It's impossible to know that done the way it's done now.
Because of that, I think I'd prefer weekly amounts to be reported without the 40/hr a week conversion, personally.
Post a Comment