Will this business ever wise up and pay better?

Then you're an ignorant moron. The university here has constructed offices specifically for recruiters to conduct precisely the searches you say don't happen.

Knowledge -- it's a dangerous thing for a ftard.

 

You flat out don't know what you are talking about.

Teaching pays more than journalism, so your statement that teaching pays a lot less in not a fact. If you believe that, call some boards of education and ask what a starting teaching salary is - it's a public record. Any journalist can find that out. A starting teacher in California with a certificate will usually make at least $40,000 or pretty close to it. That isn't the case for most entry-level writers. There are few if any industries where workers typically have a college degree who are paid less than journalists. That probably isn't the case for professional non-profits because they don't have the perverse pride of paying people as little as possible.

The salary structure in journalism is that a small number of people make a lot of money while a lot of people make a small amount of money. This is a contrast with teaching, where the curve rises and looks like going up a hill and coming down a hill.

Your line about talent being the determining factor is ridiculous. If you believe that, you would have to believe that everybody at a major daily newspaper in New York is better than everybody in southern California not working at the LA Times downtown. That simply isn't the case. Your point is exactly the sort of ignorance I am talking about. Writing is a craft, and while some people might not have any ability at writing, most college graduates can be taught to write reasonably well. If it were talent, there would be no need for editors and people who help you learn to write. A lot of sportswriters assume because there are Division 1 college and professional athletes who have unique talent, that sports writing requires a great deal of talent. Graduates of prestigious journalism schools start out on first or second base.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you aren't entitled to your own facts.

 

I made more when I taught, but it wasn't worth being miserable.

I'm at a paper with about 100K circ right now, but I'm nowhere near 45K.

Once again, the facts don't mesh with snaj opinions.

 

Dye, I took particular pains not to say that the industry was in trouble and instead said the stigma of the industry being in trouble. Mainly because the moneymen would use it to put the screws to workers in lowering pay by paying the same for more work, paying less for the same or (if you are particularly unlucky) paying less for doing more.

 

It's not just talent, although that helps.
It's not starting off at a high level (I made $5.50 an hour when I started and do pretty well now).
It's not just effort, although that also helps.
And while some of it is lifestyle/location choice, I've learned that a large part of it is ... luck. Good timing, a fortunate returned phone call, a friend of a friend of a friend. And that never ends. I've been amazed how situations evolve in such an unpredictable manner.

 

The sign of an industry that really has no clue what it's doing or how it wants to do it.

 

It also depends on the paper. I've been at the same non-union paper my entire career. Right now our circulation is low-mid 60ks. I forget what my starting salary was when I started out as a part-time writer.
Six-and-a-half years ago, when I was promoted to full-time I was making high 30s a year as a part-timer. Now after six years on the copy desk, I'm in the mid 50s in terms of salary. Although it might seem like a small salary bump, as a full-timer I've got my health insurance/prescription plan premiums paid 100% by the company, a 401k, a pension plan, and more.
The high part-time pay is what led to 99% of the part-time newsroom staff being laid off (with buyouts) 8 months ago.
If you ask me why I stuck it out 10 years as a part-timer the answer is simple... I tried to go into teaching, spent the two years back at college getting the training and the certification, but got zero interviews. Tried going into computers (Data Center Support), paid Chubb several thousand dollars for the training, they got me a couple of interviews/offers for jobs that were going to pay me about half of what I was making at the paper, got some interviews on my own for higher paying jobs, but never got the call back for that second interview or a job offer. So I just continued to plug away at the paper. Eventually a full-time writer left and instead of making it a full-time writing position, they were going to make it a full-time desk/pagination position. Knowing my computer background, thinking I would pick up pagination quickly, they offered me the position and I said yes in a heartbeat.

 

As the original Hawkeye Pierce said in the movie "M*A*S*H," you knocked me right off my feed with that one.

 

It's not enough just to sit there and say, Well, I think this business should pay us more. Putting yourself in the shoes of management, why? Out of the goodness of their heart? How much is enough?

A few scattered thoughts:

1. Any business in its right mind will pay employees what the market can bear. If you don't like your 30K job, this is a free country and you can leave for greener pastures anytime. There will be someone as good as you waiting to do your job for 28K. That's just the truth.

2. You did know the salary range going into this business, right?

3. Go back to school, law school, get your law degree, and then you can go out and make 50K a year starting salary by gouging gullible people and chasing ambulances. That'll make you feel better and feed the family.

4. Try robbing a bank or printing your own money down in the basement or out in the garage.


Papers are laying off people and going out of business right and left. Squeezing pennies to make the bottom line isn't being Scrooge, it's called surviving. In such a climate, what rationale should a for-profit business use in justifying an arbitrary raise of all salaries 20% across the board? Or maybe 30%? 50%?

If I came to you and said, "Okay, I'll raise you from 30K a year to 45K a year, but I'm going to HAVE to lay off off a third of the workforce, and you need to tell me who to let go---you give me the names," what would your reaction be?

 

Great points, clutchcargo. And I can hear teeth clenching throughout the room.

 

Witness.

 

You have to consider that 72K a year in New York City is like 27K a year in small-town America.

The cost of living is astronomical on the East Coast. And I remember reading a journalism jobs.com announcement for a sports writer at the Washington Post. It's salary range, $27K-32K per year.

If you can live on that in D.C., then more power to ya!