Keyboards vs. sweatshops...A follow up on The Freelancers Manifesto and related issues...
Maybe I just finished reading too much about and by Milton Friedman, who passed away a few days before I tackled the topic of The Freelancers Manifesto in my last post.
Maybe my progressive tendencies are slipping away because I don't feel as close to some kind of proletarian struggle as I once did.
Maybe, though... Just maybe, I'm right.
This post starts where the last one left off. I argued that the market will naturally set appropriate prices for freelance writing services and the idea of organization on the part of writers to influence that price was ill-fated.
I wrote that even though I am a fan of organized labor (at least in principle, if not always in practice). I wrote that even though I found myself agreeing with Lou Pan, whose comment in response to the post presented some important arguments that seem to cut against my stance.
I didn't want Lou's analysis to disappear into the realm of seldom-read comments, so I decided to drag them into this post.
I want to talk about the difference between sweatshops and keyboards (a gross oversimplification, but a handy tagline) and how those differences influenced my argument with respect to The Freelancers Manifesto.
LOU'S COMMENTS:
In my discussion with Patricia Skinner, I mentioned my belief that the markets would determine the appropriate value and asked "what am I missing?"
Lou responded:
"Historically, a free market has not created a fair wage.
That was true in the early 20th century, when Rockefeller said "I can hire one half of the working class to shoot the other half," while making his massive fortune off their labor. It remains true in the early 21st century, when workers in Asia make high-priced athletic shoes for a daily wage that won't purchase three meals. Nike and others may sell their shoes at a fair market price, but the income is not shared with the labor force."
No doubt about it. She's right. Historically, capitalism has done a fine job of sticking it to the proverbial little guy. It's created a series of ugly messes and as I write this, market-driven approaches bear a great deal of responsibility for the fact that someone in El Salvador is doing piecework for less than a buck a day so that others can fly around in jets wearing insanely expensive shoes. I get that. I take that seriously.
However, I don't think that the argument is wholly pertinent to the question of freelance rates. Here's why.
First, there is a difference between fair wages and optimal prices, as determined by the marketplace. In order to successfully argue that writers are being exploited, one would need to prove that the payment received by writers represented an inadequate percentage of the profits earned by the buyer.
If the buyer gives the writer $50 for a quantity of content, adds his or her work to the product, and makes $51, you can't really claim writers are getting screwed by capitalism in action. Even if the buyer used the profit to leverage gross earnings of $150, you can't necessarily assume that means the writer deserves more. Marketing, assembly, ideas, design, etc. are all added to the content to generate the income and those efforts have fair value, too.
Now, if someone could prove that $50 worth of content at current prevailing rates required very little additional work or addition in order to create a massive profit, I'd feel quite differently. Of course, if everyone was REALLY getting rich off of our work that easily, none of us would be freelancing, would we?
Buyers are adding their efforts to the content and they are the ones taking a risk in hopes of generating profits. As it turns out, those profits are usually NOT so substantial as to prove an argument for exploitation.
Second, Lou's argument centers on the concept of wages. I don't think of my earnings as a "wage" in a traditional economic sense. As the sole proprietor of Content Done Better, I actually own the means of production for my product. I have my own little factory here. I am not dependent upon anyone else's tools or willingness to part with wages in order to manufacture what I sell.
That isn't just a difference in semantics, either. In most cases of significant worker oppression, artificially low wages are usually allowed to exist because the employees have little or no alternative due to their lack of ownership and control over the means of production. The Nike cobbler has little or no opportunity to produce his or her own shoes (or anything else) to sell on the open market. He or she either takes what "the man" is willing to toss in his or her direction or goes home hungry. Sometimes both.
I'm an owner. I'm management. That makes a difference.
Lou continued...
"There is a difference between free trade and fair trade. There is also a difference between 'wage fairness based on supply and demand' and a fair wage. That's what you're missing.
