Will this business ever wise up and pay better?

No doubt, you're better off at a union shop, at least as far as pay and job security go. I'm all for it. Not sure, though, how broader unionization would dampen competition for openings or give job candidates better leverage for more money.

 

Has anyone said no yet?

 

No.

For most . . . The. Worst. Paying. Profession.

 

Here's an honest question though....

Let's say you are 35 years old.

You are covering a college beat or a pro beat.

You are making $45,000......

Is that not enough to raise a family on and live a comfortable existence?

I know neither of my parents made close to 45k when I was growing up. And we were comfortable. We ate chicken a lot and my mom wouldn't pay more than $40 for a pair of sneakers, but we lived a nice middle class existence.

Here's another honest question:

What other profession, with a similar skill set, would you take up?

Most of the "well-playing" jobs require specialized training: medical, legal, business etc. Sales is the one exception. But when you are in sales, your entire life is predicated around make yourself, or someone else, money.

There are a lot of professions that have similar pay-scales to the journalism world. I think sometimes we forget that.

 

Pringle:

I realize you are putting forth an effort, but damn, you still suck.

This industry will never improve because there will always be someone willing to take the miserable pay. Steinbeck never would have finished Grapes of Wrath if he had seen the bullshit that takes place in journalism; he'd never have been able to write the part where the people resist the shitty pay out of principle.

Plus, there are always fools who think the situation has to get worse before it gets better. They are too dumb too realize it won't get any better, only worse. Waiting for it to get worse before pushing for change is a lost cause.

 

My paper is SO much the better place than it once was because it stopped hiring guys like the clown above me about 20 years ago.

 

Thank you, Spot, for proving my point.

Fools in the industry, and the industry refuses to deal with them.

 

You shot yourself in the foot there. Clean the wound before reloading.

 

OK, I'll clarify.

Pringle, I bring you Exhibit A. Every newsroom these days has a blowhard like ftard Spot here. He's overpaid, probably sucks up a lot of vacation time and best of all, is not only completely worthless but also a drag in resources. The office would function better without him.

About 30-35 years ago, I estimate, dunces like him realized they couldn't hack it in places that focused on what they considered to be drudgery: writing and editing. So they decided to rewrite the rules. And there were enough dipshits who bought into it.

So when you look at your check and wonder why it's so small, you need only look across the room to the critiques posted on the board by the tiny brains who think that's what the industry is about.

 

And here's an honest answer:

No.

$40,000 on a single income was enough for my parents to raise their three kids 15-20 years ago, although there were times even then when money was tight.

It's not enough to raise a family now. In fact, it might not be enough to make ends meet in some (and increasingly more) areas of the country.

The reality is: a college beat writer won't be making $45K at age 35 in most parts of the country. An effin' stud will (and should be making much more than that, at a fairly large paper) -- but most of us in this profession won't.

Buying a house, in many parts of the country, is completely out of the realm of possibility. If houses are cheap, your salary will be cheaper. Still no way to raise a family on that; still barely enough to make ends meet, especially on one income.

It's just not enough. I don't care who you are -- $40,000 doesn't cut it for a "comfortable existence", at least not when it comes to raising a family. Might be a fortune to an entry-level college grad making $21K at the Podunk Press, but it won't be to a 35-year-old with a family to support.

Times have changed. Newspapers, and plenty of other industries, have not.

 

Just to add on here, you can't think of salaries and living costs in terms of actual numbers. You have to think of them in terms of percentages. As in, 30% of salary should go to housing costs (rent or mortgage). The problem is, on a journalist's salary, 30% won't get you a cardboard box.

I'm sure that a generation ago, 30% of $45K was enough to get a livable house or apartment.

Here's how I explained it to my parents recently (using round numbers for ease): Let's say I make $30K per year. A two-bedroom condo in my area costs about $150K. The standard housing down payment is 10%, or $15K. Well, $15K is exactly half of my pre-tax salary. How long would it take someone, anyone to save half their annual salary? Especially when you're trying to make ends meet on $30K per year.

 

Median income of males aged 25-34 in 2005 was 47k

of all single male householders: 46k.


Just throwing that out there.

EDIT: I guess my point would be that it's a matter of perspective. Do most major metro columnists think they are underpaid? I'd guess not. I, myself, think I earn a fair salary for what I do.

There are a lot of people in our boat: teachers, employees of professional sports franchises, social workers, etc.

A friend of mine is a social worker. I make much more than he does. What does that prove?

We're in a business in which talent has a larger bearing on compensation than workload.

That's just the way it is.