I doubt that many freelance writers are as poorly paid as Nike's sweatshop workers, if only because they have other employment options. However, expecting an open market to ensure a fair wage to writers is, to say the least, unrealistic."
Again, I tend to agree with the general outlook but don't think it really applies in this situation.
First, the presence of other options is meaningful.
Second, as discussed, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest an undervaluing of our work as writers relative to the benefits gained by those who buy it from us.
Third, unlike most oppressed labor, we are not really victimized by governmental policy and outside market interferences that tend to allow for the ugly jackboot of greed to land on the throat of piece workers in so-called lesser-developed countries.
Fourth, although we can argue whether all people deserve (have a right to) a fair, living wage, I don't think there is a compelling argument that all people who want to be writers should qualify. Maybe the markets will set a price for certain types of online written materials that won't lead to a fair and reasonable wage equivalent. If that's the case, it's because the materials produced in that segment don't contribute sufficiently to anyone's profitability enough to justify the increased expenditure.
SWEATSHOPS VS. KEYBOARDS:
When I read The Freelancers Manifesto page and saw the reference to "sweatshop wages," I cringed.
I am currently sitting in a comfy, oversized desk chair in front of a nice flat-screen computer monitor. The HVAC system has the room at an ideal seventy-two degrees. If I get hungry, I can pick up my multi-line phone or cell phone and call a restaurant who will deliver a big lunch to me within a half hour. When I'm done working, I can flip through several hundred channels while I sit on my sofa in my carpeted multi-room single-family home with a new car parked out front. My family won't starve tomorrow. I won't be homeless. We all have shoes.
To compare that situation and the situations shared by most of us who consider ourselves freelance writers of any sort to the plight of people working in REAL sweatshops is whininess of the highest order. My fingers might get a little tired and my eyes a little blurry after a long day. My bad posture might give me an occasional backache.
One might even be able to argue that I am exploited by the negative forces of capitalism on multiple levels (and you'd probably be right). But to compare the this lot in life to those who labor in sweatshops... Well, as it's been said, "Get off the cross, someone else needs the wood."
CONCLUDING ANOTHER LONG POST:
I heartily embrace Lou Pann's overall outlook toward the dangerous of unfettered capitalism. Although Glenn Walker, a former economics instructor of mine, would rap me upside the head for saying this, I think Milton Friedman was wrong about a lot of stuff--but not everything. Even though I do live in the 'burbs with a well-stocked fridge, I do still care about the plight of the less fortunate and the more seriously oppressed among us.
That doesn't, however, mean that I think writers are "entitled" to a wage based on their chosen occupation.
If writers don't like the rates they're offered, they can do something else. They can try something new. They can shop for different clients. They can explore different markets. They can prove to prospective clients that the work is worth the number stamped on the virtual price tag.
They can also try to band together to earn more, but that strategy isn't going to work.
6 comments:
Yeah, I agree, Carson. I also share concerns about poverty and wealth inequities in a very serious way, and totally object to abject poverty, gross wealth inequities, greed, and other various manipulations of the market's potential to provide for everyone's needs equitably. And totally share the concern about the historical trends around equity (I had this awesome 19th century Economic History class in undergrad that focussed almost exclusively on labor/business relations in the 19th century when inequities were far more serious and ugly).
But I totally see your point, Carson. People who put out crap (which I'm sure there is plenty of in the internet content world as there is in any industry) just aren't going to snag the same wage as someone who puts out stuff that is valuable to a buyer. And no business can afford to pay $25/hour for crap. And writing, like any industry, is a world where this is such variation in talent, that a lot of folks will be doing exactly what you are arguing, I think, Carson, which is demanding a wage that they haven't earned.
I think everyone deserves living wages, no matter how shitty their work, frankly. But I agree that they need to get good at what they do if they want to bring in decent money.
I hated working for shitty wages out of grad school when I was first looking for full-time work. And I definitely think that some buinessess can afford to share their wealth much more substantially. Many internet content businesses are likely to be organized by small business folks who have less of a margin. And they and noone is likely to want to shell out substantial wages for work that they have to edit substantially to make it presentable.
I think everyone should ask for as high a wage/price they can get, obviously (though I'm not a big fan of exclusive businesses that cater to people with far more money than me; neither do I begrudge them, necessarily. It's a way to make a living, particuarly if they are willing to share the wealth at some level).
But unions and just businesses that hire large numbers are full of people who demand money like crazy without necessarily proving and improving their abilities in ways that earn it. It's a tedious fact of adult life, as far as I'm concerned, as I have to deal with assholes constantly trying to bring me and my efforts down so they don't have to deal with their own lame excuses.
I'm a big believer in living wages, fair wages, universal health access and insurance and education, and all of the various basic needs and things like education that support wealth equity and everyones' needs getting met.
But I totally see the danger that you are anticipating well, I think, Carson, which is people whining their way to those things rather than focussing on earning them, primarily, and earning, long-term, far more than basic wages.
Focussing on growing your business and exploring various business opportunities is a far more productive path, long-term, for everyone involved, including for the people you end up hiring with your business who can benefit from your profitable efforts.
I think it'd be great for all freelance writers and everyone to get paid $25/hour (assuming that paid for all of their basic needs). But I agree that I don't think it's likely to work in the ways being hoped for here, even as I think it would be great if it did.
What it might do is get people to expect more for their work and to aspire to be worth that wage.
And that really would be a great development for equity.
Ben
Well, I agree that ‘unionizing’ freelance writers is likely to be about as successful as “herding feral cats” (nice twist on the old saw there, Carson). And I certainly agree that the presence of other options is important.
I’m not sure I agree with your analysis of webmasters’ profit margins. If the figures are as you say, you’re right – but when content buyers chat in their forums, those are not the sort of figures they mention!
When I get my 15 per cent royalty checks for my print books, I’m relatively satisfied. I can see where the other 85 per cent goes, and I understand the costs in each area. (I’d argue for a somewhat higher percentage for me – but that’s a different discussion.)
Online content does not have that sort of transparency for me. Webmasters claim to be getting large profits. They agree that good content, updated frequently, is essential to their success, and then they ask each other how to get it as cheaply as possible. This annoys me!
Perhaps we will never agree on your second point. We are also not likely to agree on your third point.
Capitalism-run-amok does not damage only anonymous laborers in distant parts of the world. It’s right here. For example, have you followed the legislation (attempted in some states, enacted in others) requiring very large retailers to pay part of their workers’ health insurance costs? The states are, understandably, annoyed at paying these costs for poverty-level workers when their employers are the some of the most profitable businesses in the world. Greed has become part of the fabric of society, and it’s usually workers – wage employees or freelance – who bear the burden.
Lou--
I can appreciate the "lack of transparency" argument with respect to web content.
I tend to believe that the profit claims we here from many webmasters and internet marketers are "souped up" for effect and/or that many real moneymakers are relying upon volume-based business to hit high earnings.
Before I decided to focus primarily on writing for online markets, I experimented and researched the other side of the fence. Based on my experience, the margins are not as substantial as some writers think and there is a great risk of flopping completely with a new project.
I have no idea how we'll ever really know the percentages, etc., but I suspect that there is a gap between writers' perception of content's $ value and the profits experienced by your average webmaster. Additionally, it is easy for those of us producing the content to undervalue the market research, promotional costs and sweat equity most webmasters pour into their projects.
If it were that easy to make a bundle with online content and a little work, most of us would be running sites instead of supplying them.
Plus, I don't blame people for seeking the best bargains. That's perfectly logical for them to do that.
I also think it's important to note that when webmasters talk about "good content" they are doing so in terms of its ROI, not its "literary" value. That may be an unfortunate and ugly commodification of art, but those folks want to put food in the refrigerator, too, so to speak.
I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree with your sentiments about the negative implications of pure greed. If I seemed dismissive of the negative consequences of what you termed "capitalism run amok" among those of us here in the USA, it was wholly unintentional.
I wrote: "One might even be able to argue that I am exploited by the negative forces of capitalism on multiple levels (and you'd probably be right)."
That wasn't tongue in cheek. I recognize the negatives of our current market-based economy with respect to those of us in the middle class, as well as those who are desperately trying to make ends meet with less.
The health insurance fiasco and resulting legislation you mentioned are examples of how a greedy world kicks everyone it can right in the gut.
I do, however, feel uncomfortable with comparing even a Wal-Marter with a sweatshop worker. That isn't an argument in favor of Wal-Mart, but it is a recognition that there are degrees of severity with respect to unfairness and injustice.
The way I see it, I don't have to choose between raging against the machine and joining a commune. I don't have to be "against the man" at every turn, nor do I have to be his unwitting lackey.
I can embrace market principles, recognizing both their strengths and limitations and support appropriate and necessary limitations on the pursuit of greed. I just don't happen to believe that those limitations are justified in the freelance writing field.
As owners--both of our businesses and the means of production--and as people with choices that don't involve starvation, I feel that we need less protection than those who are more vulnerable.
As an aside, I also believe that capitalism, in the sense of choice and markets, is a damn good system. The corruption of choice stems from the failure to create and maintain a free marketplace of ideas and the resulting tendency to overvalue financial goals at the expense of social ones.
Long ago, I was reading a book by Matthew Fox (can't remember the title) and was struck by part of his analysis of society. Although I don't consider myself a massive MFox fan, it inspired some though.
He compared the current social structure of "climbing Jacob's ladder" to a more community-minded perspective he called "dancing Sarah's circle."
I didn't find his alternative social structure incompatible with "capitalism" in all senses. Instead, I grew to believe that choice-based systems were the best way to transition from the ladder to the circle.
All it required was that the better ideas flourish and that people began to recognize that value could and should be measured in terms other than the accumulation of capital.
Like Gandhi said, capital isn't evil--it's use can be. Well, he said it more eloquently than that, but I'm no Gandhi.
This concludes my long aside.
I do think it's interesting that this discussion really isn't about writers wanting or deserving more money. It's really about how we approach fairness and markets, isn't it?
The irony is that many of the writers who are first in line to claim they "deserve" more are doing so not out of some notion of a fairer and better social structure but are instead motivated by the very greed that they feel holds down their wage.
Thanks for your thought-provoking comments.
Carson
I do enjoy discussions with you, Carson!
Of course I don’t equate Wal-Mart workers with third-world sweatshop laborers, any more than I equate myself with them. I’ve lived in SE Asia, and I’ve seen the kind of life real sweatshop wages provide. That said, I still think that when the richest corporation in the world shifts the burden of its employees’ health costs to taxpayers, something is very very wrong. This strikes me as a difference in degree rather than kind.
It’s December, and I’m again watching It’s a Wonderful Life. I drag the film into this discussion because the movie seems to include both kinds of capitalism. There’s George Bailey, who invests capital (emotional as well as financial) in his community, resulting in a better life for everyone. Then there’s Potter, who snatches everything he can get and is more than willing to cheat and steal to get it, and the result is the life people lead in “Potterville”. They’re both capitalists – just very different kinds. Interestingly enough, a 1947 memo to the Director of the FBI accused the film of being subversive and pro-Communist because of its negative depiction of the capitalist Potter.
The great problem with capitalism, as I see it, is that it puts no restraints on the Potters of the world. It has no system, formal or philosophical, to effectively sanction the greedy. The choice is left to the individual’s moral code. In an era when B-schools are making business ethics a required course because their students can’t seem to distinguish between illegal and legal actions in many circumstances, that’s alarming.
Of course, I’ve never seen a large-scale system that does it any better. Capitalism, communism, feudalism, monarchies, or a wide array of formal religious structures all seem in various ways to fall to greed. I’ve seen (or heard of) several small-scale systems that are much more effective at distributing resources in a way that provides for all community members. They have dissimilar internal structures, and none of them transfer well to large groups.
Yes, the discussion – here, at least – is about fairness, not about how much money a writer makes. Far more interesting, I think!
Asides:
About ROI -- well, yes. You should see the P&L projections an editor has to develop before taking a manuscript to an acquisitions meeting. Believe me, literary merit is not the focus of concern. The days when a publishing house would financially nurture a writer’s artistic development are long gone – if they ever existed at all, which I doubt.
I’m happy to acknowledge the effort webmasters put into their ventures, even if I don’t actually understand all of it. I’m happy to acknowledge all my publisher does for my books, too!
And I do understand your irritation with the attitudes displayed by some writers. I had an alarmingly large percentage of students whose attitudes showed that same combination of entitlement and incompetence. I quit teaching when I began to dream nightly slapping them silly.
You're not going to believe this. I actually took the time to go through all of this and post my thoughts. A long post deserves an
even longer comment..LOL.
By its very nature, the writing field is vast and spans literally dozens of ‘niches.’ Some pay better than others. Many high-end copywriters, for example, are earning a seven-figure sum working only a few hours a day. Others are lucky if they can pay the rent and put food on the table, even though many of them work twelve hours a day or more. Does that sound fair?
Fair? Since when was the working world fair to begin with? Consider this, there's people in an office somewhere getting paid $20/hour to answer the phone, do some filing and typing, etc. Not exactly hard physical labor is it? There's people out constructing buildings, building roadways, running heavy equipment, etc. for less than $20/hour. This is hard physical labor jobs--these are the jobs that give this country it's backbone, the jobs that put those first order of people in a nice cozy office.
Why is it the harder you work physically, the less you get paid per hour?
The working men and women--the one's who pour blood, sweat and tears into their jobs every day are the ones that keep this country running--but they're also the one's struggling to put food on the table. So how fair is that? No one ever said life was fair.
Writing is a job like any other--you start at the bottom and work your way up.
I believe if we raise awareness we can break the cycle so that every employer knows that he’s not going to get away with less than $25.00 per hour. I think that’s a fair starting point. Bear in mind that the freelance hourly rate needs to be higher than what you might consider if you were employed full time. There are no ‘benefits’ when you’re freelancing. You have to provide premises and equipment yourself, and there’s no sick pay either. So all these bases must be covered when calculating a fair
hourly rate. Anything above that would depend on the individual circumstances. Some writers are better than others—we all have different niches and so on.
I would love that $25 hour set wage and on a good day I can average close to that. I could even convince my husband to start writing for that--which is more than he makes as a heavy equipment operator. We won't even consider the fact that he's dyslexic and his spelling is atrocious--lets just pay him the $25/hour because he's decided to be a writer and in all fairness he should get the same rate of pay as other writers who've been doing this for years. I mean that's fair, right?
Carson: The problem here is that the $25/hr. figure is completely arbitrary and doesn't factor in the myriad of considerations influencing fairness. Cost of living differences alone make a universal figure like that meaningless. Differences in individual writer skill sets further crush the idea of an hourly fair wage.
Exactly.
Carson: Patricia acknowledges that there a good writers, bad writers, fast writers and slow writers. She recognizes that not all projects can command the same rate. Nonetheless, there seems to be a willingness to extend a "floor rate" to everyone as if those variables don't exist.
Hence the reason I should make ole hubby start writing. LOL.
Carson: The Manifesto seems to argue that writers should "hold the line" on pricing in order to serve the greater good--helping the writing industry as a whole. Why should writers who are comfortable and happy working for less feel obligated to prop up my income by increasing their minimum rates? I don't believe healthy competition between writers (on the basis of talent or price) is incompatible with being collegial or helpful in other respects. Why should anyone put his or her income at risk by raising rates to comport with a "fair wage" standard for the sake of serving the "writing community?"
This is the same reason that raising minimum wage is not all it's cracked up to be. When they raised the min. wage recently--it
resulted in everyone else getting a pay-cut. It caused prices to go up on the necessities of life, like shampoo, cleaners, etc. The stuff people don't think about as far as being on a budget--but we have to have these items and the manufacturers can raise prices after a min. wage increase. It's so small you may not notice, but if it's done to a lot of items, then you notice.
If I demand even $20/hour for my work, and you're already earning $25/hour for yours--doesn't that in affect lower your earnings?
Considering that you've been doing this full time for several years and I've been doing it part time and still slightly in the 'hobby'
stage, is that fair? Should I not be held accountable for my writing, my decision (when its made) to go full time, my quality of work? Shouldn't I also expect to work my way up in this field just like any other field?
My daughter recently started writing for Associated Content. They are offering her $3/piece. I could write the same topic and they would offer me from $7-$10/piece. Why? Because I've written more for them, my clout is higher and I've been doing this longer. She's relatively happy with her $3, but she's just starting out and you have to start somewhere. I would decline an offer like that. I've been through those already.
Like I said before, "Writing is a job like any other--you start at the bottom and work your way up."
In my particular niche, anyone offering to work for less than my rates usually proves that he doesn’t know how to do what I do.
How would one begin to earn 'her' wage unless they had started at the bottom, learned the 'art' of copywriting and worked
their way up?
Does this indicate that I can call myself a copywriter right now and charge $25/hour even though I don't have the same skill set as hers, or am I interpreting that wrong?
Carson: If the Freelance Writers Manifesto transitioned into being a trade organization dedicated to explaining, in real terms, the true value of content and gave buyers quality information about locating and utilizing providers capable of producing "the good stuff," I would support the effort wholeheartedly.
I've been running a similar idea through my head. It's top secret hush, hush for now though. LOL.
Carson: That doesn't, however, mean that I think writers are "entitled" to a wage based on their chosen occupation.
If writers don't like the rates they're offered, they can do something else. They can try something new. They can shop for different clients. They can explore different markets. They can prove to prospective clients that the work is worth the number stamped on
the virtual price tag.
I agree and will repeat: It's a job you have to work your way up in. I couldn't compete with your level of expertise at this time, and I'm above being considered the "bottom of the barrel", but I've actually been paying my dues to get to this point. I will continue to pay my dues as I strive to work to a higher level.
I mentioned earlier that I would love a $25/hour set fee, across the board---who wouldn't? But it remains that you have to earn it and work your way to it. I would be appalled if little Ditzy Daisy, who is writing total crap, was given the same price as I'm given, just as I'm sure more experienced writers would be appalled for me being given the same price as they're making even though they've worked their way up to that level and I haven't gotten there yet.
The Manifesto may sound good in theory, but I don't think it will hold water. I would hope there's more writers like me who feel they should work their way up to higher levels of pay and not expect it to just be given to them. I could be wrong though.
Since this post took me a good hour and it IS writing, can I get my $25 bucks now? LMAO. I'm kidding.
Have a great day,
Ann
Weaknesses of World Of Warcraft Gold the client-server model used by World of Warcraft have been wow power levelingexploited in order to crash the cluster of servers that wow8goldmake up a realm. Exploits also include characters being able to instantly Cheapest Wow Goldchange location or teleport. The situationbecame worse cheap wow goldwhen trying to coordinate activities across a number of playersor guilds on the same realm.World of Warcraft Lead Producer, stated that new realms would be introduced to warhammer goldrelieve the burden on existing ones. Existing realms would be upgraded.
Although the game wow gold follows a similar model to others in the genreand was noted for having wow gold cheapmany familiar concepts from roleplaying games, the new approaches gold4powerto reduce pauses between game encounters was well liked. At various times, World of Warcraft players have experienced problems with connecting to and logging in to wow gold for sale the game. Sudden server crashes that would force realms offline also occurred.
Post a Comment